4 ms·

Threshold is one problem. Duration is another. Here's a little story to illustrate why patent trolling is so evil. I used to work at a software company that ha

Threshold is one problem. Duration is another. Here's a little story to illustrate why patent trolling is so evil. I used to work at a software company that has an incentive program for developers that come up with patentable ideas, e.g. algorithms. You get a token prize when "your" patent gets submitted -- a pencil or something like that, I don't remember anymore. Then, if "your" patent gets accepted by USPTO, you get a more substantial prize, along the lines of a week at some comfy resort. A lot of my co-workers asked the same question: "Yeah, okay, that's nice, but there's a good chance that the company is going to make shitloads of money off a successful patent. A week at some resort doesn't really compare to that. Why don't you guys offer something that does?" The guy who was explaining the incentive program responded: "Because you patent an idea and that's worth exactly nothing until you implement that idea in a product and sell that product to customers. You had the idea, but it's the company that has the means to implement it and market it and sell it." When you think about it, it's reasonable. Not precisely fair, but then again, things rarely are. The point of this story is that software patents, just like all patents, are there to give the inventor a chance to implement the invention and make money from it, as a reward for the inventor's genius and hard work that went into coming up with an invention. That's obviously a good thing, because it gives you an incentive to invent something without having to fear that someone will simply steal your invention and make money off it. Like every regulation with good intentions, it gets abused. What you said about trivial patents is just one way it gets abused. But another thing that makes it easy to abuse software patents is the duration of the patent. Twenty years is a hell of a long time in software. It practically invites patent trolling.

Joeri 15y ago
I've never heard a case where the do-or-do-not decision regarding a software project hinged on patents. That they are somehow needed to encourage innovation is a myth. Besides, they're unfair. A typical software product might have perhaps 1% patented matter, and 99% copied from the "standard requirements" of the market segment it's in. The competitors spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%, so if you use a quid pro quo measure then they have an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table.
- CodeMage 15y ago
  I've never heard a case where the do-or-do-not decision regarding a software project hinged on patents. Me neither, but that just means that patents, as they are now, don't serve their intended purpose. It doesn't mean that there's nothing that could be done to remedy that situation. That they are somehow needed to encourage innovation is a myth. Maybe it's more accurate to say that they (are intended to) prevent situation that seriously discourage innovation. If I come up with a really ingenious algorithm to do a hellishly complicated thing X, it would be nice to have the legal protection for a certain period while I struggle to get it to the point where it starts making me money. Protection from what? Protection from someone else stealing the algorithm and implementing it faster and beating me to the money making stage. Besides, they're unfair. A typical software product might have perhaps 1% patented matter, and 99% copied from the "standard requirements" of the market segment it's in. The competitors spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%, so if you use a quid pro quo measure then they have an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table. First of all, the assumption that a "typical software product" should rely on a patent is not necessarily true. The company to which I was referring is in the business of developing software for semiconductor manufacturers. Their products are definitely not "typical software products". That specific market is pretty much cut-throat: there aren't many companies developing for it and, consequently, the customer always has you by short hairs. Patents are just another tool in their toolbox for dealing with the competition. Second, I don't understand why you automatically assume that the patent holder isn't one of those players who "spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%". I'm not defending patent trolls here. I'm defending the cases in which you want to protect that 1% that distinguishes you from the competition. Third, even if the patent holder is a new player, how did you arrive at a conclusion that spending money on figuring out 99% of "standard requirements" somehow makes you have "an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table"? It sounds like a false sense of entitlement.

Joeri 15y ago

I've never heard a case where the do-or-do-not decision regarding a software project hinged on patents. That they are somehow needed to encourage innovation is a myth. Besides, they're unfair. A typical software product might have perhaps 1% patented matter, and 99% copied from the "standard requirements" of the market segment it's in. The competitors spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%, so if you use a quid pro quo measure then they have an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table.

CodeMage 15y ago
I've never heard a case where the do-or-do-not decision regarding a software project hinged on patents. Me neither, but that just means that patents, as they are now, don't serve their intended purpose. It doesn't mean that there's nothing that could be done to remedy that situation. That they are somehow needed to encourage innovation is a myth. Maybe it's more accurate to say that they (are intended to) prevent situation that seriously discourage innovation. If I come up with a really ingenious algorithm to do a hellishly complicated thing X, it would be nice to have the legal protection for a certain period while I struggle to get it to the point where it starts making me money. Protection from what? Protection from someone else stealing the algorithm and implementing it faster and beating me to the money making stage. Besides, they're unfair. A typical software product might have perhaps 1% patented matter, and 99% copied from the "standard requirements" of the market segment it's in. The competitors spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%, so if you use a quid pro quo measure then they have an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table. First of all, the assumption that a "typical software product" should rely on a patent is not necessarily true. The company to which I was referring is in the business of developing software for semiconductor manufacturers. Their products are definitely not "typical software products". That specific market is pretty much cut-throat: there aren't many companies developing for it and, consequently, the customer always has you by short hairs. Patents are just another tool in their toolbox for dealing with the competition. Second, I don't understand why you automatically assume that the patent holder isn't one of those players who "spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%". I'm not defending patent trolls here. I'm defending the cases in which you want to protect that 1% that distinguishes you from the competition. Third, even if the patent holder is a new player, how did you arrive at a conclusion that spending money on figuring out 99% of "standard requirements" somehow makes you have "an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table"? It sounds like a false sense of entitlement.