4 ms·

Given this is a HW and SW patent, and my superficial reading leads me to believe that this may infringe on HW -- this isn't your typical SW patent issue. It's

Given this is a HW and SW patent, and my superficial reading leads me to believe that this may infringe on HW -- this isn't your typical SW patent issue. It's HW too. Are people ready to say that HW patents, such as those held by Intel and ARM, should also go bye-bye?

redthrowaway 15y ago
If they're of the same general quality as software patents, then yes. I sure as hell don't want anyone holding a patent on "a process and system for fashioning transistors from silicon".
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
aboodman 15y ago
It annoys me that the tech community always focuses on software patents, as if hardware ones are automatically more legitimate. The original purpose of the patent system was to improve consumers lives by: a) Incentivizing innovations that would not otherwise be profitable. b) Incentivizing disclosure of invention details that would otherwise be kept secret. These are a pretty rare combination of circumstances for most inventions, whether software or hardware. a) is demonstrably rare since patents are constantly infringed, yet Apple (for example) still somehow manages to get by. b) does not apply to any technology that is distributed, since anyone can take it apart and see how it works. On the other side, patents of any type actively harm consumers: a) Products from large companies are driven up in cost due to litigation. b) Potential innovation from small companies is stifled by fear of litigation. I'm sure there's some use for a patent system, but it is very small. The US would be a far better place with no patent system than with the one we have now.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  I think I'd keep drug patents. Not sure if much else. Drugs take a long time and a lot of money to create. But copying a drug is cheap is quick. But I'm not sure if anything else meets the bar.

4 ms·

Given this is a HW and SW patent, and my superficial reading leads me to believe that this may infringe on HW -- this isn't your typical SW patent issue. It's

by kenjackson 15y ago

redthrowaway 15y ago
If they're of the same general quality as software patents, then yes. I sure as hell don't want anyone holding a patent on "a process and system for fashioning transistors from silicon".
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
aboodman 15y ago
It annoys me that the tech community always focuses on software patents, as if hardware ones are automatically more legitimate. The original purpose of the patent system was to improve consumers lives by: a) Incentivizing innovations that would not otherwise be profitable. b) Incentivizing disclosure of invention details that would otherwise be kept secret. These are a pretty rare combination of circumstances for most inventions, whether software or hardware. a) is demonstrably rare since patents are constantly infringed, yet Apple (for example) still somehow manages to get by. b) does not apply to any technology that is distributed, since anyone can take it apart and see how it works. On the other side, patents of any type actively harm consumers: a) Products from large companies are driven up in cost due to litigation. b) Potential innovation from small companies is stifled by fear of litigation. I'm sure there's some use for a patent system, but it is very small. The US would be a far better place with no patent system than with the one we have now.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  I think I'd keep drug patents. Not sure if much else. Drugs take a long time and a lot of money to create. But copying a drug is cheap is quick. But I'm not sure if anything else meets the bar.