4 ms·

It's not immediately clear to me whether this solves any part of the current problem. But on reflection, I believe I understand the motivation here. Big compa

by tc 15y ago

It's not immediately clear to me whether this solves any part of the current problem. But on reflection, I believe I understand the motivation here. Big companies that use patents as a revenue stream (MSFT, IBM, etc.) typically bide their time and bring a patent lawsuit once a new company is established and there is blood to drain. It's the threat of such a lawsuit in the future that can negatively impact investment in a startup, as the right collection of patents could conceivably capture much of the economic surplus of a new venture. Alternatively, a big company might use the threat of a patent lawsuit, now or in the future, to push a young company to agree to an early acquisition. The pledge doesn't seem to have much impact on these scenarios, even if a big company were to follow it rigorously. Most of us, I believe, would prefer to see companies make a stronger commitment: "No first use of software patents" [period]. Google hasn't made this pledge, but to the best of my knowledge, they've acted in this way so far. It does seem in line with "don't be evil." That said, I think I see what PG is going for here. He wants companies to make a pledge that, at a minimum, allows a new product or service to be tested on the market. That way, if it gathers traction, it will attract investment despite the threat of patents, and the new company will be able to mount a reasonable defense. Perhaps more importantly, though, by allowing the product to succeed first, even in a modest way, it makes the offensive use of patents worse PR for the big company. Killing a successful product with patents is no longer an abstract issue. It takes away from customers and the market something very real.

jessriedel 15y ago
> Most of us, I believe, would prefer to see companies make a stronger commitment: "No first use of software patents" [period]. I don't think PG agrees with this. He seems to be much less anti-patent than the general HN (commenting) community.
SoftwarePatent 15y ago
'Most of us, I believe, would prefer to see companies make a stronger commitment: "No first use of software patents" [period].' Good idea, but it can't work. If the PTO is willing to grant a patent on a software idea, someone is going to get the patent. If Google stands down, some troll will get it instead, to the detriment of society.
- randallsquared 15y ago
  I believe "use" means "bring suit or threatening same", here, not "apply for a patent".
  - SoftwarePatent 15y ago
    OK, if so, who is going to pay the $10k+ in costs to get each of these patents? Whoever pays to get a patent and not enforce it does society a service, but bears the cost themselves.
    - scott_s 15y ago
      They also do it defensively, to protect against someone else getting that patent and using it against them.
    - artursapek 15y ago
      The idea is own the patent for defensive purposes, not aggressive. "Patent pacifism," if you will.
      - doron 15y ago
        This line is repeated everywhere now, and it is hard to swallow. A deterrent is only useful if you employ it from time to time to demonstrate its power. If you have offensive capacity you will be bound to use it. Guns don't kill people, People kill people. Sure, but guns make it much easier, and by design, have the capacity for landing in the wrong hands.
        artursapek 15y ago
        A deterrent is only useful if you employ it from time to time to demonstrate its power. Are you suggesting people who own guns should kill someone from time to time so nobody will fuck with them?
        15y ago
pg 15y ago
If you want to start a movement, you can't aim too high initially, or you just stall. The patent pledge in its current form is at least fairly easy to swallow. If it sticks, it will have the effect of making patent suits against competitors seem more dubious, which would in turn prepare people for more exacting versions. How far ultimately would you want to push it? I honestly don't know yet. Patents may have some utility. It's a very complicated question. I've read a lot about the history of technology, and I can't say for sure whether things would have gone better or worse without patents. The topic seems to be one of those where on average the strength of people's opinions is inversely proportional to how much they've studied the problem.
- tc 15y ago
  Certainly, biting off too much at once isn't workable. But then again, biting off too little can stall a movement too, as it can fail to inspire as much passionate support as a somewhat larger bite. Starting a movement is a hard problem -- a significantly harder one than making money. I appreciate your effort to address the problem, regardless of which way it goes. Let me address your last sentence, though. Your statement presupposes a utilitarian moral system. That is, it assumes that a person's position is completely determined by which policy will result in the greatest growth in technology. I've studied the history of patents as well, and I share your practical uncertainly over which policy inspires more growth. Patents may, in fact, grow certain types of technology faster while inhibiting growth in other areas. Since we need to weigh the harm caused by the lack of things that never existed against the benefits brought by things that do, it's probably impossible to do a quantitative analysis that is fair to both sides. However, I and many others oppose patents on deontological grounds. That is, even if the existence of a patent monopoly produces some technological benefits as compared to a non-monopolistic system, we would choose freedom from monopoly. John Carmack may have stated the essence of this position better than anyone since Jefferson [1]: "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." -- John Carmack [1] "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." -- Thomas Jefferson
cienrak 15y ago
A recent study found that patents per capita was the most important factor in determining the gap between the haves and have nots in a nation. http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/31/309483/patents-and-inequality/ http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/31/309483/patents-... What's poorly thought out about this pledge is that a shop of far less than 25 people could easily clones of web and mobile apps at scale.
- notahacker 15y ago
  I think it's implied that the companies making this pledge will tend to be the huge corporations with massive brand recognition and existing user bases that ought to be able to dominate the market unless the 25 person shop has found a way of significantly improving the product offering. In which case most of us would prefer to see acquisitions over litigation.
cabalamat 15y ago
> Big companies that use patents as a revenue stream (MSFT, IBM, etc.) typically bide their time and bring a patent lawsuit once a new company is established and there is blood to drain. Doesn't the legal doctrine of laches prevent this?

by tc 15y ago

jessriedel 15y ago

> Most of us, I believe, would prefer to see companies make a stronger commitment: "No first use of software patents" [period]. I don't think PG agrees with this. He seems to be much less anti-patent than the general HN (commenting) community.

SoftwarePatent 15y ago

'Most of us, I believe, would prefer to see companies make a stronger commitment: "No first use of software patents" [period].' Good idea, but it can't work. If the PTO is willing to grant a patent on a software idea, someone is going to get the patent. If Google stands down, some troll will get it instead, to the detriment of society.

randallsquared 15y ago
I believe "use" means "bring suit or threatening same", here, not "apply for a patent".
- SoftwarePatent 15y ago
  OK, if so, who is going to pay the $10k+ in costs to get each of these patents? Whoever pays to get a patent and not enforce it does society a service, but bears the cost themselves.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    They also do it defensively, to protect against someone else getting that patent and using it against them.
  - artursapek 15y ago
    The idea is own the patent for defensive purposes, not aggressive. "Patent pacifism," if you will.
    - doron 15y ago
      This line is repeated everywhere now, and it is hard to swallow. A deterrent is only useful if you employ it from time to time to demonstrate its power. If you have offensive capacity you will be bound to use it. Guns don't kill people, People kill people. Sure, but guns make it much easier, and by design, have the capacity for landing in the wrong hands.
      - artursapek 15y ago
        A deterrent is only useful if you employ it from time to time to demonstrate its power. Are you suggesting people who own guns should kill someone from time to time so nobody will fuck with them?
        15y ago

pg 15y ago

If you want to start a movement, you can't aim too high initially, or you just stall. The patent pledge in its current form is at least fairly easy to swallow. If it sticks, it will have the effect of making patent suits against competitors seem more dubious, which would in turn prepare people for more exacting versions. How far ultimately would you want to push it? I honestly don't know yet. Patents may have some utility. It's a very complicated question. I've read a lot about the history of technology, and I can't say for sure whether things would have gone better or worse without patents. The topic seems to be one of those where on average the strength of people's opinions is inversely proportional to how much they've studied the problem.

tc 15y ago
Certainly, biting off too much at once isn't workable. But then again, biting off too little can stall a movement too, as it can fail to inspire as much passionate support as a somewhat larger bite. Starting a movement is a hard problem -- a significantly harder one than making money. I appreciate your effort to address the problem, regardless of which way it goes. Let me address your last sentence, though. Your statement presupposes a utilitarian moral system. That is, it assumes that a person's position is completely determined by which policy will result in the greatest growth in technology. I've studied the history of patents as well, and I share your practical uncertainly over which policy inspires more growth. Patents may, in fact, grow certain types of technology faster while inhibiting growth in other areas. Since we need to weigh the harm caused by the lack of things that never existed against the benefits brought by things that do, it's probably impossible to do a quantitative analysis that is fair to both sides. However, I and many others oppose patents on deontological grounds. That is, even if the existence of a patent monopoly produces some technological benefits as compared to a non-monopolistic system, we would choose freedom from monopoly. John Carmack may have stated the essence of this position better than anyone since Jefferson [1]: "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." -- John Carmack [1] "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." -- Thomas Jefferson

cienrak 15y ago

A recent study found that patents per capita was the most important factor in determining the gap between the haves and have nots in a nation. http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/31/309483/patents-and-inequality/ http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/31/309483/patents-... What's poorly thought out about this pledge is that a shop of far less than 25 people could easily clones of web and mobile apps at scale.

notahacker 15y ago
I think it's implied that the companies making this pledge will tend to be the huge corporations with massive brand recognition and existing user bases that ought to be able to dominate the market unless the 25 person shop has found a way of significantly improving the product offering. In which case most of us would prefer to see acquisitions over litigation.

cabalamat 15y ago

> Big companies that use patents as a revenue stream (MSFT, IBM, etc.) typically bide their time and bring a patent lawsuit once a new company is established and there is blood to drain. Doesn't the legal doctrine of laches prevent this?