3 ms·

I don't really see the difference, why just software?

speeder 4y ago
The purpose of patents, is incentive companies to share their secrets. For example, Coca-Cola never patended their formula. So you might think: I can copy it and sell my own right? Well, yes, legally yes, if you ever found their formula, somehow. They been successful for more than a hundred years now in hiding that formula. Thing is, software patents allowed people to actually patent ideas, concepts, stuff that is obvious and don't need sharing, for example: "ghost racer" is a patented concept, for a while any game that wanted to display to the player his past run by showing a slightly different copy of himself so he can compare, had to pay patent royalty. But the concept is obvious, it is simple, it is there, nobody used a ludicrous amount of money and time to invent it. This is different than the patent for Michael Jackson dance moves that requires specialized devices, he patented physical objects that required time and money to make, they had a non-trivial purpose on his dance and he had to work to create them to make his dance moves possible. And now that he is gone, the awesome stage tricks he invented can keep existing, because he wrote detailed patents explaining how to repeat his feats.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  > stuff that is obvious Stuff that is obvious cannot be patented, according to the law. The problem is the system's implementation of the law. Software shouldn't be patentable because math isn't patentable.
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    I think you need a better argument than that. Is physics patentable? Everything in the real world eventually depends on physics. Yet despite the unpatentability of physics, patents built on physical properties of the world exist as well. Why should mathematics and software be different?
  - tremon 4y ago
    Software implementations require trade-offs. An implementation of an algorithm can be memory-hard or memory-efficient, single-threaded or multi-threaded, generic or optimized for a particular processor, constant-time or low-latency. But no implementation can be all of those at the same time. To create a solution within the constraints given is what engineering is all about, and requires expert domain knowledge and creative thought. Software isn't just math, it operates on real processors with real limitations. I'm not arguing that software patents should be valid, but the "software is just math" argument is too weak to carry much weight.
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  Thankfully, the ghost racer patent is expired by now: https://web.archive.org/web/20210824042808/https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/129914/hard_drivin_hard_bargainin_.php?page=1 https://web.archive.org/web/20210824042808/https://www.gamas... That doesn't make it any more deserving of a patent.
- commitpizza 4y ago
  Software doesn't need to be obvious and could need the sharing aspect of it. I am thinking of all the new ML models that are up and coming for example. Not only do you require some advanced software but also a lot of hardware capabilities. I don't really buy your argument since the same could be said for obvious stuff in the physical world as well. I still think I am leaning towards companies keeping their secrets if patents is the only solution we can bring to the table.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > They been successful for more than a hundred years now in hiding that formula. This is a legend. Coca Cola is just water with sugar. The "formula" tastes different in every country. And today's coca cola is not the same like yesterday, so they shall fill a patent every other year in every country.
  - thorin 4y ago
    It doesn't taste that different in every country (I've had it in most continents and quite a few countries). For whatever reason I still massively prefer regular coke to most of the other mainstream suppliers. I do like some small batch niche cokes though. Strangely as a kid I drank loads of diet pepsi, but I never drink diet soda now, and I probably only have 1 or 2 cans of coke/month on average.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  It's only "obvious" after the fact, and was clearly not obvious to the patents office, or the patent wouldn't have been granted. As for the "no effort" claim, reminds me of the : Henry Ford vs Charles Steinmetz' (of General Electric) invoice for fixing a generator : "Making chalk mark [showing where the issue is], $1. Knowing where to make mark, $9,999."
rocqua 4y ago
Because the bar for 'invention' is even lower in current software patent law than for current physical engineering patent law. In general, the software world sees plenty of innovation, and would continue to see that innovation without patents. Besides, software is much closer to mathematics. The idea that e.g. long-division is patentable is ridiculous, but if you write "long-division, but on a computer" the only thing that prevents a patent is how glaringly obvious the prior-art is.
jeltz 4y ago
For me the reason is that I cannot say I understand other industries well enough. But I understand software well enough to say that parents there are harmful. Many of them are too generic and trivial and hinders innovation.

The purpose of patents, is incentive companies to share their secrets. For example, Coca-Cola never patended their formula. So you might think: I can copy it and sell my own right? Well, yes, legally yes, if you ever found their formula, somehow. They been successful for more than a hundred years now in hiding that formula. Thing is, software patents allowed people to actually patent ideas, concepts, stuff that is obvious and don't need sharing, for example: "ghost racer" is a patented concept, for a while any game that wanted to display to the player his past run by showing a slightly different copy of himself so he can compare, had to pay patent royalty. But the concept is obvious, it is simple, it is there, nobody used a ludicrous amount of money and time to invent it. This is different than the patent for Michael Jackson dance moves that requires specialized devices, he patented physical objects that required time and money to make, they had a non-trivial purpose on his dance and he had to work to create them to make his dance moves possible. And now that he is gone, the awesome stage tricks he invented can keep existing, because he wrote detailed patents explaining how to repeat his feats.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
> stuff that is obvious Stuff that is obvious cannot be patented, according to the law. The problem is the system's implementation of the law. Software shouldn't be patentable because math isn't patentable.
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  I think you need a better argument than that. Is physics patentable? Everything in the real world eventually depends on physics. Yet despite the unpatentability of physics, patents built on physical properties of the world exist as well. Why should mathematics and software be different?
- tremon 4y ago
  Software implementations require trade-offs. An implementation of an algorithm can be memory-hard or memory-efficient, single-threaded or multi-threaded, generic or optimized for a particular processor, constant-time or low-latency. But no implementation can be all of those at the same time. To create a solution within the constraints given is what engineering is all about, and requires expert domain knowledge and creative thought. Software isn't just math, it operates on real processors with real limitations. I'm not arguing that software patents should be valid, but the "software is just math" argument is too weak to carry much weight.
rhn_mk1 4y ago
Thankfully, the ghost racer patent is expired by now: https://web.archive.org/web/20210824042808/https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/129914/hard_drivin_hard_bargainin_.php?page=1 https://web.archive.org/web/20210824042808/https://www.gamas... That doesn't make it any more deserving of a patent.
commitpizza 4y ago
Software doesn't need to be obvious and could need the sharing aspect of it. I am thinking of all the new ML models that are up and coming for example. Not only do you require some advanced software but also a lot of hardware capabilities. I don't really buy your argument since the same could be said for obvious stuff in the physical world as well. I still think I am leaning towards companies keeping their secrets if patents is the only solution we can bring to the table.
hulitu 4y ago
> They been successful for more than a hundred years now in hiding that formula. This is a legend. Coca Cola is just water with sugar. The "formula" tastes different in every country. And today's coca cola is not the same like yesterday, so they shall fill a patent every other year in every country.
- thorin 4y ago
  It doesn't taste that different in every country (I've had it in most continents and quite a few countries). For whatever reason I still massively prefer regular coke to most of the other mainstream suppliers. I do like some small batch niche cokes though. Strangely as a kid I drank loads of diet pepsi, but I never drink diet soda now, and I probably only have 1 or 2 cans of coke/month on average.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
It's only "obvious" after the fact, and was clearly not obvious to the patents office, or the patent wouldn't have been granted. As for the "no effort" claim, reminds me of the : Henry Ford vs Charles Steinmetz' (of General Electric) invoice for fixing a generator : "Making chalk mark [showing where the issue is], $1. Knowing where to make mark, $9,999."

rocqua 4y ago

Because the bar for 'invention' is even lower in current software patent law than for current physical engineering patent law. In general, the software world sees plenty of innovation, and would continue to see that innovation without patents. Besides, software is much closer to mathematics. The idea that e.g. long-division is patentable is ridiculous, but if you write "long-division, but on a computer" the only thing that prevents a patent is how glaringly obvious the prior-art is.

jeltz 4y ago

For me the reason is that I cannot say I understand other industries well enough. But I understand software well enough to say that parents there are harmful. Many of them are too generic and trivial and hinders innovation.