5 ms·

> I can't stand the idea that I might be at my computer, working with code, and develop something independently which later causes me to get sued. Abolish all p

by anamax 15y ago

> I can't stand the idea that I might be at my computer, working with code, and develop something independently which later causes me to get sued. Abolish all patents. I can't stand the idea that I might be in my shop/lab, working with metal/wood/plastic/chemicals, and develop something independently which later causes me to get sued. Abolish all patents.

postfuturist 15y ago
Yes, patents infringe on people's rights, to foster innovation. Getting to patent something isn't a right, it's a privilege. As you've illustrated, all patents are inherently undesirable--at least for certain parties. And I agree. They should be abolished.
- petegrif 15y ago
  That is precisely what they don't do. All they do is stop someone else from claiming it as an innovation with the associated IP rights. There is nothing to stop someone innovating like a fiend. But surely it is blindingly obvious that copying something someone has already patented is not innovating. Everything else however is fair game. Knock yourself out and innovate.
jerf 15y ago
You're missing a critical difference. Patents are supposed to be "unobvious". A normal person just working in their shop should not just accidentally stumble across a patented thing, because by definition the patented thing should not be obvious to one skilled in the art. Programmers on the other hand can indeed pop open an editor, spend a few minutes with Ruby on Rails implementing "a standard business procedure, but on the Internet!", and violate a patent. Or multiple patents. In fact, the very fact that we have patent trolls that can run around and sue business after business after business for the same patent, while the businesses have no evidence that shows they have communicated with each other about the patented subject, ought to be proof positive that the patent is obvious and shouldn't be patentable. An amazing number of patents that actually are being litigated really are "X, but on a computer!" or some variant thereof ("X, but on a network device!" is one the company I work for has gotten hit with). I'm not exaggerating, for all the verbiage and diagrams this really is a reasonable summary of many of them. Your metaphor fails, because what is not a realistic risk for people working in shops or labs is a perfectly reasonable risk for a hobby programmer, let alone a pro. Perhaps programmers are overreacting because of all the bad ones and there is a core of goodness deep down in there, but I'm willing to find out the hard way.
- HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
  the patented thing should not be obvious to one skilled in the art It's a big world and there are a lot of smart people in it. History is full of examples of multiple people independently inventing/discovering the same thing.
  - jerf 15y ago
    And those things aren't supposed to be patentable. How you get from "not supposed to be patentable" to "does not exist" is beyond me. May I also observe it isn't me making a normative claim that such things that are easily re-constructed by anyone should not be patented. It is descriptive, right in the legal definition of patent; it should be not obvious to one skilled in the art. Again, the very fact such a clause is necessary is evidence that there is a set of things obvious to one skilled in the art that exists, or why bring it up?
    - HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. Did you really intend to reply to me?
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      That's stretching it a bit. Just because more than one person hits upon something doesn't mean it's obvious; and as we know, it's much easier to understand a working instance of something than to discover/invent it. So we need something to get around the problem of 'see new thing - figure it out - declare it obvious - sue to overturn patent'. Maybe the proposed first-to-file requirement will help that by taking the patent office out of the history-investigation business and just acting as a recording service, letting the parties fight out their dispute in court; I hope so. But it's hard to come up with some catch-all definition of what constitutes 'obviousness' because that will always be open to both honest and mercenary dispute.
    - sunahsuh 15y ago
      Calculus and RSA -- two things that I think most of us would agree are "non-obvious" and were invented independently.. and may I add that the documented independent inventions were generally with a few years of each other? The evidence suggests that despite modern romantic notions of creative inspiration springing from individual genius, invention usually owes a lot to societal need and the current intellectual milieu.
coffeeaddicted 15y ago
You'd have to ask the people in the corresponding industries what they think about it. Patents might not have the same effects in other industries. We have on hacker news obviously mostly experiences with software-patents. From what I've read similar patent discussions are indeed also happening in other industries like in pharmaceutical research as advancements there also often blocked by patents, which is just the opposite of what was the original reason for the patent system.
petegrif 15y ago
One well documented problem here is 'hindsight effect.' After something has been invented and has been used for even a short while it becomes 'obvious.' This effect is so powerful that it is in fact difficult for attorneys representing patent holders where patents are being challenged for being 'obvious' to defend the case because juries now find what was non-obvious at the time to now be obvious. Studies show that this is not only potent but pervasive - being smart and well educated does not mean one can rewind time any better than the next person. It is hard to recapture that innocent state before the innovation.
billmcneale 15y ago
How about the idea that you spend months and hundreds of thousands of dollars of your own money to come up with a new product, and two weeks after you launch, another company with a lot of money releases a copycat of your product?

by anamax 15y ago

postfuturist 15y ago

Yes, patents infringe on people's rights, to foster innovation. Getting to patent something isn't a right, it's a privilege. As you've illustrated, all patents are inherently undesirable--at least for certain parties. And I agree. They should be abolished.

petegrif 15y ago
That is precisely what they don't do. All they do is stop someone else from claiming it as an innovation with the associated IP rights. There is nothing to stop someone innovating like a fiend. But surely it is blindingly obvious that copying something someone has already patented is not innovating. Everything else however is fair game. Knock yourself out and innovate.

jerf 15y ago

You're missing a critical difference. Patents are supposed to be "unobvious". A normal person just working in their shop should not just accidentally stumble across a patented thing, because by definition the patented thing should not be obvious to one skilled in the art. Programmers on the other hand can indeed pop open an editor, spend a few minutes with Ruby on Rails implementing "a standard business procedure, but on the Internet!", and violate a patent. Or multiple patents. In fact, the very fact that we have patent trolls that can run around and sue business after business after business for the same patent, while the businesses have no evidence that shows they have communicated with each other about the patented subject, ought to be proof positive that the patent is obvious and shouldn't be patentable. An amazing number of patents that actually are being litigated really are "X, but on a computer!" or some variant thereof ("X, but on a network device!" is one the company I work for has gotten hit with). I'm not exaggerating, for all the verbiage and diagrams this really is a reasonable summary of many of them. Your metaphor fails, because what is not a realistic risk for people working in shops or labs is a perfectly reasonable risk for a hobby programmer, let alone a pro. Perhaps programmers are overreacting because of all the bad ones and there is a core of goodness deep down in there, but I'm willing to find out the hard way.

HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
the patented thing should not be obvious to one skilled in the art It's a big world and there are a lot of smart people in it. History is full of examples of multiple people independently inventing/discovering the same thing.
- jerf 15y ago
  And those things aren't supposed to be patentable. How you get from "not supposed to be patentable" to "does not exist" is beyond me. May I also observe it isn't me making a normative claim that such things that are easily re-constructed by anyone should not be patented. It is descriptive, right in the legal definition of patent; it should be not obvious to one skilled in the art. Again, the very fact such a clause is necessary is evidence that there is a set of things obvious to one skilled in the art that exists, or why bring it up?
  - HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. Did you really intend to reply to me?
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    That's stretching it a bit. Just because more than one person hits upon something doesn't mean it's obvious; and as we know, it's much easier to understand a working instance of something than to discover/invent it. So we need something to get around the problem of 'see new thing - figure it out - declare it obvious - sue to overturn patent'. Maybe the proposed first-to-file requirement will help that by taking the patent office out of the history-investigation business and just acting as a recording service, letting the parties fight out their dispute in court; I hope so. But it's hard to come up with some catch-all definition of what constitutes 'obviousness' because that will always be open to both honest and mercenary dispute.
  - sunahsuh 15y ago
    Calculus and RSA -- two things that I think most of us would agree are "non-obvious" and were invented independently.. and may I add that the documented independent inventions were generally with a few years of each other? The evidence suggests that despite modern romantic notions of creative inspiration springing from individual genius, invention usually owes a lot to societal need and the current intellectual milieu.

coffeeaddicted 15y ago

You'd have to ask the people in the corresponding industries what they think about it. Patents might not have the same effects in other industries. We have on hacker news obviously mostly experiences with software-patents. From what I've read similar patent discussions are indeed also happening in other industries like in pharmaceutical research as advancements there also often blocked by patents, which is just the opposite of what was the original reason for the patent system.

petegrif 15y ago

One well documented problem here is 'hindsight effect.' After something has been invented and has been used for even a short while it becomes 'obvious.' This effect is so powerful that it is in fact difficult for attorneys representing patent holders where patents are being challenged for being 'obvious' to defend the case because juries now find what was non-obvious at the time to now be obvious. Studies show that this is not only potent but pervasive - being smart and well educated does not mean one can rewind time any better than the next person. It is hard to recapture that innocent state before the innovation.

billmcneale 15y ago

How about the idea that you spend months and hundreds of thousands of dollars of your own money to come up with a new product, and two weeks after you launch, another company with a lot of money releases a copycat of your product?