9 ms·

One interesting point is he brought up Einstein's invention of relativity. Notice that in the scientific community, humanity has been building upon previous wor

One interesting point is he brought up Einstein's invention of relativity. Notice that in the scientific community, humanity has been building upon previous work for centuries with no copyright or patent protection, and nothing more than honor, citation, and shame against plagiarists. The fundamental defense made by many is that without patent protection for software, people would not put much effort into innovating. 1) If you look at science, open source, fashion, food, and other areas where humans continually build on culture, you see plenty of continued innovation without insane legal protection. 2) The amount of effort pales in comparison to the monopoly granted. You could make the argument for say, pharmaceuticals, that if it takes 10 years from lab through human trials and hundreds of millions of dollars, that a 2-decade long protection period might be needed. But there is no FDA for software, and Apple actually spends far less on R&D than other companies, and with $100 billion in the bank, you can't claim that haven't gotten an incredibly good return in their investment. Therefore, it is insane to grant 20 year protection to Apple for stuff like pinch gestures. 2 years maybe. But 20? It's absurd.

fffggg 14y ago
Regarding the expense of clinical trials, it's important to note that the scientific results of a clinical trial are not protected by either patent or copyright. Pure research data cannot be restricted under any form of IP. Factual data without a creative element is explicitly exempted from both the patent and copyright system. A published paper on the results of a trial may fall under copyright, but the factual observations and conclusions cannot be. The "clinical trials are expensive" argument is incredibly disingenuous.
mbell 14y ago
> One interesting point is he brought up Einstein's invention of relativity. He didn't invent, he discovered. I'm not just being pedantic, I think the approaches signified by these two words goes to the root of the differences your describing.
- Peaker 14y ago
  I believe patents apply to discoveries in the same way as inventions.
  - podperson 14y ago
    "You can patent pretty much anything under the sun that is made by man except laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. These categories are excluded subject matter from the scope of patents." You believe incorrectly. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-cant-be-patented.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-cant-be-p...
    - jmcqk6 14y ago
      Tell that to the companies that have patented genetic sequences.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    No. One can discover mathematics, but mathematics cannot be patented. One can discover an ancient civilization ... and so forth. There are many more examples, and they're not patentable.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      One could discover a gene sequence that ... oh, wait.
    - cromwellian 14y ago
      RSA encryption is pure number theory math and it was patented.
- mtgx 14y ago
  Apple could say they "discovered" how to do pinch to zoom well or something.
  - 14y ago
ghshephard 14y ago
Just to keep things fact based, the recent court case against samsung did not cite the "Pinch-to-zoo-after-finger-contact-has-been-broken-and-restarted patent of 7,812,826. You can read that patent here: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 And, even thought that patent was _not_ referenced in the case, you will see it's a particular multi-touch behavior _associated with pinch-to-zoom_ that apple is claiming a process invention against, not pinch to zoom. It's actually quite clever. See: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoo... for good details on this myth. Note - others have patented Pinch-to-Zoom far before Apple came to the stage.
- vacri 14y ago
  You don't have to contest the patent for it to be suppressing others' design. I once worked for a company that made a humidifying air pump. We had to have the water tank held in with a removable flap rather than a door because our main competitor had patented 'holding the tank in with a hinged flap/door'. Sure, you could fight it in court, down the track, after hardware design (which is much more expensive than people realise). Or you could move onto the next problem and have a slightly inferior product. Patents on trivial things stifle innovation.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    The points I was trying to make (and clearly failed) is that Apple does not have a patent on pinch to zoom, so they couldn't contest the patent on it, because it doesn't belong to them.
    - vacri 14y ago
      Something funny is going on - I don't recall doing my reply against this particular comment, I think it was meant to be against a different comment about patents being trivial to work around or somesuch. Probably human error on my part, my apologies.
- ender7 14y ago
podperson 14y ago
> But 20? It's absurd. If pinch and zoom is such a trivial thing then invent some other thing to use instead. The patent system by-and-large doesn't pick and choose patent durations based on the kind of patent. Theoretical physics and patentable technology are quite different things and the comparison is not helpful. Before patents we had a guild system where people who made almost anything -- pottery, telescopes, pots and pans -- would obfuscate their techniques and if possible their products. Knowledge of key manufacturing processes was a trade secret. This is the world that we'd be in without patent protections.
- cromwellian 14y ago
  Trivial doesn't mean valueless. A "1 click buy" patent is trivial, but forcing everyone to "invent something else instead" (e.g. 2 clicks) is stupid. And what if 2-click is patented? Then the next guy to come along has to have a 3-click system, or some obfuscation that convinces a jury. Pretty soon, consumers are confused, because every website they go to has a radically different user interface brought on by patents on ideas that should be basic commodities. When we had the guild system, we also didn't have universal public education, and instantaneous near zero cost publication of ideas. Plus, you analogy makes pinch-zoom patents look even worse. You can keep how it is implemented a complete trade secret, and from looking at it for a few seconds, I can produce an equivalent implementation. Apple has already obfuscated their techniques anyway. Why not release iOS as open source then, if it's protected by patents? The reality is, these patents are read by no one except lawyers, and in many cases, they under specify the implementation by being very abstract. I really don't see how anyone who writes software for a living can defend these things and defend the status quo of not even supporting reform. You are asserting that something like an XOR-cursor (another dumb patent) is equivalent to a manufacturing process deserving 20 year protection?
  - podperson 14y ago
    > I really don't see how anyone who writes software for a living can defend these things and defend the status quo of not even supporting reform. I agree that it seems like things are a bit screwy right now, but I don't claim to know what the solution is, and I'm not sure that things haven't always been a bit screwy (Alexander Graham Bell got the telephone patent because he was ahead of some other guy in line, Farnsworth died poor having invented TV). Abolishing software patents is -- in my opinion -- not the solution since -- given the direction technology is headed -- this is going to be disturbingly similar to abolishing patents altogether. Most suggested "reforms" of the patent system seem to satisfy Mencken's criteria ("neat, simple, and wrong") Note that genetic and chemical-engineering patents are pretty close to software too. 1-click is one of my least favorite patents, but it really comes down to an argument about obviousness -- an argument it appears to have lost in Europe (where the patent was never granted). The patent has been challenged, most of its claims thrown out, and its remaining claims narrowed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click I'd suggest that in the end its a question of application not theory. In this case the Europeans have arguably done a better job of applying patent law than the US.
kyro 14y ago
I don't think you're aware of the sheer magnitude of revenue that pharmaceutical companies make. They often mark-up their drugs by 1000%.
- erichocean 14y ago
  I've sold software with a crazy markup too. Something like 100,000,000%! Because it's very cheap (far less than a penny) to duplicate the software, but I sold it online for $99. Pharmaceutical companies do the same thing. It's not the pill that's expensive, it's designing it. Same with software.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    The difference being that your software probably isn't going to save anyone's life. While a specific chemical compound designed for that purpose probably can. There is a clear moral difference.
huxley 14y ago
You'll need to remove fashion from that list, patent litigation is becoming much more common: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/12/design-patents-and-the-fashion-industry.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/12/design-patents-and-t... http://www.elle.com/news/fashion-style/lululemon-sues-calvin-klein-over-yoga-pants http://www.elle.com/news/fashion-style/lululemon-sues-calvin...
mamcx 14y ago
Actually exist statements from Apple that say "We invent this" when in fact not? Because my perception is that people accused apple of that, but I don't remenber them saying that...
echaozh 14y ago
I don't even think medicines should be patented. I think government should fund the R&D and then let all companies manufacture and sell it at a low price. Then it is even better than medicare. The government can sell the production method to other countries for a profit though.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Yeah I am sure government is the right place to fund innovation! (See how the NASA has been productive vs SpaceX for example) - and why don't you let the government run the production of cars, as well ? Oh wait, we tried that before. That gave Skoda and the Trabant in Eastern Europe. Clear examples how professional government sponsored innovation was. No, thanks.
- briandear 14y ago
  That's not government's role unless you're in Soviet Russia. The free market drives more innovation that government ever has. The Lada and the Yugo are great examples of what happens when central planners try to run things. Besides, if people aren't going to profit from their hard work, what's the incentive for hard work? I don't write code everyday for the good of humanity, I do it to try and build something someone wants to buy so I can improve my lot in life. Besides, if companies don't profit, they won't do and then you have a downward economic spiral of decreasing tax revenues and ever increasing tax rates to fund the government's work which then drives even less economic activity because the incentive is reduced. The role of government is to protect life, freedom and property. As soon as the government gets involved in microeconomic transactions, the efficiency declines. Comparing the US Postal Servie and Amtrack to Southwest Airlines and FedEx illustrates this perfectly. The government should regulate markets only as much as necessary to ensure that the markets function. They shouldn't be running the markets themselves. The lack of tort reform is one of the key drivers to the insane cost of drugs and medical care. When a drug company has multi-million dollar exposure for every drug they produce, it's going to raise the cost. OB-GYN docs pay several hundred thousand dollars per year in malpractice insurance because one mistake has them on the hook for multi-million dollar punitive judgements. Government should be a referee, not a player. It should provide a safety net from complete destitution, but not serve as an insurance policy against failure. The GM bailout is a great example of what government should not be doing. When the government starts meddling in private business (i.e. pouring money into it,) it distorts the market and makes it much harder for innovative new players to enter the market. The Tucker car from the 1950s is a perfect illustration. The big three in Detroit threw around political muscle to effectively shut down a car company that built safer cars. If government had stayed out, we would have had seat belts and pop-out windshields years earlier. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" are still the scariest words one can hear in America.
richardw 14y ago
It's not a 20 year monopoly. Many Android manufacturers are paying Microsoft for their patents. What prevents them from licensing Apple's patents? I don't care which phone I use, because they're (mostly) all pretty good now. But wow, I remember the Microsoft WM5 heap that I had just before my iPhone. It was a testament to terrible UI. It had more widgets than my old Palm5 but was somehow far less usable. Not some rubbish knock-off, the premier phone from HTC running the software from the world's software monopoly, and it was terrible. I made vows never to use another Windows phone again after that. Version 5 and it was still crap. With the iPhone, Apple's first version knocked it out of the park. First try. And changed the industry, yet everyone thinks it was all obvious or people should be able to use their ideas freely. There is obviously a balance between Apple-owns-all and everything-goes. Apple should benefit from their patents like every other company does, but others should be able to license them under reasonable terms. Until we finally dump all software patents, this seems like a reasonable compromise. PS. - pharmaceuticals usually get a full-on monopoly for the full period. Software makers usually cross-license, so there is a difference. PPS. - Apple's 100bn in the bank just show how far behind everyone else was at the time. Took ages to catch up.
- guelo 14y ago
  Apple hasn't offered to license their patents, they want to kill Android. BTW, I liked my WM5 phone.
  - czr80 14y ago
    Sigh. So much misinformation, so little time... http://allthingsd.com/20120810/breaking-apple-offered-to-license-its-patents-to-samsung-for-30-per-smartphone-40-per-tablet/ http://allthingsd.com/20120810/breaking-apple-offered-to-lic...
  - aisenik 14y ago
    They offered to license them to Samsung.
    - eco 14y ago
eckyptang 14y ago
Einstein didn't invent relativity - it was already there. That's why people in the scientific community rarely get miffed at people. They're not innovating or inventing - they are discovering. There need be no software patents on the basis that software takes time to reproduce and that is your guarantee. The implementation is where the cost is. If the idea is obvious and trivial (like pinch gestures), then you probably don't deserve a head start.
- Thrymr 14y ago
  People in the scientific community often "get miffed at people." They rarely sue anyone for it, however.
smartkids 14y ago
It's possible that innovation, specifically scientific progress that leads to innovation, actually relies on scientists sharing stuff with collaborators that patent lawyers would not want them to share. The patent lawyers might often be "the last to know". It's possible that many scientists often put their own scientific goals, which stand to enrich the scientific community as a whole, before the business goals of the employers they work for. Something tells me that Apple's patent lawyers do not have this problem with Apple engineers. Not that I consider software developers to be scientists but I wonder if there are any Apple engineers contributing to open source projects or even just publishing the occasional research paper. Doesn't Apple have rules that keep all their employees from talking to anyone outside of Apple under threat of immediate termination? No FDA for software. You can say that again. There's also no Medicaid, Medicare or health insurance that pays for it.

fffggg 14y ago

Regarding the expense of clinical trials, it's important to note that the scientific results of a clinical trial are not protected by either patent or copyright. Pure research data cannot be restricted under any form of IP. Factual data without a creative element is explicitly exempted from both the patent and copyright system. A published paper on the results of a trial may fall under copyright, but the factual observations and conclusions cannot be. The "clinical trials are expensive" argument is incredibly disingenuous.

mbell 14y ago

> One interesting point is he brought up Einstein's invention of relativity. He didn't invent, he discovered. I'm not just being pedantic, I think the approaches signified by these two words goes to the root of the differences your describing.

Peaker 14y ago
I believe patents apply to discoveries in the same way as inventions.
- podperson 14y ago
  "You can patent pretty much anything under the sun that is made by man except laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. These categories are excluded subject matter from the scope of patents." You believe incorrectly. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-cant-be-patented.html http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-cant-be-p...
  - jmcqk6 14y ago
    Tell that to the companies that have patented genetic sequences.
- lutusp 14y ago
  No. One can discover mathematics, but mathematics cannot be patented. One can discover an ancient civilization ... and so forth. There are many more examples, and they're not patentable.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    One could discover a gene sequence that ... oh, wait.
  - cromwellian 14y ago
    RSA encryption is pure number theory math and it was patented.
mtgx 14y ago
Apple could say they "discovered" how to do pinch to zoom well or something.
- 14y ago

ghshephard 14y ago

Just to keep things fact based, the recent court case against samsung did not cite the "Pinch-to-zoo-after-finger-contact-has-been-broken-and-restarted patent of 7,812,826. You can read that patent here: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 And, even thought that patent was _not_ referenced in the case, you will see it's a particular multi-touch behavior _associated with pinch-to-zoom_ that apple is claiming a process invention against, not pinch to zoom. It's actually quite clever. See: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoo... for good details on this myth. Note - others have patented Pinch-to-Zoom far before Apple came to the stage.

vacri 14y ago
You don't have to contest the patent for it to be suppressing others' design. I once worked for a company that made a humidifying air pump. We had to have the water tank held in with a removable flap rather than a door because our main competitor had patented 'holding the tank in with a hinged flap/door'. Sure, you could fight it in court, down the track, after hardware design (which is much more expensive than people realise). Or you could move onto the next problem and have a slightly inferior product. Patents on trivial things stifle innovation.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  The points I was trying to make (and clearly failed) is that Apple does not have a patent on pinch to zoom, so they couldn't contest the patent on it, because it doesn't belong to them.
  - vacri 14y ago
    Something funny is going on - I don't recall doing my reply against this particular comment, I think it was meant to be against a different comment about patents being trivial to work around or somesuch. Probably human error on my part, my apologies.
ender7 14y ago

podperson 14y ago

> But 20? It's absurd. If pinch and zoom is such a trivial thing then invent some other thing to use instead. The patent system by-and-large doesn't pick and choose patent durations based on the kind of patent. Theoretical physics and patentable technology are quite different things and the comparison is not helpful. Before patents we had a guild system where people who made almost anything -- pottery, telescopes, pots and pans -- would obfuscate their techniques and if possible their products. Knowledge of key manufacturing processes was a trade secret. This is the world that we'd be in without patent protections.

cromwellian 14y ago
Trivial doesn't mean valueless. A "1 click buy" patent is trivial, but forcing everyone to "invent something else instead" (e.g. 2 clicks) is stupid. And what if 2-click is patented? Then the next guy to come along has to have a 3-click system, or some obfuscation that convinces a jury. Pretty soon, consumers are confused, because every website they go to has a radically different user interface brought on by patents on ideas that should be basic commodities. When we had the guild system, we also didn't have universal public education, and instantaneous near zero cost publication of ideas. Plus, you analogy makes pinch-zoom patents look even worse. You can keep how it is implemented a complete trade secret, and from looking at it for a few seconds, I can produce an equivalent implementation. Apple has already obfuscated their techniques anyway. Why not release iOS as open source then, if it's protected by patents? The reality is, these patents are read by no one except lawyers, and in many cases, they under specify the implementation by being very abstract. I really don't see how anyone who writes software for a living can defend these things and defend the status quo of not even supporting reform. You are asserting that something like an XOR-cursor (another dumb patent) is equivalent to a manufacturing process deserving 20 year protection?
- podperson 14y ago
  > I really don't see how anyone who writes software for a living can defend these things and defend the status quo of not even supporting reform. I agree that it seems like things are a bit screwy right now, but I don't claim to know what the solution is, and I'm not sure that things haven't always been a bit screwy (Alexander Graham Bell got the telephone patent because he was ahead of some other guy in line, Farnsworth died poor having invented TV). Abolishing software patents is -- in my opinion -- not the solution since -- given the direction technology is headed -- this is going to be disturbingly similar to abolishing patents altogether. Most suggested "reforms" of the patent system seem to satisfy Mencken's criteria ("neat, simple, and wrong") Note that genetic and chemical-engineering patents are pretty close to software too. 1-click is one of my least favorite patents, but it really comes down to an argument about obviousness -- an argument it appears to have lost in Europe (where the patent was never granted). The patent has been challenged, most of its claims thrown out, and its remaining claims narrowed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click I'd suggest that in the end its a question of application not theory. In this case the Europeans have arguably done a better job of applying patent law than the US.

kyro 14y ago

I don't think you're aware of the sheer magnitude of revenue that pharmaceutical companies make. They often mark-up their drugs by 1000%.

erichocean 14y ago
I've sold software with a crazy markup too. Something like 100,000,000%! Because it's very cheap (far less than a penny) to duplicate the software, but I sold it online for $99. Pharmaceutical companies do the same thing. It's not the pill that's expensive, it's designing it. Same with software.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  The difference being that your software probably isn't going to save anyone's life. While a specific chemical compound designed for that purpose probably can. There is a clear moral difference.

huxley 14y ago

You'll need to remove fashion from that list, patent litigation is becoming much more common: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/12/design-patents-and-the-fashion-industry.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/12/design-patents-and-t... http://www.elle.com/news/fashion-style/lululemon-sues-calvin-klein-over-yoga-pants http://www.elle.com/news/fashion-style/lululemon-sues-calvin...

mamcx 14y ago

Actually exist statements from Apple that say "We invent this" when in fact not? Because my perception is that people accused apple of that, but I don't remenber them saying that...

echaozh 14y ago

I don't even think medicines should be patented. I think government should fund the R&D and then let all companies manufacture and sell it at a low price. Then it is even better than medicare. The government can sell the production method to other countries for a profit though.

ekianjo 14y ago
Yeah I am sure government is the right place to fund innovation! (See how the NASA has been productive vs SpaceX for example) - and why don't you let the government run the production of cars, as well ? Oh wait, we tried that before. That gave Skoda and the Trabant in Eastern Europe. Clear examples how professional government sponsored innovation was. No, thanks.
briandear 14y ago
That's not government's role unless you're in Soviet Russia. The free market drives more innovation that government ever has. The Lada and the Yugo are great examples of what happens when central planners try to run things. Besides, if people aren't going to profit from their hard work, what's the incentive for hard work? I don't write code everyday for the good of humanity, I do it to try and build something someone wants to buy so I can improve my lot in life. Besides, if companies don't profit, they won't do and then you have a downward economic spiral of decreasing tax revenues and ever increasing tax rates to fund the government's work which then drives even less economic activity because the incentive is reduced. The role of government is to protect life, freedom and property. As soon as the government gets involved in microeconomic transactions, the efficiency declines. Comparing the US Postal Servie and Amtrack to Southwest Airlines and FedEx illustrates this perfectly. The government should regulate markets only as much as necessary to ensure that the markets function. They shouldn't be running the markets themselves. The lack of tort reform is one of the key drivers to the insane cost of drugs and medical care. When a drug company has multi-million dollar exposure for every drug they produce, it's going to raise the cost. OB-GYN docs pay several hundred thousand dollars per year in malpractice insurance because one mistake has them on the hook for multi-million dollar punitive judgements. Government should be a referee, not a player. It should provide a safety net from complete destitution, but not serve as an insurance policy against failure. The GM bailout is a great example of what government should not be doing. When the government starts meddling in private business (i.e. pouring money into it,) it distorts the market and makes it much harder for innovative new players to enter the market. The Tucker car from the 1950s is a perfect illustration. The big three in Detroit threw around political muscle to effectively shut down a car company that built safer cars. If government had stayed out, we would have had seat belts and pop-out windshields years earlier. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" are still the scariest words one can hear in America.

richardw 14y ago

It's not a 20 year monopoly. Many Android manufacturers are paying Microsoft for their patents. What prevents them from licensing Apple's patents? I don't care which phone I use, because they're (mostly) all pretty good now. But wow, I remember the Microsoft WM5 heap that I had just before my iPhone. It was a testament to terrible UI. It had more widgets than my old Palm5 but was somehow far less usable. Not some rubbish knock-off, the premier phone from HTC running the software from the world's software monopoly, and it was terrible. I made vows never to use another Windows phone again after that. Version 5 and it was still crap. With the iPhone, Apple's first version knocked it out of the park. First try. And changed the industry, yet everyone thinks it was all obvious or people should be able to use their ideas freely. There is obviously a balance between Apple-owns-all and everything-goes. Apple should benefit from their patents like every other company does, but others should be able to license them under reasonable terms. Until we finally dump all software patents, this seems like a reasonable compromise. PS. - pharmaceuticals usually get a full-on monopoly for the full period. Software makers usually cross-license, so there is a difference. PPS. - Apple's 100bn in the bank just show how far behind everyone else was at the time. Took ages to catch up.

guelo 14y ago
Apple hasn't offered to license their patents, they want to kill Android. BTW, I liked my WM5 phone.
- czr80 14y ago
  Sigh. So much misinformation, so little time... http://allthingsd.com/20120810/breaking-apple-offered-to-license-its-patents-to-samsung-for-30-per-smartphone-40-per-tablet/ http://allthingsd.com/20120810/breaking-apple-offered-to-lic...
- aisenik 14y ago
  They offered to license them to Samsung.
  - eco 14y ago

eckyptang 14y ago

Einstein didn't invent relativity - it was already there. That's why people in the scientific community rarely get miffed at people. They're not innovating or inventing - they are discovering. There need be no software patents on the basis that software takes time to reproduce and that is your guarantee. The implementation is where the cost is. If the idea is obvious and trivial (like pinch gestures), then you probably don't deserve a head start.

Thrymr 14y ago
People in the scientific community often "get miffed at people." They rarely sue anyone for it, however.

smartkids 14y ago

It's possible that innovation, specifically scientific progress that leads to innovation, actually relies on scientists sharing stuff with collaborators that patent lawyers would not want them to share. The patent lawyers might often be "the last to know". It's possible that many scientists often put their own scientific goals, which stand to enrich the scientific community as a whole, before the business goals of the employers they work for. Something tells me that Apple's patent lawyers do not have this problem with Apple engineers. Not that I consider software developers to be scientists but I wonder if there are any Apple engineers contributing to open source projects or even just publishing the occasional research paper. Doesn't Apple have rules that keep all their employees from talking to anyone outside of Apple under threat of immediate termination? No FDA for software. You can say that again. There's also no Medicaid, Medicare or health insurance that pays for it.