3 ms·
As always, if you shouldn't look at patents, don't click to read the rest of the article. Groklaw is right to write that. If you write software that will ever
by brlewis 15y ago
As always, if you shouldn't look at patents, don't click to read the rest of the article.
Groklaw is right to write that. If you write software that will ever be in the public eye, you shouldn't look at software patents because they make you more liable for damages in infringement cases.
The constitution authorized congress to create a system "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by publishing information that innovators would want to look at. The system we have now hinders progress, not just in corner cases but across the entire software field.
Can you imagine anyone writing that sentence if we had a patent system that worked as intended? I can't. If the patent system promoted progress, innovators would constantly be reading patents.
- bergie 15y agoI've yet to read a patent that actually contains useful information. I'm sure they're out there, but generally they seem to be written in as obfuscated and generic way as possible, as their sole purpose is to enable litigation.
- Jach 15y agoYou might be safe with reading expired patents, but don't take my word for it. I do sometimes and get a kick out of it. Where would we be without a patent for a "Baseball cap for pigtail hairstyles"? http://www.latepatents.net/5799334.htm http://www.latepatents.net/5799334.htm (Their site seems to be dead in places, but you can still browse through a few of them with google https://www.google.com/search?q=site:latepatents.net https://www.google.com/search?q=site:latepatents.net ) Academic papers at Arxiv and elsewhere are far more useful.