5 ms·

This is basically a semantic argument for how to classify software. It does a fair job of showing that the difference between software and hardware isn't necess

This is basically a semantic argument for how to classify software. It does a fair job of showing that the difference between software and hardware isn't necessarily distinct, quantitative instead of qualitative. But that's ultimately an academic argument. However you classify software, however you elide the distinction, however you define the terms, in practice the patent system is supposed to encourage innovation, and this argument does nothing, in fact doesn't even attempt to address the growing charge that it does precisely the opposite. I ask the more relevant questions here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2875289 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2875289

monochromatic 15y ago
It's not just semantics though. If you're against software patents but ok with patents in general, there needs to be a principled way to draw the line between them. The point of this article is that there really isn't.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  I disagree. By that logic, math should be just as patentable as hardware, or hardware should be just as nonpatentable as math. There are distinctions, just not clear or easy to define ones. If you're against software patents but ok with patents in general, it must be because you believe that patents encourage innovation in general, but stifle innovation in software. If that's a valid claim, then there must be some way to make a distinction, even if it's fuzzy. Most of the distinctions in law are fuzzy. Like the line between obvious and nonobvious, for example. No one looks at the fuzziness of that line and concludes that the distinction is therefore fatuous. For the record, I'm not convinced that patents encourage innovation in general. I'm open to the idea, but it seems like the burden of proof is on patent proponents, and I haven't seen any real evidence.
  - monochromatic 15y ago
    That's a fair point.

monochromatic 15y ago

It's not just semantics though. If you're against software patents but ok with patents in general, there needs to be a principled way to draw the line between them. The point of this article is that there really isn't.

joebadmo 15y ago
I disagree. By that logic, math should be just as patentable as hardware, or hardware should be just as nonpatentable as math. There are distinctions, just not clear or easy to define ones. If you're against software patents but ok with patents in general, it must be because you believe that patents encourage innovation in general, but stifle innovation in software. If that's a valid claim, then there must be some way to make a distinction, even if it's fuzzy. Most of the distinctions in law are fuzzy. Like the line between obvious and nonobvious, for example. No one looks at the fuzziness of that line and concludes that the distinction is therefore fatuous. For the record, I'm not convinced that patents encourage innovation in general. I'm open to the idea, but it seems like the burden of proof is on patent proponents, and I haven't seen any real evidence.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  That's a fair point.