4 ms·

OK, Mr. Goetz is correct for the most part on all counts. And I don't understand enough about the software patents arguments to really comment one way or the o

by wmat 15y ago

OK, Mr. Goetz is correct for the most part on all counts. And I don't understand enough about the software patents arguments to really comment one way or the other. But what I do know is that the bottom line, and what ultimately turns me against software patents (and drug patents as well) is that this is really all about money. How does humanity as a whole benefit from a patent holder demanding compensation for the use of their "software invention" when it's duplicated, unknowingly, by an independent hacker working in his basement on a pet project following the rapid uptake of their project by the greater software community? What if the hacker gave the software away for free? How does the original patent holder get compensated? Or what happens when implementations of useful, but somewhat obvious technical solutions to problems are patented? Like linked-lists, for example? Or a compression algorithm? etc. etc.? IMHO, just because someone implements something in software first, doesn't necessarily give them the right to own that implementation for some unreasonable amount of time. There must be a better way?

monochromatic 15y ago
I think the problem you're getting at (and I agree with you) is that obvious things are patented all the damn time, and it seems to be especially a problem in software. We need better trained examiners, and it ought to be a high bar. I don't have any issues with it being "all about money." I do have issues with someone getting a patent on a method that would occur to anyone trying to solve a similar problem.
crxpandion 15y ago
The legal problem is that most software patents are plans for instructions for how to construct something tangible (albeit that is an abstract view). Which basically means that they lie in some grey area in between written works and designs for something. I would argue that maybe a good rule is to force patents to applicable only on systems of certain size or complexity. That way algorithms and data structures would not be patentable but a method for mining large datasets would be. Similar to how a new dimension of a nut and bolt is not patent-able but putting a bunch of them together in a innovative way is.

by wmat 15y ago

monochromatic 15y ago

I think the problem you're getting at (and I agree with you) is that obvious things are patented all the damn time, and it seems to be especially a problem in software. We need better trained examiners, and it ought to be a high bar. I don't have any issues with it being "all about money." I do have issues with someone getting a patent on a method that would occur to anyone trying to solve a similar problem.

crxpandion 15y ago

The legal problem is that most software patents are plans for instructions for how to construct something tangible (albeit that is an abstract view). Which basically means that they lie in some grey area in between written works and designs for something. I would argue that maybe a good rule is to force patents to applicable only on systems of certain size or complexity. That way algorithms and data structures would not be patentable but a method for mining large datasets would be. Similar to how a new dimension of a nut and bolt is not patent-able but putting a bunch of them together in a innovative way is.