4 ms·

This argument can be made against patents in general. If people want to argue that all patents are bad, that's fine, but most people draw a tenuous distinction

This argument can be made against patents in general. If people want to argue that all patents are bad, that's fine, but most people draw a tenuous distinction between software patents and other kinds of patents. I agree with DrJokepu -- the real problem (assuming that you're not opposed to all patents) is that patents are being given for ideas that are moderately to extremely obvious.

prodigal_erik 15y ago
It can only be a net win for society if the total price everyone pays to license a patent is less than the total cost of making each user reinvent it for themselves for the next twenty years. That's why obvious software patents are so bad—the basics of the young field weren't already claimed decades ago, the cost of "reinvention" is so low (one-click requires what, a napkin, a crayon, and half a beer?), and the licensing prices devolve to pure rent-seeking based on the necessity of the obvious idea. What we need is some counter-balancing force that ensures patent license prices remain reasonable. Normally that's done by the threat of substitution or inventing-around, which doesn't work when USPTO screws up and allows claiming the whole problem space. The price especially needs to be reasonable for non-profit use, which is a software-specific issue made possible because our unit costs are also basically zero. It would also help if they tested patent claims for obviousness by giving someone the problem statement and seeing if they produce a solution off the cuff covered by the same claims.
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
The question I have is whether or not it is the intention of the patent system to protect against someone else independently developing the same thing. If that is indeed the intention, then I am opposed to all patents because I don't want this kind of protection to exist in any shape or form. I'm not a lawyer or historian, but I suspect that protecting against independent invention may not have been the main goal of those who created the patents system. I suspect that this kind of protection may just be a side effect of assuming that it is generally impossible to tell whether or not an invention was arrived at independently and that it is generally impossible to keep the inner workings of an invention secret. These assumptions are not true in the same way for software as for, say, the typewriter or a particular kind of elevator or even a chemical substance. That's why it may make sense to think about software patents seperately.
lallysingh 15y ago
.. and that they're for 20 years. That's 5 generations in software, easy.
- bostonpete 15y ago
  I'm not sure what you're getting at here. 20 years is 5 generations for many types of hardware too.

prodigal_erik 15y ago

It can only be a net win for society if the total price everyone pays to license a patent is less than the total cost of making each user reinvent it for themselves for the next twenty years. That's why obvious software patents are so bad—the basics of the young field weren't already claimed decades ago, the cost of "reinvention" is so low (one-click requires what, a napkin, a crayon, and half a beer?), and the licensing prices devolve to pure rent-seeking based on the necessity of the obvious idea. What we need is some counter-balancing force that ensures patent license prices remain reasonable. Normally that's done by the threat of substitution or inventing-around, which doesn't work when USPTO screws up and allows claiming the whole problem space. The price especially needs to be reasonable for non-profit use, which is a software-specific issue made possible because our unit costs are also basically zero. It would also help if they tested patent claims for obviousness by giving someone the problem statement and seeing if they produce a solution off the cuff covered by the same claims.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

The question I have is whether or not it is the intention of the patent system to protect against someone else independently developing the same thing. If that is indeed the intention, then I am opposed to all patents because I don't want this kind of protection to exist in any shape or form. I'm not a lawyer or historian, but I suspect that protecting against independent invention may not have been the main goal of those who created the patents system. I suspect that this kind of protection may just be a side effect of assuming that it is generally impossible to tell whether or not an invention was arrived at independently and that it is generally impossible to keep the inner workings of an invention secret. These assumptions are not true in the same way for software as for, say, the typewriter or a particular kind of elevator or even a chemical substance. That's why it may make sense to think about software patents seperately.

lallysingh 15y ago

.. and that they're for 20 years. That's 5 generations in software, easy.

bostonpete 15y ago
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. 20 years is 5 generations for many types of hardware too.