4 ms·

Can someone summarize what the hell this guy's point is? I read 5 different paragraphs closely and skimmed the rest (he needs an editor) and can't figure out w

by jbooth 15y ago

Can someone summarize what the hell this guy's point is? I read 5 different paragraphs closely and skimmed the rest (he needs an editor) and can't figure out what he's saying, besides calling people who have a beef with software patents "lazy". What's his solution to Intellectual Ventures, et al? One of the paragraphs I did read compared them to buying up land in the middle of town and setting up a strip mine. Which isn't a favorable comparison and, incidentally, we have zoning laws against that.

crxpandion 15y ago
His main idea is that the way software patents are classified now does not make sense. He then suggests that a new class of patents be created just for software with special rules and regulation. I'm not too sure why his title blames people because in the end he ends up blaming the current laws.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Ok, so software patents as presently litigated are the problem. Thanks. I thought he was going to blame people for exploiting poorly written laws, in which case I was going to offer to sell him a bridge somewhere.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Also, he talks about how patents of well known things aren't a problem, because current law prohibits that. EDIT: Of course, I don't agree.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    And unironically provides a trivial math equation land-grab by Apple as proof that patents are providing value to society, on the other hand.
ajscherer 15y ago
I've read it twice in it's entirety, and his main point is that he believes we would be better off changing patent law to create an explicit category for software patents and have different rules for those patents, rather than simply abolishing software patents (or all patents). This strikes me as not a horrible idea, but his argument sucks. (Primarily because it is predicated on the idea that everyone who disagrees with him is essentially a retard, but also because a lot of his points are hand-wavy or just don't make sense). I particularly disagree with his between-the-lines assertion that nobody other than Larry Page would've figured out the Page Rank formula by 2018. If that assertion isn't true then he fails to establish that patents have any value to society, and there is no reason (provided by the article) to think we shouldn't just get rid of them.

by jbooth 15y ago

crxpandion 15y ago

His main idea is that the way software patents are classified now does not make sense. He then suggests that a new class of patents be created just for software with special rules and regulation. I'm not too sure why his title blames people because in the end he ends up blaming the current laws.

jbooth 15y ago
Ok, so software patents as presently litigated are the problem. Thanks. I thought he was going to blame people for exploiting poorly written laws, in which case I was going to offer to sell him a bridge somewhere.
Symmetry 15y ago
Also, he talks about how patents of well known things aren't a problem, because current law prohibits that. EDIT: Of course, I don't agree.
- jbooth 15y ago
  And unironically provides a trivial math equation land-grab by Apple as proof that patents are providing value to society, on the other hand.

ajscherer 15y ago

I've read it twice in it's entirety, and his main point is that he believes we would be better off changing patent law to create an explicit category for software patents and have different rules for those patents, rather than simply abolishing software patents (or all patents). This strikes me as not a horrible idea, but his argument sucks. (Primarily because it is predicated on the idea that everyone who disagrees with him is essentially a retard, but also because a lot of his points are hand-wavy or just don't make sense). I particularly disagree with his between-the-lines assertion that nobody other than Larry Page would've figured out the Page Rank formula by 2018. If that assertion isn't true then he fails to establish that patents have any value to society, and there is no reason (provided by the article) to think we shouldn't just get rid of them.