5 ms·

Software Patents are Self-Defeating

22 points by ktr 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nitinthewiz 15y ago
Interesting read. I also believe that software patents reduce your own flexibility in work. If you spend the time and money to patent your software, you won't be changing it any time soon, even if you eventually discover that there is a better way to design your product.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  Why wouldn't you just patent the new method and even further raise the barrier to entry for competitors?
- anamax 15y ago
  > If you spend the time and money to patent your software, you won't be changing it any time soon, even if you eventually discover that there is a better way to design your product. How does that follow? It certainly isn't true with physical device patents, like automatic transmission mechanisms, so why would software be any different?
monochromatic 15y ago
I stopped reading here: > I doubt whether our software could be patented anyway, but if you can patent a [linked list](http://www.google.com/patents/US7028023 http://www.google.com/patents/US7028023), perhaps it could be after all If this guy knows so little about patents that he thinks the title of that patent defines what it protects, and apparently has not even looked at the claims, then why should I listen to his opinion about them?
- mancaus 15y ago
  The claims are very closely aligned with the title. Claim 1 - Linked list with two traversal orders Claim 2 - Linked list with three traversal orders Claim 3 - Method of traversing the lists in claim 1 and 2 Claim 4 - A device (computer) to traverse the lists in claim 1 and 2
  - monochromatic 15y ago
    What is claimed is very clearly not just a standard linked list. We can argue about whether this patent should have been granted, and whether its claims are invalid... but there can be no dispute about whether this person has "patented a [scratch that, the] linked list."
    - fjh 15y ago
      But they have patented "a linked list". They haven't patented all linked lists and they haven't patented the standard trivial singly-linked list, but "a linked list" is what they seem to have a patent on.
      - monochromatic 15y ago
        That's pretty pedantic, and I can't imagine a single person actually understood my comment to mean what you said. But I've edited it, just the same.
        fjh 15y ago
        It's not pedantic, because I think you are misrepresenting the author. You're edited "quote" is not actually what he said, but you justify not reading the article using your misreading of the sentence you quoted.
        monochromatic 15y ago
        I don't think so. Every patented invention is also an instance of a broader, unpatentable class. Patent a novel electric motor that gets better efficiency than anything ever made before? Well, obviously the examiners don't know what they're doing, because you just patented an electric motor. See what I mean?
rtperson 15y ago
> In the end, I doubt owning a patent on something will have any impact on our ultimate success or failure. How I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of patent trolls out there that would love to use their patents to extract value from your company. When the trolls come knocking (and they will), having a patent of your own may literally be the only defense. Everyone who wants to understand just how incredibly corrupt the US patent system is needs to do themselves a favor and listen to the "When Patents Attack" episode of NPR's This American Life. Then you'll understand why neatly-reasoned arguments are, in this instance, entirely besides the point.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  Patent trolls are by definition non-practicing entities. How does having your own patent defend against them, if they're not actually producing anything that would infringe it?
  - rtperson 15y ago
    Again, the error you're making is mistaking patent law with the insane way patent law is actually enforced. Listen to "When Patents Attack," and you'll understand that non-practicing entities have been very successful lately in filling their pockets at the expense of the genuinely productive. Patents are also not supposed to overlap each other. However -- and again this was made startlingly clear by NPR -- they do, and by the tens of thousands. You're making the mistake of believing yourself to be in a world where reasonableness prevails.
    - chc 15y ago
      You're not responding to what monochromatic said at all. He(?) asked how having a patent portfolio of your own is supposed to protect you from trolls' suits, since you can't very well countersue them for patent infringement (as non-practicing entities by definition don't actually make anything). Your response, that patent trolls do successfully sue people, just seems to strengthen monochromatic's point.
    - 15y ago

22 points by ktr 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Interesting read. I also believe that software patents reduce your own flexibility in work. If you spend the time and money to patent your software, you won't be changing it any time soon, even if you eventually discover that there is a better way to design your product.

rbarooah 15y ago
Why wouldn't you just patent the new method and even further raise the barrier to entry for competitors?
anamax 15y ago
> If you spend the time and money to patent your software, you won't be changing it any time soon, even if you eventually discover that there is a better way to design your product. How does that follow? It certainly isn't true with physical device patents, like automatic transmission mechanisms, so why would software be any different?

monochromatic 15y ago

I stopped reading here: > I doubt whether our software could be patented anyway, but if you can patent a [linked list](http://www.google.com/patents/US7028023 http://www.google.com/patents/US7028023), perhaps it could be after all If this guy knows so little about patents that he thinks the title of that patent defines what it protects, and apparently has not even looked at the claims, then why should I listen to his opinion about them?

mancaus 15y ago
The claims are very closely aligned with the title. Claim 1 - Linked list with two traversal orders Claim 2 - Linked list with three traversal orders Claim 3 - Method of traversing the lists in claim 1 and 2 Claim 4 - A device (computer) to traverse the lists in claim 1 and 2
- monochromatic 15y ago
  What is claimed is very clearly not just a standard linked list. We can argue about whether this patent should have been granted, and whether its claims are invalid... but there can be no dispute about whether this person has "patented a [scratch that, the] linked list."
  - fjh 15y ago
    But they have patented "a linked list". They haven't patented all linked lists and they haven't patented the standard trivial singly-linked list, but "a linked list" is what they seem to have a patent on.
    - monochromatic 15y ago
      That's pretty pedantic, and I can't imagine a single person actually understood my comment to mean what you said. But I've edited it, just the same.
      - fjh 15y ago
        It's not pedantic, because I think you are misrepresenting the author. You're edited "quote" is not actually what he said, but you justify not reading the article using your misreading of the sentence you quoted.
        monochromatic 15y ago
        I don't think so. Every patented invention is also an instance of a broader, unpatentable class. Patent a novel electric motor that gets better efficiency than anything ever made before? Well, obviously the examiners don't know what they're doing, because you just patented an electric motor. See what I mean?

rtperson 15y ago

> In the end, I doubt owning a patent on something will have any impact on our ultimate success or failure. How I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of patent trolls out there that would love to use their patents to extract value from your company. When the trolls come knocking (and they will), having a patent of your own may literally be the only defense. Everyone who wants to understand just how incredibly corrupt the US patent system is needs to do themselves a favor and listen to the "When Patents Attack" episode of NPR's This American Life. Then you'll understand why neatly-reasoned arguments are, in this instance, entirely besides the point.

monochromatic 15y ago
Patent trolls are by definition non-practicing entities. How does having your own patent defend against them, if they're not actually producing anything that would infringe it?
- rtperson 15y ago
  Again, the error you're making is mistaking patent law with the insane way patent law is actually enforced. Listen to "When Patents Attack," and you'll understand that non-practicing entities have been very successful lately in filling their pockets at the expense of the genuinely productive. Patents are also not supposed to overlap each other. However -- and again this was made startlingly clear by NPR -- they do, and by the tens of thousands. You're making the mistake of believing yourself to be in a world where reasonableness prevails.
  - chc 15y ago
    You're not responding to what monochromatic said at all. He(?) asked how having a patent portfolio of your own is supposed to protect you from trolls' suits, since you can't very well countersue them for patent infringement (as non-practicing entities by definition don't actually make anything). Your response, that patent trolls do successfully sue people, just seems to strengthen monochromatic's point.
  - 15y ago