5 ms·

The problem with the current patent system is that it treats all patents from various industries (software, manufacturing, biology, chemistry, science, business

by kinkora 14y ago

The problem with the current patent system is that it treats all patents from various industries (software, manufacturing, biology, chemistry, science, business, etc) exactly the same across the board and applies the exact same rules to all of them. While an overhaul of the whole patent ecosystem is needed and long overdue, I think the quickest/easiest way we can get rid of majority of patent trolls is to start having different rules for different categories of patents. A couple of examples I can think of: 1. A patent with a tangible product will last for 20 years but a software patent should only last for no more than 5 years. 2. A medical methodology process can only be patented by an individual/company after showing evidence of the research put into it by said individual/company where else a software methodology process can only be patented if the patent holder is actually utilizing the patent as part of their business. 3. Manufacturing patents can be granted without actually showing the actual real-life process (and obviously it needs to be a novel approach and has no prior art) but all software patents need to be developed and attached a demo of the software patent in action (not just pictures and descriptions) as part of the requirement for the patent to be granted. What do you guys think? I believe setting different rules for different categories will quickly elevate majority of our tech patent woes.

mcao 14y ago
I completely agree. Our legal system already has varying sentences for different crimes. Can you imagine a world where you always get 20 years in jail for every crime, from petty theft to murder?
runako 14y ago
Feedback: #1 devalues genuine software innovation. If a software innovation is genuine, why is it worth less protection? I understand that software moves faster than tangible products, but that just means "innovation" means something different in software. As a programmer, I oppose any effort to devalue software relative to other intellectual pursuits. #2 Devalues genius. If a genius only needs 2 weeks to produce real genuine medical innovation, it should not be measured against some arbitrary measured effort standard quantifying "evidence of research". #2 Also enforces arbitrary business requirements on software-using firms. Why can't a firm invent a lot of stuff and not implement it all at once? They should have the same rights to use their inventions as firms that work in other pursuits. (Again, this is dependent on the innovations being genuine.) #3 Devalues software relative to manufacturing by applying a different standard. These are hard problems that I can't answer at the moment; I'll freely admit that. But I continue to be shocked that the programming community tends to put forth answers that devalue its efforts, so I feel the need to point out that software is as worthy of protection as other fields. (This is a shocking argument to have to make to software people!) If there's a problem with the patent system, fix it across the board: software is not the problem.
- josteink 14y ago
  #1 devalues genuine software innovation. If a software innovation is genuine, why is it worth less protection? While a good general argument, you have to ask what software which was developed 20 years ago is still relevant today. Most software 20 years old is not even available today, and even if you had stored a copy, it would probably not be possible to find hardware which would run it correctly or at all. Basically, 20 years of computing-time represents several generations of products and innovations. 20 years for a patent may have been a relevant timeframe when products had a lifespan that long. I think it would be hard to argue that this is still the case. The solution is not to extend software patents to 20 years. The solution is to reduce patent-time to fit the lifespan of products within the category which for the patent is valid. Which for software would mean an absolute maximum of 10 years, with 3 years much more reasonable.
  - runako 14y ago
    >> Which for software would mean an absolute maximum of 10 years, with 3 years much more reasonable. This still devalues the creation of software that is genuine innovation. Think about mainframe software that controls factories, for instance, which can be bought over 10 years after creation. Also consider the prevalence today of Windows XP, which shipped in 2001 (and where any relevant patents would date to the 1990s when it was developed). Microsoft has reluctantly stopped selling it, but I'd argue that we still don't know how long the useful lifespan of WinXP will be. And we're probably ~15 years in from when patents in XP would have been filed. Before artificially segregating software into a ghetto, ask this: would this innovation be worthy of protection if there were a purpose-built device that performs the same function? If the device would be worthy of protection, then it's going to be hard to argue that the software embodiment is somehow worth less protection. (At least it will be hard to argue this with me, but I'm a chauvinist for programmers.) Finally, the argument that the old software becomes irrelevant is congruent with equal protection for software. If old software loses relevance, then so do the patents (and correspondingly their utility to patent trolls). I think you mean precisely the opposite: old innovations in software actually become more relevant, so that everyone wants to use them in their own wares. Nobody rushed to shorten the lifespan of vacuum tube patents because they became irrelevant. I don't think it's reasonable to reduce software patent lifespans to shorter durations than that of the hardware the software runs on, or the cables used to transmit it.

by kinkora 14y ago

mcao 14y ago

I completely agree. Our legal system already has varying sentences for different crimes. Can you imagine a world where you always get 20 years in jail for every crime, from petty theft to murder?

runako 14y ago

Feedback: #1 devalues genuine software innovation. If a software innovation is genuine, why is it worth less protection? I understand that software moves faster than tangible products, but that just means "innovation" means something different in software. As a programmer, I oppose any effort to devalue software relative to other intellectual pursuits. #2 Devalues genius. If a genius only needs 2 weeks to produce real genuine medical innovation, it should not be measured against some arbitrary measured effort standard quantifying "evidence of research". #2 Also enforces arbitrary business requirements on software-using firms. Why can't a firm invent a lot of stuff and not implement it all at once? They should have the same rights to use their inventions as firms that work in other pursuits. (Again, this is dependent on the innovations being genuine.) #3 Devalues software relative to manufacturing by applying a different standard. These are hard problems that I can't answer at the moment; I'll freely admit that. But I continue to be shocked that the programming community tends to put forth answers that devalue its efforts, so I feel the need to point out that software is as worthy of protection as other fields. (This is a shocking argument to have to make to software people!) If there's a problem with the patent system, fix it across the board: software is not the problem.

josteink 14y ago
#1 devalues genuine software innovation. If a software innovation is genuine, why is it worth less protection? While a good general argument, you have to ask what software which was developed 20 years ago is still relevant today. Most software 20 years old is not even available today, and even if you had stored a copy, it would probably not be possible to find hardware which would run it correctly or at all. Basically, 20 years of computing-time represents several generations of products and innovations. 20 years for a patent may have been a relevant timeframe when products had a lifespan that long. I think it would be hard to argue that this is still the case. The solution is not to extend software patents to 20 years. The solution is to reduce patent-time to fit the lifespan of products within the category which for the patent is valid. Which for software would mean an absolute maximum of 10 years, with 3 years much more reasonable.
- runako 14y ago
  >> Which for software would mean an absolute maximum of 10 years, with 3 years much more reasonable. This still devalues the creation of software that is genuine innovation. Think about mainframe software that controls factories, for instance, which can be bought over 10 years after creation. Also consider the prevalence today of Windows XP, which shipped in 2001 (and where any relevant patents would date to the 1990s when it was developed). Microsoft has reluctantly stopped selling it, but I'd argue that we still don't know how long the useful lifespan of WinXP will be. And we're probably ~15 years in from when patents in XP would have been filed. Before artificially segregating software into a ghetto, ask this: would this innovation be worthy of protection if there were a purpose-built device that performs the same function? If the device would be worthy of protection, then it's going to be hard to argue that the software embodiment is somehow worth less protection. (At least it will be hard to argue this with me, but I'm a chauvinist for programmers.) Finally, the argument that the old software becomes irrelevant is congruent with equal protection for software. If old software loses relevance, then so do the patents (and correspondingly their utility to patent trolls). I think you mean precisely the opposite: old innovations in software actually become more relevant, so that everyone wants to use them in their own wares. Nobody rushed to shorten the lifespan of vacuum tube patents because they became irrelevant. I don't think it's reasonable to reduce software patent lifespans to shorter durations than that of the hardware the software runs on, or the cables used to transmit it.