7 ms·

Remember when patents were considered this grand thing? That, should you be so lucky to create some great idea and then patent it, the world would be better an

• rubyfan 3y ago
  Like most government systems these days corporate interests have turned it into a moat.
• spacebanana7 3y ago
  Trademarks and copyright are enough to compensate innovators. The only possible exception I can think where patents are distinctly useful is Pharma, and even there it's not exactly a closed case. In aerospace, software and electrical engineering; there are many examples of consumer harm from patents and very few, if any, examples where patents enabled innovators to do useful things which were otherwise economically unfeasible.
  • jwestbury 3y ago
    The purpose of patents is to encourage disclosure. By disclosing how something is accomplished, a business is rewarded with exclusive use of their method for a limited period. I think the argument to be made in many fields is that patent law does not necessarily function correctly when technology advances so quickly.
    • coldpie 3y ago
      What is the value in that disclosure? No software developer has ever looked at a patent for inspiration or to learn how something works.
      • eviks 3y ago
        Easier/faster replication/implementation/new invention etc is the value. There are other people besides software developers that can look at a patent for inspiration and hire software developers to implement it
        • Kim_Bruning 3y ago
          Maybe this happens somewhere in some industry I'm not aware of? There are many different kinds of documents I use to help me write code, but looking at even just a few (software) patents, they never seemed like they were written in a way that was useful to me?
        • nitwit005 3y ago
          The patents are deliberately obfuscated these days, which makes this fairly difficult to actually do.
      • jandrewrogers 3y ago
        The usefulness of the patent disclosure is that it allows someone to write a different document, paper, or blog post that explains how it works in terms a normal software engineer can understand. Without that patent, none of the other public documentation of how to do something would exist. You don't read the patent to learn how something works, you learn by reading other explanations that can be made available because the patent exists.
        • coldpie 3y ago
          No, you learn through reverse engineering the software. It's easier than reading a patent, and patents don't reflect reality anyway. No one reads patents.
      • kortex 3y ago
        Maybe it's because I started as a chemist, where you look at patents all the time, but yes I've absolutely looked at patents for inspiration, to figure out how things work, to attack certain problems, etc.
• thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  >I mean Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now. Your first points have merit but this is an odd point. Of course Netflix customers will get worse service. If you start a business and succeed by illegally using someone else's patent then you (and your customers) should suffer from a legal decision.
  • AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    The whole point would be that Netflix would license the patents from Broadcom. Instead either Broadcom is blocking them to prevent their growth, or Netflix is trying to be greedy. Either way, nowhere here are patents helping or protecting citizens/consumers
    • sigzero 3y ago
      > Either way, nowhere here are patents helping or protecting citizens/consumers Patents are for not for helping or protecting citizens/consumers. Patents are solely for protecting intellectual property.
    • gosub100 3y ago
      My (total guess) is that Broadcom is trying to be greedy, probably asking for a ridiculous sum that would make Netflix' use unprofitable.
      • freejazz 3y ago
        Or maybe netflix is so cheap and run on the margins, that they can't afford to license the technology, which is why they tried using it for free...
        • Kim_Bruning 3y ago
          There's supposed to be an H.265 patent pool at the very least.
          • 3y ago
• mhb 3y ago
  You're conflating two issues. Should the cashiers at supermarkets be upset that they don't get a share of the profit from every canned soup sale?
  • skavi 3y ago
    I think it is not so crazy an opinion that surplus value is unfairly distributed.
    • bad_user 3y ago
      The cashiers at the supermarket are paid a wage they agreed on when they were hired. There's nothing more fair than supply and demand.
      • earthling8118 3y ago
        The number may be what they agreed upon but the value definitely doesn't remain stable.
        • bad_user 3y ago
          Right. And the workers can renegotiate, or are free to leave.
      • pgeorgi 3y ago
        Supply and demand is fair, if and only if both sides are entirely free to walk away from the deal. Depending on the labor market situation this isn't necessarily a given when the alternative is starvation.
        • bad_user 3y ago
          In the West, the alternative is seldom starvation. Given the very low rate of unemployment, despite the post-pandemic climate, it's pretty obvious that people still have choice when seeking employment. And there is always choice, which includes going back to school or moving to a different city. Heck, given the Internet, you can get education for free (until the ad-blockers ruin everything by normalizing paywalls). People forget, or never learned, what involuntary servitude or starvation was actually like, or what actually happened when the hammer and sickle was adopted as a state religion. And related to the parent, in the words of Thomas Sowell, the minimum wage is always zero. Or in other words, people should be glad that the demand for cashiers still exists, until the job gets fully automated. I find it funny, yet unsettling, that I have to state the obvious on HN of all places.
• mrtksn 3y ago
  > I have received neither any compensation nor any benefit for it Is this because your invention wasn't commercially exploited or because your invention wasn't protected by the patents(because of reasons)? Correct me if I'm wrong but In this particular case it appears that the patents of Broadcom worked as intended and they will be compensated if their invention is used. A good example of actually investing in inventing something, then make money with it thanks to enforcement of patents. This doesn't appear to be a patent troll case but actual technology with actual use case in an actual multi billion dollar corporation and the other corporation who invented the technology demands to be compensated for the use their tech in this multi billion dolar trade.
  • AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    But they aren’t being compensated, they are just blocking the use in those markets. Mine are heavily cited: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/andrew-kemendo https://patents.justia.com/inventor/andrew-kemendo
    • mrtksn 3y ago
      I don't think this is the correct description of the situation. Is there any indication that if Netflix pays a fair amount, Broadcom will still not let Netflix use the tech to deliver its services? The court order seems like an implementation detail for the enforcement of the patent. The court orders the cessation of the illegal activity, it's up to the relevant parties to come to an agreement and continue doing the same thing but this time legally.
      • freedomben 3y ago
        Indeed, the embedded LinkedIn post from a Netflix "technologist" in TFA seems to imply that paying for it is a possibility if not a likely outcome.
    • tmikaeld 3y ago
      Interesting patent, the "Near Eye Wavefront Emulating Display". > "..tapered optical waveguide light emitting layer and piezoelectric-driven decentered microlens array" Sounds similar to "Magic Leap Fiber Scanning Display" ?
• foobarian 3y ago
  > Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose, I mean Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now. Think longer term. Without patents, maybe there would be no H.265 to use in the first place. So consumers win after all.
  • neffy 3y ago
    Or perhaps without patents there wouldn't be false monopolisation preventing better standards being contributed by people who can't afford expensive lawyers.
  • thomastjeffery 3y ago
    AV1 was literally created to be patent-free. So yes, please continue to threaten me with a good time.
    • throw0101c 3y ago
      > AV1 was literally created to be patent-free. AV1 was created to be license-fee-free. There are lots of patents in AV1, it's just that their holders don't ask for money: > Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Licensor, on behalf of itself and successors in interest and assigns, grants Licensee a non-sublicensable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as expressly stated in this License) patent license to its Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import or distribute any Implementation. * https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/ https://aomedia.org/license/patent-license/
      • thomastjeffery 3y ago
        Right, that's the method they used to liberate AV1 from patent monopolies.
      • tensor 3y ago
        Because if they didn't patent it then some other asshole could, and deny them rights to their own invention, because the patent system is stupid.
• vadiml 3y ago
  I don't understand really why these patents are granted. Software is math and math formulas are not patentable. The patent (and copyrights) system today is actually subverted by greedy players and instead of promoting progress and sciences is serving to enrich the middlemen by artificially SLOWING the progress.
  • louthy 3y ago
    Saying “software is math” is akin to saying “books are just letters”; the building blocks of software is not what people want to protect, it’s the idea and the effort to invent. Whether software should be patentable or not is obviously open for discussion, but saying it’s just math isn’t really enough of an argument.
    • no_wizard 3y ago
      The best of the mainstream arguments against software patents has always been: What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software? I only have a few friends I trust on such a topic, and my understanding is between IP and Copyright laws from them (ones a public policy researcher, the other a lawyer), it would be more than sufficient for protecting companies work and patents were lobbied only because their enforcement is more heavy handed, IE, it can stifle competition under the guise of "patent infringement"
      • louthy 3y ago
        > The best of the mainstream arguments against software patents has always been: What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software? Instinctively, that’s where I think it should be, agreed.
      • jcranmer 3y ago
        > What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software? Copyright cannot and does not prevent someone from clean-room engineering a replacement for your software. Patents can do that. (Whether or not they should is a different question, but that's not what you asked). FWIW, patents are one of the forms of intellectual property.
• skywhopper 3y ago
  I mean, I doubt Broadcom is “blocking” the use of this algorithm, they are just demanding payment. That said, software patents are a huge drag on innovation, which is the opposite of the intent of the patent system, and thus they should be disallowed.
• stainablesteel 3y ago
  the spirit of the original purpose of patents is being abused definitely
• donatj 3y ago
  My friend has a patent that made his company millions. He got a plaque and a pat on the back. He still got cussed out when he paid for his $100 steel toe boots (required for the job) with the company card. He’s an engineer in heavy machinery.
• thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose The intended purpose of patents is well documented: they are supposed to result in technology being published rather than being kept secret. It isn't clear why a legal patent system is viewed as compatible with a legal trade secrets regime.
• freejazz 3y ago
  Sorry, you thought you'd be rich just because you are named on two patents? You don't think it matters what the patents regards nor how useful they are to others? It seems like you don't even own the patents... I'm struggling to understand the point of your "criticism"
  • Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    In the modern world, inventors often don't own the patents to their own inventions. I'd be very interested to hear from people who actually used a software patent in a useful manner. (Ie. Could they actually write a successful implementation, based on the patent text)
    • freejazz 3y ago
      That's not true at all. I've litigated patents owned by their inventors. It is true that small-time inventors often have to sell them because they cannot afford to enforce their own patents due to the high costs of litigating against a much larger commercial entity. >In the modern world, the inventors often don't own the patents to their own inventions. Right but that's most likely because of his employer... so it seems entirely besides the point of whatever principle you are tilting at.
      • Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        Oh, that's interesting! Very different from my own personal experience in life, and the experience of people I've worked with, as you may have gathered. I'm definitely interested in learning about an opposite experience. Care to share? Were these "Software" patents? Hardware patents? Gene Patents? Which country? Do you have references to the patents and court cases?
        • freejazz 3y ago
          What would you like to know? I'm not going to identify the patents nor their owners, as they never asked to be involved in this conversation, but I'm happy to share my own personal experiences. The patents were for a distributed networking system, that included hardware components, to be used in a particular industry. This is in the US. We defeated an Alice motion, with the court declaring that our patents were valid. Ultimately, we lost on a jury verdict. I see many of your posts and find them disagreeable. While I am not doubting your personal experiences, you seem to place them above the very clear incentive structures that exist today, which force patent owners to have to sell their patents because they cannot afford to enforce them against the likes of Netflix or Broadcom or Google. The big companies are free to infringe on such patents. That's why I find it disappointing when I see people express dismay over the fact that a patent owner would sell their interests to a non-practicing-entity that will attempt to license and enforce the patent. Such a patent owner has no little to capitalize from their invention otherwise. In the event they do not sell, then they absolutely need a litigation financier in order to satisfy the costs of enforcement ($1m-$2m) via litigation. For the most part, the system is stacked in favor of the large companies, so I find it very bizarre to repeatedly see comments that come out agains the rights and interests of such inventors.
• _ugfj 3y ago
  I know at least one patent author for whom the system worked exactly as designed. That being my uncle. Imagine the literal bearded tinkerer in his garage inventing a (much) better sprinkler head. What's the next step? Without the patent system, I guess raise money, build a factory and establish yourself in the market? With the patent system, he sold it to one of the largest manufacturers and today AFAIK about a third of sprinkler heads sold in the US are his invention. He was paid handsomely for the decade plus of tinkering, the manufacturer got a great invention without spending a decade on R&D. Win all around. Notably this was a physical object and not maths.
  • thfuran 3y ago
    >Notably this was a physical object and not maths Why is that notable?
    • s_dev 3y ago
      You're not supposed to be able to patent 'Mathematics' or 'Nature' because these phenomena are 'discovered' and not 'invented'. You can patent a device that exploits a natural phenomena but not the phenomena itself.
      • thfuran 3y ago
        Unless an algorithm is observed in nature, I don't really see how it makes any more sense to claim it's a natural phenomenon than it would to make the claim of a machine.
      • Max_aaa 3y ago
        Gortex?
    • ooterness 3y ago
      There are a lot of bad software patents. Many follow the formula "abstract mathematical concept, but now it's on a computer". For a long time, that's all that was required.
• nbadg 3y ago
  I agree, but: > Patents don’t even appear to be serving their intended purpose I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of what their intended purpose actually is. The point of patents is to foster innovation -- not, as many think, to provide a financial benefit for innovation. Those may sound similar, but there are two very important differences: one, it assumes that financial benefit automatically promotes innovative things, and two, it assumes that financial benefit is the only motivation behind creating the patent system. The former is a really complicated topic, and I'm not sure how much reputable, peer-reviewed research has gone into evaluating it. But the idea that financial incentives are the reason why the patent system was created is simply not accurate. The patent system was created as a compromise: when you invent something, a patent gives you exclusive rights over it, yes. But in exchange, critically, you must publish, in detail, the exact workings of the invention. In other words, the public good intended by creating the patent system was the free exchange of ideas, even if your ability to actually use those ideas was limited by licensing fees. Today, we live in a world where (I think it's pretty clear) patents are not the most effective tool available to promote the free exchange of ideas. I mean, you can learn a whole lot more about how something works by turning to youtube than by reading its patents. So half of the bargain is gone, irrelevant. But we've gotten so used to them that I haven't heard any real, substantive, serious discussion in political circles about what that means for the patent system as a whole.
  • mhb 3y ago
    The mechanism of freely exchanging the ideas is irrelevant. The exchange refers to providing the ideas to other people whether it's by stone tablet or internet.