6 ms·

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.

by 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
haberman 15y ago
What is a good example of something that would have turned out worse if there hadn't been software patents? (I know you've argued before that software patents aren't fundamentally different than patents on anything else, but to a lot of people software patents have more obviously negative consequences).
- pg 15y ago
  The most famous example is probably Watt's steam engine. Bolton & Watt had high development costs and could not have gotten funding without their patent. But once established they definitely used patents against smaller competitors. So it is hard to say for sure even in this case whether patents were a net win. They probably were though. The patent probably caused modern separate-condenser steam engines to happen at least a few years earlier. (I recommend the story of Bolton & Watt to present day founders. It is remarkable how little has changed.)
  - gabrielroth 15y ago
    The poster above was asking specifically about software patents.
    - pg 15y ago
      Oops. I don't know of anything that would have turned out for the worse without software patents. But I only know about a subset of uses of software. There might be cases in pharmaceuticals or manufacturing where patents helped protect individual inventors against big companies.
      - vadiml 15y ago
        It seems pretty obvious that if instead of patent system we had a mandatory obligation to publish full specs (schematics and source code) for all marketed products the invention rate will grow exponentially. The development costs will be cut down because of possibility to incrementally improve on existing products.
  - 15y ago
jbooth 15y ago
Well, it stinks when you try to do something good and then catch a bunch of crap from people doing nothing, for not doing enough. So I don't want to do that. But here's the thing - while this is good, the Intellectual Ventures of the world are actually wining and dining congressional aides and maxing donations. The financial industry got that patent carve-out a couple months ago that only applied to their industry. Until tech people get into the game, full-court press in DC and get actual job creators and moneymen in front of congressmen telling them that this stuff destroys jobs, they're not going to be represented. You're not obligated to go on a personal crusade on this, and it sounds like a big hellish pain in the ass that would be a net loss for you personally and for YC by entangling you in politics. But until someone does, people in favor of patent reform are going to be unilaterally disarmed. Maybe some sort of industry lobbying group for small tech biz that's not beholden to the big corps would be effective. A small amount kicked in by some of the major angels/VCs, and a limited lobbying mission of "stuff that everyone can agree to" which would certainly include abusive patent use.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  That is the precise point of this initiative. Since lobbying for reform is timely, not going to make immediate change, and ultimately becomes a war of finances, the goal is to bring consumer awareness to the issue and create an environment where being on the pledge list is a big benefit to companies. It also puts those companies together on a team for this issue, which may lead to other "rules" that help force the change. Since it's not targeting patent trolls with actual products, you may even end up in a situation where large companies on the list decide that the only people they litigate against are those who are inhibiting innovation from others. For example, Bump won't license its patent to any companies not on the list. Basically, stop blocking innovation, or be blocked.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Yeah, since posting I realized that a list of pledgees is exactly the kind of list you want if you're going to form an industry association based around this issue. So good on pg in general.
michaeldhopkins 15y ago
Paul, how do we join? I'd like to support this.
- fredBuddemeyer 15y ago
  i cant see a place to take the pledge so i added one on my own site http://littlebiggy.org/2005087 http://littlebiggy.org/2005087. its still in alpha but it oughta work since you need to use your real name.
walter 15y ago
Part of the problem is that the negative impact of patent trolling doesn't yet register with the general public as an issue comparable to the frivolous med mal suits that necessitated tort reform. We need Michael Moore to produce a documentary on the harms caused by patent trolling (and bad patents), so that the full extent of the problem is presented to a wider audience.
cabalamat 15y ago
> 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. For me, at least, the experience has been the reverse: I used to think the patent system was basically sound with only a few problems, but the more I've read on the history of patents, the more I've realised how broken it is, and has been for a long time. For example, in the 18th century James Watt used his patent to stymie development of high-pressure steam engines. In the 19th century, there was costly patent litigation over barbed wire, which benefitted the economy not one jot. Nor did the sewing machine patent thicket and ensuing litigation benefit the consumer. A patent is supposed to teach people how to make an invention. But in the 20th century, Frank Whittle wrote his patent application for the turbojet several years before he had actually made one. His patent couldn't teach people how to make a turbojet, because at the time of writing he didn't know himself! -- it took Whittle several years of hard engineering before he built a working jet engine.

by pg 15y ago

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

haberman 15y ago

What is a good example of something that would have turned out worse if there hadn't been software patents? (I know you've argued before that software patents aren't fundamentally different than patents on anything else, but to a lot of people software patents have more obviously negative consequences).

pg 15y ago
The most famous example is probably Watt's steam engine. Bolton & Watt had high development costs and could not have gotten funding without their patent. But once established they definitely used patents against smaller competitors. So it is hard to say for sure even in this case whether patents were a net win. They probably were though. The patent probably caused modern separate-condenser steam engines to happen at least a few years earlier. (I recommend the story of Bolton & Watt to present day founders. It is remarkable how little has changed.)
- gabrielroth 15y ago
  The poster above was asking specifically about software patents.
  - pg 15y ago
    Oops. I don't know of anything that would have turned out for the worse without software patents. But I only know about a subset of uses of software. There might be cases in pharmaceuticals or manufacturing where patents helped protect individual inventors against big companies.
    - vadiml 15y ago
      It seems pretty obvious that if instead of patent system we had a mandatory obligation to publish full specs (schematics and source code) for all marketed products the invention rate will grow exponentially. The development costs will be cut down because of possibility to incrementally improve on existing products.
- 15y ago

jbooth 15y ago

Well, it stinks when you try to do something good and then catch a bunch of crap from people doing nothing, for not doing enough. So I don't want to do that. But here's the thing - while this is good, the Intellectual Ventures of the world are actually wining and dining congressional aides and maxing donations. The financial industry got that patent carve-out a couple months ago that only applied to their industry. Until tech people get into the game, full-court press in DC and get actual job creators and moneymen in front of congressmen telling them that this stuff destroys jobs, they're not going to be represented. You're not obligated to go on a personal crusade on this, and it sounds like a big hellish pain in the ass that would be a net loss for you personally and for YC by entangling you in politics. But until someone does, people in favor of patent reform are going to be unilaterally disarmed. Maybe some sort of industry lobbying group for small tech biz that's not beholden to the big corps would be effective. A small amount kicked in by some of the major angels/VCs, and a limited lobbying mission of "stuff that everyone can agree to" which would certainly include abusive patent use.

earbitscom 15y ago
That is the precise point of this initiative. Since lobbying for reform is timely, not going to make immediate change, and ultimately becomes a war of finances, the goal is to bring consumer awareness to the issue and create an environment where being on the pledge list is a big benefit to companies. It also puts those companies together on a team for this issue, which may lead to other "rules" that help force the change. Since it's not targeting patent trolls with actual products, you may even end up in a situation where large companies on the list decide that the only people they litigate against are those who are inhibiting innovation from others. For example, Bump won't license its patent to any companies not on the list. Basically, stop blocking innovation, or be blocked.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Yeah, since posting I realized that a list of pledgees is exactly the kind of list you want if you're going to form an industry association based around this issue. So good on pg in general.

michaeldhopkins 15y ago

Paul, how do we join? I'd like to support this.

fredBuddemeyer 15y ago
i cant see a place to take the pledge so i added one on my own site http://littlebiggy.org/2005087 http://littlebiggy.org/2005087. its still in alpha but it oughta work since you need to use your real name.

walter 15y ago

Part of the problem is that the negative impact of patent trolling doesn't yet register with the general public as an issue comparable to the frivolous med mal suits that necessitated tort reform. We need Michael Moore to produce a documentary on the harms caused by patent trolling (and bad patents), so that the full extent of the problem is presented to a wider audience.

cabalamat 15y ago

> 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. For me, at least, the experience has been the reverse: I used to think the patent system was basically sound with only a few problems, but the more I've read on the history of patents, the more I've realised how broken it is, and has been for a long time. For example, in the 18th century James Watt used his patent to stymie development of high-pressure steam engines. In the 19th century, there was costly patent litigation over barbed wire, which benefitted the economy not one jot. Nor did the sewing machine patent thicket and ensuing litigation benefit the consumer. A patent is supposed to teach people how to make an invention. But in the 20th century, Frank Whittle wrote his patent application for the turbojet several years before he had actually made one. His patent couldn't teach people how to make a turbojet, because at the time of writing he didn't know himself! -- it took Whittle several years of hard engineering before he built a working jet engine.