4 ms·

What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense. What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all befor

What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense. What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place. The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite? I have no answer, but I'm Chinese, I've witnessed a complete disregard for IP in practice facilitates intellectual cesspool and general lack of innovation. I hesitate to join the chant for total software patents abolishment.

azakai 15y ago
> What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense. And should not the professionals in this case - software engineers - be the right people to make that determination? > What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place. Yes. But in practice, no one reads patent filings. So the act of filing patents doesn't spread information that makes an idea seem trivial later on. Of course the act of making a successful product might do that. > The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite? That's a tough question. But it is clear that suing over trivial patents is detrimental to innovation. Software patents of actual substance, on the other hand, are a debatable issue. None of the patents being sued over in the mobile space so far appear to have any substance. Note that I don't count the Java patents here - Oracle isn't a mobile company, and the patents aren't mobile in particular. Oracle's lawsuit against Google isn't of the same category as the other anti-Android lawsuits. The other ones come from competitors in the mobile space. Regarding the Java patents themselves, I haven't read any, so I can't say I have an opinion.
- AllenKids 15y ago
  I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense. And really the merits of various patents these companies holds are not the focus of my argument, I understand you feel quite differently.
  - azakai 15y ago
    > I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense. I can't disagree more. Should common sense be how we decide what medical option to pursue? Or whether a mathematical proof is valid? Or even whether a legal argument is allowed - in the US judges determine that in many case, not juries? What possible reason is there for common sense to determine whether a software patent is trivial or not? The only question should be whether it actually is trivial or not. The people who know that are software engineers.
    - AllenKids 15y ago
      Because there is no truth in "trivial" and "obvious", there is only value, as in "guilty" and "good".
      - azakai 15y ago
        There is also no objective truth in medicine. But we still let doctors decide what procedures to do, not random people with 'common sense'.
        AllenKids 15y ago
        There is no true "healthy", but there is a truth about the state of your bodily function, we just do not know it whole most of times, even doctors. Physically alive and not alive is very objective. We let doctors do whatever they suggest a lot, we also have the right to refuse medical help if deemed mentally capable. Random people with common sense decide for theirselves.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

azakai 15y ago

> What's obvious and trivial to professionals may not be trivial at all in common sense. And should not the professionals in this case - software engineers - be the right people to make that determination? > What's obvious and trivial after the fact may not be trivial at all before someone come up with it in the first place. Yes. But in practice, no one reads patent filings. So the act of filing patents doesn't spread information that makes an idea seem trivial later on. Of course the act of making a successful product might do that. > The question remains to what extend do we protect IP so the system yields net benefit to the society, not the opposite? That's a tough question. But it is clear that suing over trivial patents is detrimental to innovation. Software patents of actual substance, on the other hand, are a debatable issue. None of the patents being sued over in the mobile space so far appear to have any substance. Note that I don't count the Java patents here - Oracle isn't a mobile company, and the patents aren't mobile in particular. Oracle's lawsuit against Google isn't of the same category as the other anti-Android lawsuits. The other ones come from competitors in the mobile space. Regarding the Java patents themselves, I haven't read any, so I can't say I have an opinion.

AllenKids 15y ago
I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense. And really the merits of various patents these companies holds are not the focus of my argument, I understand you feel quite differently.
- azakai 15y ago
  > I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense. I can't disagree more. Should common sense be how we decide what medical option to pursue? Or whether a mathematical proof is valid? Or even whether a legal argument is allowed - in the US judges determine that in many case, not juries? What possible reason is there for common sense to determine whether a software patent is trivial or not? The only question should be whether it actually is trivial or not. The people who know that are software engineers.
  - AllenKids 15y ago
    Because there is no truth in "trivial" and "obvious", there is only value, as in "guilty" and "good".
    - azakai 15y ago
      There is also no objective truth in medicine. But we still let doctors decide what procedures to do, not random people with 'common sense'.
      - AllenKids 15y ago
        There is no true "healthy", but there is a truth about the state of your bodily function, we just do not know it whole most of times, even doctors. Physically alive and not alive is very objective. We let doctors do whatever they suggest a lot, we also have the right to refuse medical help if deemed mentally capable. Random people with common sense decide for theirselves.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]