6 ms·

Sorry to all, I specifically meant software patents. Hardware patents are different as they often rely on physical creation of objects and a non-trivial investm

Sorry to all, I specifically meant software patents. Hardware patents are different as they often rely on physical creation of objects and a non-trivial investment in materials/development. Conversely a software idea can be thought up in a few minutes and implemented in the same. In app purchases isn't exactly a clever idea or something that was revelatory. It was simple software evolution.

notJim 15y ago
You're saying all software ideas can be thought of and implemented in a few minutes? That is both absurd, and an insult to the innovation that happens in software. You have 10 minutes, give me an implementation of something that improves upon H.264 by 30%.
- sp332 15y ago
  You have 10 years. Write me a patent for something that improves upon H.264 by 30%.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- barrkel 15y ago
  That's not how it works. If you're familiar with the area, you might come up with an idea that improves it by 3%. If you have 9 of those ideas, you might get a 30% improvement. Where the ideas come from is serendipity combined with fertile ground. It might be by analogy, a technique from a different domain, from similarity with something you did with lego blocks when you were 9 years old, from a mishearing when discussing something with a fellow developer, from ignorance of the known techniques in a particular area and trying to solve it from first principles, etc. You do need some familiarity and experience in the domain in order to recognize the utility of the novel technique. It might happen once to you, but it's unlikely to happen 9 times. More importantly, it's also probably going to occur to someone else, sooner or later. New discoveries tend to be repeated, that's a common theme in the history of scientific and mathematical development. By advocating patents for these things, you suggest the mere chance of coming first means you get a government-granted right to extort from other people.
- mrcharles 15y ago
  Your reductio ad absurdum does not accurately represent what I'm saying. I'm saying that you could possibly make software in a few minutes that could violate a patent. This is extremely unlikely with hardware of significant complexity to earn a patent.
  - notJim 15y ago
    I don't think I understand your argument. You said this: > a software idea can be thought up in a few minutes and implemented in the same. This is only true for trivial pieces of software. I agree with you that trivial pieces of software should not be patentable. But you're saying that no piece of software should be patentable, regardless of how complex or innovative it is, and there I strongly disagree.
    - mrcharles 15y ago
      There's too much room for error, if you let there be a line between what is and isn't patentable with respect to software. Better to leave it open and let the cards fall where they may. Software patents actively restrict technological development.
      - edanm 15y ago
        Why is it better to leave it open? You both agree that there is major variation in how much "effort" goes into producing patentable work. Your problem is you want a very clear-cut definition specifying what is patentable, and since effort is hard to measure, you'd rather just throw out all patents. You assume this would be better than the current situation (which, I think, takes the other extreme - most things are patentable). But why do you think the way you suggest is better? Just because the current system sucks? (Forgive me if I misrepresented your argument).
        mrcharles 15y ago
        Ultimately it would be better because it would eliminate patent trolling and foster software innovation. Right now a lot of innovation is hamstrung by software patents. I don't think any company should have the right to enforce what software someone makes, at all, ever. Half of the tech industry with respect to software is finding something someone else is doing, and building on that but making it better.
HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
No, there is no difference. If you're going to claim that they're different because one may require a "non-trivial investment (1)" then you have to specify that hardware patents that only require a trivial investment are similarly invalid. The bottom line is that patents are patents. It's inconsistent to be against one type and not another. I understand why patents exist, but I also agree with the Carmack statement above. (1) This is clearly not true. I know someone who patented an idea relating to battery management hardware that occurred to him as he was describing a problem to me. It was novel and "not apparent to a similarly skilled person.. etc." But it didn't take any more investment than pen and paper to think through the concept.
- mrcharles 15y ago
  It takes significantly less effort to create a piece of hardware from scratch if you have a reference design to crib from. However, if I independently develop a piece of software or an algorithm, there is a very strong chance that it took me the exact same amount of time and effort as the person who originally solved it. In the former case, it makes sense to enforce a patent, as copying their design directly eases my ability to go to market with something. In the latter case, it doesn't make sense, as I now have to pay someone else, despite having done the work. Note that I see copyright, intellectual property, and patents as completely different things. If I'm using someone else's code/libs, then obviously, I feel it is worth the ability to enforce. However, that already exists without the patent system.
  - stonemetal 15y ago
    It takes significantly less effort to create a piece of hardware from scratch if you have a reference design to crib from. However, if I independently develop a piece of software or an algorithm, there is a very strong chance that it took me the exact same amount of time and effort as the person who originally solved it. These two instances are completely different. What about the hardware engineer who independently developed a piece of hardware? It would take him around the same amount of effort to create it as the original. Just like the software engineer who cribbed an existing design would have to do much less work than the original. 0% of the differences in effort have to do with physical vs software, and 100% to do with what references you have available to you before you get started.

notJim 15y ago

You're saying all software ideas can be thought of and implemented in a few minutes? That is both absurd, and an insult to the innovation that happens in software. You have 10 minutes, give me an implementation of something that improves upon H.264 by 30%.

sp332 15y ago
You have 10 years. Write me a patent for something that improves upon H.264 by 30%.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
barrkel 15y ago
That's not how it works. If you're familiar with the area, you might come up with an idea that improves it by 3%. If you have 9 of those ideas, you might get a 30% improvement. Where the ideas come from is serendipity combined with fertile ground. It might be by analogy, a technique from a different domain, from similarity with something you did with lego blocks when you were 9 years old, from a mishearing when discussing something with a fellow developer, from ignorance of the known techniques in a particular area and trying to solve it from first principles, etc. You do need some familiarity and experience in the domain in order to recognize the utility of the novel technique. It might happen once to you, but it's unlikely to happen 9 times. More importantly, it's also probably going to occur to someone else, sooner or later. New discoveries tend to be repeated, that's a common theme in the history of scientific and mathematical development. By advocating patents for these things, you suggest the mere chance of coming first means you get a government-granted right to extort from other people.
mrcharles 15y ago
Your reductio ad absurdum does not accurately represent what I'm saying. I'm saying that you could possibly make software in a few minutes that could violate a patent. This is extremely unlikely with hardware of significant complexity to earn a patent.
- notJim 15y ago
  I don't think I understand your argument. You said this: > a software idea can be thought up in a few minutes and implemented in the same. This is only true for trivial pieces of software. I agree with you that trivial pieces of software should not be patentable. But you're saying that no piece of software should be patentable, regardless of how complex or innovative it is, and there I strongly disagree.
  - mrcharles 15y ago
    There's too much room for error, if you let there be a line between what is and isn't patentable with respect to software. Better to leave it open and let the cards fall where they may. Software patents actively restrict technological development.
    - edanm 15y ago
      Why is it better to leave it open? You both agree that there is major variation in how much "effort" goes into producing patentable work. Your problem is you want a very clear-cut definition specifying what is patentable, and since effort is hard to measure, you'd rather just throw out all patents. You assume this would be better than the current situation (which, I think, takes the other extreme - most things are patentable). But why do you think the way you suggest is better? Just because the current system sucks? (Forgive me if I misrepresented your argument).
      - mrcharles 15y ago
        Ultimately it would be better because it would eliminate patent trolling and foster software innovation. Right now a lot of innovation is hamstrung by software patents. I don't think any company should have the right to enforce what software someone makes, at all, ever. Half of the tech industry with respect to software is finding something someone else is doing, and building on that but making it better.

HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago

No, there is no difference. If you're going to claim that they're different because one may require a "non-trivial investment (1)" then you have to specify that hardware patents that only require a trivial investment are similarly invalid. The bottom line is that patents are patents. It's inconsistent to be against one type and not another. I understand why patents exist, but I also agree with the Carmack statement above. (1) This is clearly not true. I know someone who patented an idea relating to battery management hardware that occurred to him as he was describing a problem to me. It was novel and "not apparent to a similarly skilled person.. etc." But it didn't take any more investment than pen and paper to think through the concept.

mrcharles 15y ago
It takes significantly less effort to create a piece of hardware from scratch if you have a reference design to crib from. However, if I independently develop a piece of software or an algorithm, there is a very strong chance that it took me the exact same amount of time and effort as the person who originally solved it. In the former case, it makes sense to enforce a patent, as copying their design directly eases my ability to go to market with something. In the latter case, it doesn't make sense, as I now have to pay someone else, despite having done the work. Note that I see copyright, intellectual property, and patents as completely different things. If I'm using someone else's code/libs, then obviously, I feel it is worth the ability to enforce. However, that already exists without the patent system.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  It takes significantly less effort to create a piece of hardware from scratch if you have a reference design to crib from. However, if I independently develop a piece of software or an algorithm, there is a very strong chance that it took me the exact same amount of time and effort as the person who originally solved it. These two instances are completely different. What about the hardware engineer who independently developed a piece of hardware? It would take him around the same amount of effort to create it as the original. Just like the software engineer who cribbed an existing design would have to do much less work than the original. 0% of the differences in effort have to do with physical vs software, and 100% to do with what references you have available to you before you get started.