4 ms·

isn't this kind of like celebrating someone for being a landlord

coldpie 3y ago
Yes, though landlords at least in theory perform some useful maintenance-type work, which puts them above software patent owners. I hope he did something else notable in his life, otherwise "guy who invented a way to get paid for getting in the way of people doing useful work" certainly isn't the world's finest epitaph.
- hermitcrab 3y ago
  >I hope he did something else notable in his life If you read the article it seems that he was an early pioneer in the software industry and indie application developers like me probobaly owe him some thanks for that. But yes, patenting software/algorithms/maths is a stupid idea. Glad that Pythagorus didn't patent a^2 = b^2 + c^2.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    So, a thing about patents: they are a way to reward disclosure of useful techniques with short-term exclusivity. As bad as even that type of exclusivity might be, its an improvement on keeping knowledge secret like the inner mysteries of a religious cult. And about Pythagoras and cults...
    - coldpie 3y ago
      The idea that any person has ever turned to the patent system in order to solve a software engineering problem is pure fantasy. Software patents are only useful for rent seeking and as a moat to squash competition. They exist only as a drag on the economy & on innovation.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > The idea that any person has ever turned to the patent system in order to solve a software engineering problem is pure fantasy. Holy non-sequitur, Batman. How about the idea that people have ever used a publicly disclosed technique that has aged out of patent protection? (Including indirectly, such as by using a library incorporating the technique)?
        coldpie 3y ago
        Then they could also have used that technique without the patent system. What is the value in holding an idea hostage for 20 years?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Answered upthread: “So, a thing about patents: they are a way to reward disclosure of useful techniques with short-term exclusivity. As bad as even that type of exclusivity might be, its an improvement on keeping knowledge secret like the inner mysteries of a religious cult.” (emphasis added) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37987214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37987214 You can't use information that ia kept secret from you.
        coldpie 3y ago
        I'm sorry, I'm really not following the chain of events you're proposing. You're saying companies would choose not to release profitable software, if it weren't also covered by software patents? I'm skeptical.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > You're saying companies would choose not to release profitable software, if it weren't also covered by software patents? Yes, keeping software in house and selling services around itbinstead of releasing software has been a popular option as long as software has existed, and changing the IP landscape (or any other part of the legal and business context) in a way which changes the relative incentives between those options changes the frequency at which one option is chosen over the other. And that's even before considering the way that changing the IP landscape impacts the decision of whether it is worthwhile to develop software for a given market at all.
    - tombert 3y ago
      Before computers, and even currently, you were not able to patent "math". Math was considered "facts", and facts were and are not patentable. So the question becomes "is a software algorithm closer to math or an invention?". I would personally argue the former as you can mathematically model basically any algorithm with TLA+ or CSP or something, and as such it shouldn't be patentable, but I will acknowledge I'm not a patent lawyer and as such I'm kind of speaking out of my ass.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Before computers, and even currently, you were not able to patent "math". Well, yes, and that would hvae been a problem if Pythagoras lived when there was a patent system and wanted to patent it. Which one imagines he might have hacked around by avoiding the disclosure of a patent and keeping it as cult knowledge. Because, you know, even without a patent system...
  - ltbarcly3 3y ago
    It is especially ironic that you chose Pythagoras. He was the leader of a cult which had a main tenant of keeping their knowledge secret from outsiders so they could own the benefits of those ideas. This lasted far longer than the 15 or 20 years a patent would have protected them. If Pythagoras had patented it, the patent would have expired 2600 years ago, meaning you would have had no effect from it.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      and it would have been revealed, undermining his secret knowledge fan club
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Yes, though landlords at least in theory perform some useful maintenance-type work, which puts them above software patent owners. I hope he did something else notable in his life, otherwise "guy who invented a way to get paid for getting in the way of people doing useful work" certainly isn't the world's finest epitaph.

hermitcrab 3y ago
>I hope he did something else notable in his life If you read the article it seems that he was an early pioneer in the software industry and indie application developers like me probobaly owe him some thanks for that. But yes, patenting software/algorithms/maths is a stupid idea. Glad that Pythagorus didn't patent a^2 = b^2 + c^2.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  So, a thing about patents: they are a way to reward disclosure of useful techniques with short-term exclusivity. As bad as even that type of exclusivity might be, its an improvement on keeping knowledge secret like the inner mysteries of a religious cult. And about Pythagoras and cults...
  - coldpie 3y ago
    The idea that any person has ever turned to the patent system in order to solve a software engineering problem is pure fantasy. Software patents are only useful for rent seeking and as a moat to squash competition. They exist only as a drag on the economy & on innovation.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > The idea that any person has ever turned to the patent system in order to solve a software engineering problem is pure fantasy. Holy non-sequitur, Batman. How about the idea that people have ever used a publicly disclosed technique that has aged out of patent protection? (Including indirectly, such as by using a library incorporating the technique)?
      - coldpie 3y ago
        Then they could also have used that technique without the patent system. What is the value in holding an idea hostage for 20 years?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Answered upthread: “So, a thing about patents: they are a way to reward disclosure of useful techniques with short-term exclusivity. As bad as even that type of exclusivity might be, its an improvement on keeping knowledge secret like the inner mysteries of a religious cult.” (emphasis added) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37987214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37987214 You can't use information that ia kept secret from you.
        coldpie 3y ago
        I'm sorry, I'm really not following the chain of events you're proposing. You're saying companies would choose not to release profitable software, if it weren't also covered by software patents? I'm skeptical.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > You're saying companies would choose not to release profitable software, if it weren't also covered by software patents? Yes, keeping software in house and selling services around itbinstead of releasing software has been a popular option as long as software has existed, and changing the IP landscape (or any other part of the legal and business context) in a way which changes the relative incentives between those options changes the frequency at which one option is chosen over the other. And that's even before considering the way that changing the IP landscape impacts the decision of whether it is worthwhile to develop software for a given market at all.
  - tombert 3y ago
    Before computers, and even currently, you were not able to patent "math". Math was considered "facts", and facts were and are not patentable. So the question becomes "is a software algorithm closer to math or an invention?". I would personally argue the former as you can mathematically model basically any algorithm with TLA+ or CSP or something, and as such it shouldn't be patentable, but I will acknowledge I'm not a patent lawyer and as such I'm kind of speaking out of my ass.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Before computers, and even currently, you were not able to patent "math". Well, yes, and that would hvae been a problem if Pythagoras lived when there was a patent system and wanted to patent it. Which one imagines he might have hacked around by avoiding the disclosure of a patent and keeping it as cult knowledge. Because, you know, even without a patent system...
- ltbarcly3 3y ago
  It is especially ironic that you chose Pythagoras. He was the leader of a cult which had a main tenant of keeping their knowledge secret from outsiders so they could own the benefits of those ideas. This lasted far longer than the 15 or 20 years a patent would have protected them. If Pythagoras had patented it, the patent would have expired 2600 years ago, meaning you would have had no effect from it.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    and it would have been revealed, undermining his secret knowledge fan club

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]