4 ms·

None of this patent fight between facebook and yahoo will "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". It's a giant waste of time and resources. Software

by donaldc 15y ago

None of this patent fight between facebook and yahoo will "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". It's a giant waste of time and resources. Software patents should be invalidated. (Quote from the Copyright and Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution.)

AgentConundrum 15y ago
It's been said on HN that, for a while now, all the big tech companies have been engaging in a form of Mutually Assured Destruction, stockpiling nuclear patents. Patents are being used as a deterrent beyond their intended purpose. Now, with the ongoing Oracle v. Google and Yahoo v. Facebook battles, the patent cold war is turning into an outright patent war. With IBM selling these patents for legal reasons rather than for technological progress (in fact, arguably for technological hindrance), patent holders could now be becoming a sort of arms dealer.
fossuser 15y ago
I agree - I wrote a bit about copyright [here](http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24 http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24) that relates somewhat. Patents are in a much better place as far as the the limited time part goes (only 20 years), but they don't make sense and shouldn't apply to software - where they clearly don't work. The goal behind patents is to encourage companies to publicly reveal their designs in exchange for a guaranteed monopoly of 20 years. The monopoly is a necessary evil in order for the public to benefit from advancements that might otherwise remain perpetual trade secrets. In the case of software, the monopoly drastically outweighs any public benefit of being public and seems instead to be used to stifle the innovation of others.
- mc32 15y ago
  If they don't invalidate SW patents, maybe an option would be to limit the protection to say, 3 years? This would allow for some patents to be relevant, if companies thought it was worth their while. But, given the limited (time of) protection, most would probably decide it was not a great business strategy --such that it would specially make SW Patent Trolls unviable.
  - wmf 15y ago
    The counterargument is that many legitimate innovations made no money in the first three years. Often when we hear about a "new" thing it's actually years old at that point. For example, RSA didn't take off for 18 years; even with a 17-year patent they only got about four years of licensing revenue (1996-2000).
    - mc32 15y ago
      True. There will be losers in this equation, but equally, there will be winners (the SW economy, at large). In that particular example, they came into the market before the SW side of the economy had matured as much as it has today. At present it's a much more mature and dynamic economy. Given the rate of change, 3 or even 5 years, night be a viable compromise.

by donaldc 15y ago

AgentConundrum 15y ago

It's been said on HN that, for a while now, all the big tech companies have been engaging in a form of Mutually Assured Destruction, stockpiling nuclear patents. Patents are being used as a deterrent beyond their intended purpose. Now, with the ongoing Oracle v. Google and Yahoo v. Facebook battles, the patent cold war is turning into an outright patent war. With IBM selling these patents for legal reasons rather than for technological progress (in fact, arguably for technological hindrance), patent holders could now be becoming a sort of arms dealer.

fossuser 15y ago

I agree - I wrote a bit about copyright [here](http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24 http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24) that relates somewhat. Patents are in a much better place as far as the the limited time part goes (only 20 years), but they don't make sense and shouldn't apply to software - where they clearly don't work. The goal behind patents is to encourage companies to publicly reveal their designs in exchange for a guaranteed monopoly of 20 years. The monopoly is a necessary evil in order for the public to benefit from advancements that might otherwise remain perpetual trade secrets. In the case of software, the monopoly drastically outweighs any public benefit of being public and seems instead to be used to stifle the innovation of others.

mc32 15y ago
If they don't invalidate SW patents, maybe an option would be to limit the protection to say, 3 years? This would allow for some patents to be relevant, if companies thought it was worth their while. But, given the limited (time of) protection, most would probably decide it was not a great business strategy --such that it would specially make SW Patent Trolls unviable.
- wmf 15y ago
  The counterargument is that many legitimate innovations made no money in the first three years. Often when we hear about a "new" thing it's actually years old at that point. For example, RSA didn't take off for 18 years; even with a 17-year patent they only got about four years of licensing revenue (1996-2000).
  - mc32 15y ago
    True. There will be losers in this equation, but equally, there will be winners (the SW economy, at large). In that particular example, they came into the market before the SW side of the economy had matured as much as it has today. At present it's a much more mature and dynamic economy. Given the rate of change, 3 or even 5 years, night be a viable compromise.