6 ms·

Just because something makes you money doesn't mean it's inherently good or useful, and it doesn't mean it should be protected by law. Every time a company's co

by csallen 14y ago

Just because something makes you money doesn't mean it's inherently good or useful, and it doesn't mean it should be protected by law. Every time a company's competitors catch up to it, and every time technology makes a company's business model obsolete, they turn to the law to try to wipe the competition/technology out of existence. And, quite frankly, it's bullshit. You're right, the entire basis of patents was to protect the little guys. But nowadays the exact opposite is happening. Over the last 200 years, the big guys have wielded their influence to change the system to their benefit. And now they abuse patents to crush anything that threatens their leadership position, whether that's a little guy trying to innovate or another big guy trying to play catch up. Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? Innovation certainly isn't any better off.

timmyd 14y ago
I do agree with you in this regard. True innovations should be patentable and it's been the consistent bashing of the law to extend the scope of what is patentable that comes to the fore here. By fundamentally - having a patent and litigating a patent are hugely different things and that's a big problem. The patent offices around the world have timelines and deadlines - even if they approve a patent which shouldn't be - they rely on the courts to determine whether it is or is not. That's a huge time cost, financial cost and so on - thats the system today. So you go to court - you spend literally millions arguing and you get a decision as to whether or not it's innovative. That's wrong in my mind.
writetoalok 14y ago
> Just because something makes you money doesn't mean it's inherently good or useful, and it doesn't mean it should be protected by law. Are we talking about patentable innovations, or something else? A lot of patentable innovations do not make anything, a lot things which are not patentable make boat load of bucks. Your comment seem to have clouded this distinction. It seems to me that you are questioning the basis of government granted monopoly. But this grant is not on the basis of money generation, but on innovation and benefits to the society by disclosure. Imagine if someone discovered and invented a principle and device for unlimited cheap source of energy. If he kept it to himself, it may definitely help him to unknown riches. And possibly the secret could die with him. But if he shared his secret sauce, then all of us in the society will benefit a lot. Patents are a means to that end. What do you think?
- FrojoS 14y ago
  > Imagine if someone discovered and invented a principle and device for unlimited cheap source of energy. First of all, this imaginary genius could still choose to not disclose his innovation. Patents are optional. Take for instance the Coca Cola recipe. Its kept as a trade secret [1]. But consumers can still choose to drink Pepsi and co. instead. Second, I doubt a case like this, an truly important innovation that only one person will come up with, has ever occurred or will ever occur. If you look at the history of science and innovation, there is apparently always multiple people or groups working independently on the very same innovation. Famous examples are the first piloted flight [2] or the discovery of calculus [3]. For me this is the strongest case against, today's, patent law. We overstate the importance of the supposed single genius that humanity depends on. And yes, I question the the basis for any monopoly. In the Apple vs Samsung case though, it was _also_ about consumer confusion. Samsung did not only use Apples innovation like pinch-to-zoom, which in my opinion should be fine, but tried to fool buyers into thinking that they got an iPhone by copying Apple's look and feel. You could say, that any idiot would see the difference. There is no Apple logo or iPhone label on Samsung products. But, I argue, thats just our geeky perspective. My grand parents or even parents wouldn't be able to tell the difference, unless I write them a note with 'A P P L E' on it. I could live happily with this problem, but I can agree that this is a grey area. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_flying_machines#Claims_to_first_piloted_flight_by_date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_flying_machines#C... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#History
  - equalarrow 14y ago
    You're exactly right - unless I tell the older folk "it's from Apple.. You know, the iPod company", they're not going to know. And when the iPod came out, it's was similar "it's called an iPod and Apple, you know, they made the Macintosh about 20 years ago, they made this. You can put 1000 songs on it..". If this 'education' is not performed, then they'll never know. I've seen it with my own eyes.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
soup10 14y ago
This seems to mostly be the case in software industry where everything moves really fast so nothing seems patent worthy. There's a whole world out there where innovation moves a lot slower and patent protection is crucial.
gurkendoktor 14y ago
> Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? If you take the lawsuit for what it is, namely that only Apple can have pinch-to-zoom et.al, yes the consumer loses. But if this lawsuit makes vendors keep a little more distance between each other, I'm all for it. As a consumer, I'd rather have a wide array of choices rather than one cash cow and its copycats, and I'd argue that this is what most people would understand as innovation. (And this is the opposite of innovation: http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/ http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-i...)
twoodfin 14y ago
Weren't the guys that Apple bought to get multitouch "little"? In a world where such "obvious in retrospect" designs aren't protected, why doesn't Apple just copy their work?
- Evbn 14y ago
  So they could sue competitors.
ryanwaggoner 14y ago
Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? Innovation certainly isn't any better off. You have no way of knowing whether this is true. Patents could come with a host of disadvantages and drags on innovation and still be a net positive for innovation. There's just no way to know without a control group. As long as we're throwing out opinions, I find it very hard to believe that the patent system, broken though it is, is anything other than a HUGE net positive for innovation. I'm talking about the patent system across all industries, but I suspect the same would be true for the tech industry specifically. Companies across many industries regularly spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to develop products that are primarily protected by patents. If we did away with patents, many of those investments would no longer be made, and the rest would be as shrouded in secrecy as possible. And secrecy is a patent that potentially never expires.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  There is a control group for the impact of patents. It's called software.
- luriel 14y ago
  > You have no way of knowing whether this is true. There is a whole field dedicated to answering this kinds of questions, it is called economics, and there is quite a bit of research in this area analyzing historical evidence from different legal systems, times and industries. And most of the evidence indicates that patents hinder and stop innovation, and that most innovation and progress happens when there are no patents: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...
  - nirvana 14y ago
    You're correct that economics is a science, but you make an error when you say "most of the evidence", and then link to an ideological position. Science doesn't work that way. Even if the preponderance of evidence were the standard, you haven't provided evidence that the preponderance of the evidence supports your position. And even if every economist in the world shared the same opinion, it would be a meaningless claim (even if you got a petition and they all signed it) from a scientific standpoint. I believe you are wrong, but I would fall into the same error if I simply made the opposite claims you do, and I cannot prove my position scientifically, so I won't argue it.
tronronin 14y ago
Was that not the whole point of the patent-system? That there is an incentive in doing/thinking first? I disagree that patenting was meant only for the small guys. Patenting was meant to make innovation happen and fast. Simple as that. Social welfare policies are designed for the small guy. In any case how expensive is it to file a patent, or get a job with the company which has the patent and work with them. The so called small guy you talk about does not give a damn about innovation. He wants to be the next Steve Jobs. Let's admit it. Money is important for everyone. Apple, Samsung, Small guy, Big guy. Everyone. What one can discuss is how to collect taxes from people and deploy that to support indie innovators(if may call them so) who want to fly solo.
- sesqu 14y ago
  > Was that not the whole point of the patent-system? That there is an incentive in doing/thinking first? No. The point of the patent system was to provide an incentive to documenting your inventions and sharing them with others.

by csallen 14y ago

timmyd 14y ago

I do agree with you in this regard. True innovations should be patentable and it's been the consistent bashing of the law to extend the scope of what is patentable that comes to the fore here. By fundamentally - having a patent and litigating a patent are hugely different things and that's a big problem. The patent offices around the world have timelines and deadlines - even if they approve a patent which shouldn't be - they rely on the courts to determine whether it is or is not. That's a huge time cost, financial cost and so on - thats the system today. So you go to court - you spend literally millions arguing and you get a decision as to whether or not it's innovative. That's wrong in my mind.

writetoalok 14y ago

> Just because something makes you money doesn't mean it's inherently good or useful, and it doesn't mean it should be protected by law. Are we talking about patentable innovations, or something else? A lot of patentable innovations do not make anything, a lot things which are not patentable make boat load of bucks. Your comment seem to have clouded this distinction. It seems to me that you are questioning the basis of government granted monopoly. But this grant is not on the basis of money generation, but on innovation and benefits to the society by disclosure. Imagine if someone discovered and invented a principle and device for unlimited cheap source of energy. If he kept it to himself, it may definitely help him to unknown riches. And possibly the secret could die with him. But if he shared his secret sauce, then all of us in the society will benefit a lot. Patents are a means to that end. What do you think?

FrojoS 14y ago
> Imagine if someone discovered and invented a principle and device for unlimited cheap source of energy. First of all, this imaginary genius could still choose to not disclose his innovation. Patents are optional. Take for instance the Coca Cola recipe. Its kept as a trade secret [1]. But consumers can still choose to drink Pepsi and co. instead. Second, I doubt a case like this, an truly important innovation that only one person will come up with, has ever occurred or will ever occur. If you look at the history of science and innovation, there is apparently always multiple people or groups working independently on the very same innovation. Famous examples are the first piloted flight [2] or the discovery of calculus [3]. For me this is the strongest case against, today's, patent law. We overstate the importance of the supposed single genius that humanity depends on. And yes, I question the the basis for any monopoly. In the Apple vs Samsung case though, it was _also_ about consumer confusion. Samsung did not only use Apples innovation like pinch-to-zoom, which in my opinion should be fine, but tried to fool buyers into thinking that they got an iPhone by copying Apple's look and feel. You could say, that any idiot would see the difference. There is no Apple logo or iPhone label on Samsung products. But, I argue, thats just our geeky perspective. My grand parents or even parents wouldn't be able to tell the difference, unless I write them a note with 'A P P L E' on it. I could live happily with this problem, but I can agree that this is a grey area. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_flying_machines#Claims_to_first_piloted_flight_by_date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_flying_machines#C... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#History
- equalarrow 14y ago
  You're exactly right - unless I tell the older folk "it's from Apple.. You know, the iPod company", they're not going to know. And when the iPod came out, it's was similar "it's called an iPod and Apple, you know, they made the Macintosh about 20 years ago, they made this. You can put 1000 songs on it..". If this 'education' is not performed, then they'll never know. I've seen it with my own eyes.
- dredmorbius 14y ago

soup10 14y ago

This seems to mostly be the case in software industry where everything moves really fast so nothing seems patent worthy. There's a whole world out there where innovation moves a lot slower and patent protection is crucial.

gurkendoktor 14y ago

> Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? If you take the lawsuit for what it is, namely that only Apple can have pinch-to-zoom et.al, yes the consumer loses. But if this lawsuit makes vendors keep a little more distance between each other, I'm all for it. As a consumer, I'd rather have a wide array of choices rather than one cash cow and its copycats, and I'd argue that this is what most people would understand as innovation. (And this is the opposite of innovation: http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/ http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-i...)

twoodfin 14y ago

Weren't the guys that Apple bought to get multitouch "little"? In a world where such "obvious in retrospect" designs aren't protected, why doesn't Apple just copy their work?

Evbn 14y ago
So they could sue competitors.

ryanwaggoner 14y ago

Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? Innovation certainly isn't any better off. You have no way of knowing whether this is true. Patents could come with a host of disadvantages and drags on innovation and still be a net positive for innovation. There's just no way to know without a control group. As long as we're throwing out opinions, I find it very hard to believe that the patent system, broken though it is, is anything other than a HUGE net positive for innovation. I'm talking about the patent system across all industries, but I suspect the same would be true for the tech industry specifically. Companies across many industries regularly spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to develop products that are primarily protected by patents. If we did away with patents, many of those investments would no longer be made, and the rest would be as shrouded in secrecy as possible. And secrecy is a patent that potentially never expires.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
There is a control group for the impact of patents. It's called software.
luriel 14y ago
> You have no way of knowing whether this is true. There is a whole field dedicated to answering this kinds of questions, it is called economics, and there is quite a bit of research in this area analyzing historical evidence from different legal systems, times and industries. And most of the evidence indicates that patents hinder and stop innovation, and that most innovation and progress happens when there are no patents: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...
- nirvana 14y ago
  You're correct that economics is a science, but you make an error when you say "most of the evidence", and then link to an ideological position. Science doesn't work that way. Even if the preponderance of evidence were the standard, you haven't provided evidence that the preponderance of the evidence supports your position. And even if every economist in the world shared the same opinion, it would be a meaningless claim (even if you got a petition and they all signed it) from a scientific standpoint. I believe you are wrong, but I would fall into the same error if I simply made the opposite claims you do, and I cannot prove my position scientifically, so I won't argue it.

tronronin 14y ago

Was that not the whole point of the patent-system? That there is an incentive in doing/thinking first? I disagree that patenting was meant only for the small guys. Patenting was meant to make innovation happen and fast. Simple as that. Social welfare policies are designed for the small guy. In any case how expensive is it to file a patent, or get a job with the company which has the patent and work with them. The so called small guy you talk about does not give a damn about innovation. He wants to be the next Steve Jobs. Let's admit it. Money is important for everyone. Apple, Samsung, Small guy, Big guy. Everyone. What one can discuss is how to collect taxes from people and deploy that to support indie innovators(if may call them so) who want to fly solo.

sesqu 14y ago
> Was that not the whole point of the patent-system? That there is an incentive in doing/thinking first? No. The point of the patent system was to provide an incentive to documenting your inventions and sharing them with others.