6 ms·

Simple. Software is math. Math is freedom of expression. All software patents must be completely abolished.

WillDaSilva 5y ago
We can take this idea further, both in justification and scope: intellectual property should not exist. This video makes the case for the abolishment of IP pretty well: https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w
- new299 5y ago
  It's kind of clear that entertainment would still get made without copyright. But the videos thesis around drug discovery is much less well thought through. I'd be interested in seeing someone think these issues through more deeply. For example I know a reasonable amount about the development of next-gen DNA sequencers. How would developments like this have played out in a world without patents? It doesn't seem feasible to say that academics would be willing to prepay to fund the development of a life science tool that might help their research and appear in 10 years time or might just fail and not get developed at all. Research markets were the initial markets for these instruments. Same goes for drug discovery, perhaps they need some new analytical tool. So do they directly fund multiple high risk approaches to develop this tool? In our current scenario VCs/startups take on this risk, in exchange for a time limited monopoly. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect individual drug development companies to take on this risk. Do they ask prospective users of the drug to pay these downstream development costs? Do they take out a loan to cover the development costs?
  - runeks 5y ago
    I agree. Compromise: abolish all patents except for drugs for which expensive trials are required by law.
    - dejw 5y ago
      How about we reduce the patent validity to few years? The exceptions should benefit the public too. IF they can't meet the demand they should be forced to sell their patent for that time.
      - acomjean 5y ago
        Someone here posted a while back the idea that maybe force a patent renewal every few years. Say original patents are good for 5 years and you can renew at an increasing fee each year after up to 15 years. There are solutions, it just takes the political will. The patent office is funded through patent fees and appears to suffer no consequence for issuing bad patents. So the patent office seems to be encouraged to keep issuing patents good or bad…
        new299 5y ago
        In the US patent maintenance fees are due at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years after issuance. They are increasingly expensive, with the 11.5 year fee being $7700. You could raise these fees, but how are you going to set them? Based on industry? Ultimately just feels like you’d end up making things harder for individual inventors and easier for big businesses and patent trolls. Personally I think there are a few reforms that might work. Firstly, software patents do not seem to be useful. They don’t seem to have been required for the development of the software industry, and in general they’ve not been allowed in the past. Secondly, patents should never prevent the sale or incorporation of a technology into a product. Courts should always demand royalties be paid to the patent holder, based on the profit the infringing party receives. That’s much more problematic. But it feels like there should be a way to incentivize the continued sale of products so that a company can’t just sit on a patent.
        pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        You could maybe tax them at an appraised value, such that the patent right has to be licensed at at most x% of that value. If they under value then it's cheaper to license it, if they overvalue they pay more tax? Or maybe a first-sale doctrine that allows a single sale but doesn't allow further sales. You better be sure you want it because once you bought it the resale value is zero? Then troll companies wouldn't be able to sweep up lots of older patents to use in trolling. Or, it could be like trade marks, of you're not using the patent in a product then you lose it, unless you're the original inventor. If I sell you the patent, then you keep it to troll with you have to make a product that uses it, and sell that product, otherwise the patent expires. It doesn't return to the inventor - they got paid - it enters the public domain. These ideas are entirely my own and presented for entertainment only.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ImprobableTruth 5y ago
  Hah, I think that video actually made a pretty good case _for_ IP - the idea that everything would be funded like Starcitizen sounds like a nightmare. Squeezing the most fervent customers dry while having no obligation to actually deliver. At least currently we get finished products that have to stand on their own merits, rather than just vague promises. Not to mention that for software there's a good chance that this would just supercharge DRM and SaaS.
amelius 5y ago
Then why can my friends who studied mechanical engineering get rich from patents? Did I choose the wrong education?
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > Then why can my friends who studied mechanical engineering get rich from patents? Did I choose the wrong education? Because mechanical engineering isn't only math? Math is used of course, but that's true about essentially all professions. But yes, if there is some sort of a pure mathematical model/equation that could apply to mechanical engineering, I'm sure the GP would also agree that it should not be patentable.
  - josefx 5y ago
    > Because mechanical engineering isn't only math? Neither is software: memory constraints, latency, reliability, cpu speed. Almost the entire cryptography field relies on physical limitations on execution speed. Anyone working on even remotely real time systems has to account for these same limitations and possibly work around them. Every student learns about runtime and memory complexity of various algorithms. Something that would be entirely irrelevant in a purely mathematical context. At what speed does an ideal Turing machine run? How much memory does it have?
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      So algorithms aren't math, either?
      - amelius 5y ago
        The algorithms are. But so are the 3D models produced by a mechanical engineer, which are patentable.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- 5y ago
jpz 5y ago
Software isn’t math. Don’t agree with the patent system particularly, but I just object to this specific categorical statement.
swiley 5y ago
Patents should include source code. The original idea behind American patents is almost exactly the same as the GPL.
Razengan 5y ago
Technically, everything is math.

We can take this idea further, both in justification and scope: intellectual property should not exist. This video makes the case for the abolishment of IP pretty well: https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w

new299 5y ago
It's kind of clear that entertainment would still get made without copyright. But the videos thesis around drug discovery is much less well thought through. I'd be interested in seeing someone think these issues through more deeply. For example I know a reasonable amount about the development of next-gen DNA sequencers. How would developments like this have played out in a world without patents? It doesn't seem feasible to say that academics would be willing to prepay to fund the development of a life science tool that might help their research and appear in 10 years time or might just fail and not get developed at all. Research markets were the initial markets for these instruments. Same goes for drug discovery, perhaps they need some new analytical tool. So do they directly fund multiple high risk approaches to develop this tool? In our current scenario VCs/startups take on this risk, in exchange for a time limited monopoly. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect individual drug development companies to take on this risk. Do they ask prospective users of the drug to pay these downstream development costs? Do they take out a loan to cover the development costs?
- runeks 5y ago
  I agree. Compromise: abolish all patents except for drugs for which expensive trials are required by law.
  - dejw 5y ago
    How about we reduce the patent validity to few years? The exceptions should benefit the public too. IF they can't meet the demand they should be forced to sell their patent for that time.
    - acomjean 5y ago
      Someone here posted a while back the idea that maybe force a patent renewal every few years. Say original patents are good for 5 years and you can renew at an increasing fee each year after up to 15 years. There are solutions, it just takes the political will. The patent office is funded through patent fees and appears to suffer no consequence for issuing bad patents. So the patent office seems to be encouraged to keep issuing patents good or bad…
      - new299 5y ago
        In the US patent maintenance fees are due at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years after issuance. They are increasingly expensive, with the 11.5 year fee being $7700. You could raise these fees, but how are you going to set them? Based on industry? Ultimately just feels like you’d end up making things harder for individual inventors and easier for big businesses and patent trolls. Personally I think there are a few reforms that might work. Firstly, software patents do not seem to be useful. They don’t seem to have been required for the development of the software industry, and in general they’ve not been allowed in the past. Secondly, patents should never prevent the sale or incorporation of a technology into a product. Courts should always demand royalties be paid to the patent holder, based on the profit the infringing party receives. That’s much more problematic. But it feels like there should be a way to incentivize the continued sale of products so that a company can’t just sit on a patent.
        pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        You could maybe tax them at an appraised value, such that the patent right has to be licensed at at most x% of that value. If they under value then it's cheaper to license it, if they overvalue they pay more tax? Or maybe a first-sale doctrine that allows a single sale but doesn't allow further sales. You better be sure you want it because once you bought it the resale value is zero? Then troll companies wouldn't be able to sweep up lots of older patents to use in trolling. Or, it could be like trade marks, of you're not using the patent in a product then you lose it, unless you're the original inventor. If I sell you the patent, then you keep it to troll with you have to make a product that uses it, and sell that product, otherwise the patent expires. It doesn't return to the inventor - they got paid - it enters the public domain. These ideas are entirely my own and presented for entertainment only.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ImprobableTruth 5y ago
Hah, I think that video actually made a pretty good case _for_ IP - the idea that everything would be funded like Starcitizen sounds like a nightmare. Squeezing the most fervent customers dry while having no obligation to actually deliver. At least currently we get finished products that have to stand on their own merits, rather than just vague promises. Not to mention that for software there's a good chance that this would just supercharge DRM and SaaS.

amelius 5y ago

Then why can my friends who studied mechanical engineering get rich from patents? Did I choose the wrong education?

CogitoCogito 5y ago
> Then why can my friends who studied mechanical engineering get rich from patents? Did I choose the wrong education? Because mechanical engineering isn't only math? Math is used of course, but that's true about essentially all professions. But yes, if there is some sort of a pure mathematical model/equation that could apply to mechanical engineering, I'm sure the GP would also agree that it should not be patentable.
- josefx 5y ago
  > Because mechanical engineering isn't only math? Neither is software: memory constraints, latency, reliability, cpu speed. Almost the entire cryptography field relies on physical limitations on execution speed. Anyone working on even remotely real time systems has to account for these same limitations and possibly work around them. Every student learns about runtime and memory complexity of various algorithms. Something that would be entirely irrelevant in a purely mathematical context. At what speed does an ideal Turing machine run? How much memory does it have?
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    So algorithms aren't math, either?
    - amelius 5y ago
      The algorithms are. But so are the 3D models produced by a mechanical engineer, which are patentable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
5y ago

jpz 5y ago

Software isn’t math. Don’t agree with the patent system particularly, but I just object to this specific categorical statement.

swiley 5y ago

Patents should include source code. The original idea behind American patents is almost exactly the same as the GPL.

Razengan 5y ago

Technically, everything is math.