3 ms·

Why should software libraries be protected when software algorithms aren't? Independent invention. > They can also license the math (which is not patentable)

by ynniv 14y ago

Why should software libraries be protected when software algorithms aren't? Independent invention. > They can also license the math (which is not patentable) and have another team actually write the code. You can license it, but you have no legal protection to keep people from copying it. To keep other people from copying it. The people that you license it to will be contractually bound. Perhaps, but it will be expensive and time consuming for them to copy it. Patents are for a limited time, so this is an argument tied up in a comparison of how long it takes someone to unravel a complicated system, how long a patent lasts, and how much the inventor would license it for. I think a lot of people on HN don't have the exposure to embedded software to be able to really appreciate what the other side of the patent coin looks like That may be true. If you have made inventions such as these, you should protect them with trade secret because chat availability status patents are far more excessively damaging than strong signal processing patents are valuable.

rayiner 14y ago
> Independent invention. Nobody is independently inventing the OFDM patent I linked to, at least not within the patent term. You're taking an edge case and making the debate all about that edge case. I think it's quite reasonable to have genuine independent invention as a defense to patent infringement, FWIW. > You can write a contract for anything. You can contract for anything, but you can't enforce the contract against anyone not in contractual privity. > That may be true. If you have made inventions such as these, you should protect them with trade secret because chat availability status patents are far more excessively damaging than strong signal processing patents are valuable. As I described above, trade secrets don't allow the crucial feature of being easy to transact in. And you have absolutely no basis for your claim that "chat availability" patents are more damaging than signal processing patents are valuable. You can point to the Apple litigation on one side, and I can point to ARM, Ltd. on the other, etc.
- ynniv 14y ago
  You're taking an edge case and making the debate all about that edge case. Sadly, I see this the opposite way. Quantity-wise good, innovative architecture patents are in the vast minority. If we are to deal with software patents one at a time, the combined effort dealing with bad ones far outweighs good ones. You can contract for anything, but you can't enforce the contract against anyone not in contractual privity. Hah, I already updated my comment based on your updated comment! HN isn't the best for these kinds of discussions. Nobody is independently inventing the OFDM patent I linked to, at least not within the patent term. I have been thinking for some time that we need a collection of good software patents. Not having read the OFDM or ARM patents (for which I'm not qualified anyway), I don't know if they are "good". But I do know that one day we're going to invalidate a large percentage of software patents or watch innovation happen elsewhere. When that day comes, it will be important to have a list of things that are valuable, or else we'll end up with the bar that I described (anything computable is not patentable). Unfortunately, I don't know of enough of them to seed such a database. Maybe fast square root or some of Carmack's graphics work. And as such I'm okay with seeing them 100% invalid. If you disagree, perhaps we can chat about it (email's in my profile).

by ynniv 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

> Independent invention. Nobody is independently inventing the OFDM patent I linked to, at least not within the patent term. You're taking an edge case and making the debate all about that edge case. I think it's quite reasonable to have genuine independent invention as a defense to patent infringement, FWIW. > You can write a contract for anything. You can contract for anything, but you can't enforce the contract against anyone not in contractual privity. > That may be true. If you have made inventions such as these, you should protect them with trade secret because chat availability status patents are far more excessively damaging than strong signal processing patents are valuable. As I described above, trade secrets don't allow the crucial feature of being easy to transact in. And you have absolutely no basis for your claim that "chat availability" patents are more damaging than signal processing patents are valuable. You can point to the Apple litigation on one side, and I can point to ARM, Ltd. on the other, etc.

ynniv 14y ago
You're taking an edge case and making the debate all about that edge case. Sadly, I see this the opposite way. Quantity-wise good, innovative architecture patents are in the vast minority. If we are to deal with software patents one at a time, the combined effort dealing with bad ones far outweighs good ones. You can contract for anything, but you can't enforce the contract against anyone not in contractual privity. Hah, I already updated my comment based on your updated comment! HN isn't the best for these kinds of discussions. Nobody is independently inventing the OFDM patent I linked to, at least not within the patent term. I have been thinking for some time that we need a collection of good software patents. Not having read the OFDM or ARM patents (for which I'm not qualified anyway), I don't know if they are "good". But I do know that one day we're going to invalidate a large percentage of software patents or watch innovation happen elsewhere. When that day comes, it will be important to have a list of things that are valuable, or else we'll end up with the bar that I described (anything computable is not patentable). Unfortunately, I don't know of enough of them to seed such a database. Maybe fast square root or some of Carmack's graphics work. And as such I'm okay with seeing them 100% invalid. If you disagree, perhaps we can chat about it (email's in my profile).