3 ms·

Patents in the software industry cannot actually do good - why? Because patents are wrong to start with and the conditions of the software industry (fast-moving

by Tycho 14y ago

Patents in the software industry cannot actually do good - why? Because patents are wrong to start with and the conditions of the software industry (fast-moving, high volume of research/invention) magnify the problem? Because the patent office isn't sufficiently equipped to grant reasonable patents on software (judging 'obviousness' etc.)? Because all these HNers have personal experience of being constrained by patent issues? Because coming up with ideas for new software methodologies/techniques is not comparable with the R&D of other industries? It's not the concept of patents, it's not that large companies are using them, it's not that people are enforcing them, it's not any of that nonsense...I think you had a grasp on this concept earlier, but lost sight of it when you tried to analyse it too closely. This sounds a bit supercilious.

jlgreco 14y ago
I'm going to be honest with you. You have me at something of a loss for words. I think I have given you all the tools you need to understand this issue at this point. Remember that thing I wrote about the null hypothesis? Well people who disagree with you do so because they have yet to see that null hypothesis convincingly falsified. If you want to disagree with that, then knock yourself out. It requires absolutely zero expended effort on your part to disagree; I disagree with uncountable things in this world every day for a grand total of zero calories burned. If you want to disagree and convince others of your point of view, then you are going to need to put some back into it. Rationally and methodically state your case for the falsification of the null hypothesis. Write it up on your blog and post it to HN. If the community considers it worthy of discussion, they will address it. You seem to be attempting some sort of 'know thy enemy' nonsense. Stop. You are clearly unable to or unwilling to wrap your head around concepts you disagree with, so stop wasting your time. Understanding why people think what they do is unimportant, just state your case. I've already told you how. And do make an effort to post it as a new discussion when you do so, instead of attempting to hijack another discussion looking for a flamewar. tl;dr: Our case: the null hypothesis has not been falsified. Your case: ??? I eagerly await your blog posting; I think we are done discussing this in this other person's article's comments.
- Tycho 14y ago
  Contradicting the null hypothesis is easy: any time a potential investor has asked a small company with a bright idea 'but what's to stop someone else just copying your idea after i've paid you to develop it?' and the developer replies 'well, we have patent protection' to reassure him/her, patents have been useful and supportive of innovation. The problem is that the argument will immediately move on to the net benefit/detriment to the industry, at which point we need to establish the principles on which people object to software patents. You are clearly unable to or unwilling to wrap your head around concepts you disagree with, so stop wasting your time. Less condescension maybe?

by Tycho 14y ago

jlgreco 14y ago

I'm going to be honest with you. You have me at something of a loss for words. I think I have given you all the tools you need to understand this issue at this point. Remember that thing I wrote about the null hypothesis? Well people who disagree with you do so because they have yet to see that null hypothesis convincingly falsified. If you want to disagree with that, then knock yourself out. It requires absolutely zero expended effort on your part to disagree; I disagree with uncountable things in this world every day for a grand total of zero calories burned. If you want to disagree and convince others of your point of view, then you are going to need to put some back into it. Rationally and methodically state your case for the falsification of the null hypothesis. Write it up on your blog and post it to HN. If the community considers it worthy of discussion, they will address it. You seem to be attempting some sort of 'know thy enemy' nonsense. Stop. You are clearly unable to or unwilling to wrap your head around concepts you disagree with, so stop wasting your time. Understanding why people think what they do is unimportant, just state your case. I've already told you how. And do make an effort to post it as a new discussion when you do so, instead of attempting to hijack another discussion looking for a flamewar. tl;dr: Our case: the null hypothesis has not been falsified. Your case: ??? I eagerly await your blog posting; I think we are done discussing this in this other person's article's comments.

Tycho 14y ago
Contradicting the null hypothesis is easy: any time a potential investor has asked a small company with a bright idea 'but what's to stop someone else just copying your idea after i've paid you to develop it?' and the developer replies 'well, we have patent protection' to reassure him/her, patents have been useful and supportive of innovation. The problem is that the argument will immediately move on to the net benefit/detriment to the industry, at which point we need to establish the principles on which people object to software patents. You are clearly unable to or unwilling to wrap your head around concepts you disagree with, so stop wasting your time. Less condescension maybe?