6 ms·

I can't view the link because it's expired, so I'll just post my rant here. The entire point of patents, as delineated in the U.S. Constitution, is "To promote

by defen 14y ago

I can't view the link because it's expired, so I'll just post my rant here. The entire point of patents, as delineated in the U.S. Constitution, is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." So patents are a means, of securing an end, which is "the progress of science and useful arts". Is anyone actually arguing at this point that our current patent regime is accomplishing this end? Would the world be a better place if git and github did not exist, and the only entity that could use the technologies in these patents were the patent holders?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jabiko 14y ago
Press release: http://news.priorsmart.com/personalweb-technologies-v-rackspace-l6JD/ http://news.priorsmart.com/personalweb-technologies-v-racksp... Complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106190890/PersonalWeb-Technologies-et-al-v-Rackspace-et-al http://www.scribd.com/doc/106190890/PersonalWeb-Technologies...
luriel 14y ago
> Is anyone actually arguing at this point that our current patent regime is accomplishing this end? All through history patents have always hindered innovation and progress, and there is plenty of research to back this up: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h... I think it should be obvious by now for anyone that we are well past the point where the system is fixable, the only solution is to abolish it or it will again become captured by trolls, oligopolies and lawyers and used to crush anyone doing anything innovative and useful.
- kiba 14y ago
  I read Tim Wu's The Master Switch, and even there patents are often used as a weapon to monopolize or terrorize competitors.
- maratd 14y ago
  Nice sentiment. I share it. It's also a waste of breath. > trolls, oligopolies and lawyers Every member of that group is well funded, highly connected, and very aggressive. They are ready to devote untold resources to crush your sentiment and should that fail, to redirect your reform efforts into a more palatable outcome. Every piece of legislation is a compromise between competing interests and their competing interest guarantees that the system will never be abolished. A far more successful strategy would be to chip away at the fringes. Add restrictions and more bureaucracy until the system becomes cumbersome for even the most resourceful player to use. Bit by bit, piece by piece. Add complexity until it collapses on its own.
  - ortusdux 14y ago
    Step one: variable patent lengths.
    - regularfry 14y ago
      Or an automatic re-examination on litigation.
      - PatentTroll 14y ago
        The results of the re-exam would always be litigated, every time.
        regularfry 14y ago
        That's still an improvement.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      On what basis would the length be determined?
  - diminish 14y ago
    Apple -a beloved public fetish - and its patent wins have paved the way for the attack of the patent empires and rogue states, in broader public opinion. Forget abolishing patents, I would expect more litigations and monetization attempts from software patent holders and a more proprietary, closed world for a decade or so; till the heritage of the "new Apple" erodes. ++@betterth Because Apple is more positively perceived by media, lawmakers and general public in comparison to unnamed companies which are quickly named as "trolls", Apple's patent wins created more sympathy towards patents. By "paved the way" I just mean that, in public opinion, patents are justified, because people think "Apple deserves to sue others, so patents must be good".
- davidw 14y ago
  Here's the Amazon link, just for fun: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001E9731A/?tag=dedasys-20 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001E9731A/?tag=dedasys-20 The author - or one of them, at least - Michele Boldrin is a very bright guy, who also does a lot of writing in Italian here: http://noisefromamerika.org/ http://noisefromamerika.org/ And has a hand in starting a political movement in Italy, here: http://fermareildeclino.it/ http://fermareildeclino.it/ He also happens to be from Padova, my home away from home in Italy, although I've never had the occasion to meet him, as he lives and works in the US. Worth noting though, that the book itself does not appear to be available under a free license...
geoka9 14y ago
I don't think software patents in the US will be abolished any time soon. The affected parties that have the most clout with the lawmakers (large software companies) chose to hoard up billions in patent portfolios for themselves, instead of lobbying for a patent reform. I can't imagine them writing off those huge assets; it's a deadlock now.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  Well they could simply stop issuing new (software) patents, and within 20 years (I believe) there would be no more (software) patents.
snowwrestler 14y ago
Patents cover areas of technology where developing a solution that can be commercialized at scale is much, much more expensive than software. Without patents, how is a pharma company expected to pay the enormous cost of research, development, and FDA approval of new drugs? Let's not let obvious flaws in software IP protection condemn the concept of patents in general.
- defen 14y ago
  Pharmaceuticals definitely seem to be an exception, since the time + cost of developing a drug (years + billions of dollars) is so staggeringly large compared to the cost of manufacturing / copying. So maybe there needs to be a special type of patent that only applies to drugs and treatments for medical conditions. Going up one level though - how much has society truly benefitted from the billions (trillions?) of dollars that have been spent on developing new drugs? This is admittedly a field I know very little about, but to what extent are improvements in quality of life / life expectancy in the U.S. in the past 40 years due to new drugs, vs better diet, exercise, reductions in smoking, better emergency medicine, occupational safety regulations, safer cars, etc?
  - cpeterso 14y ago
    Some reports claim the pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on marketing and promotion as it does on research and development. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht...
- ktizo 14y ago
  Without patents, how is a pharma company expected to pay the enormous cost of research, development, and FDA approval of new drugs? Well the obvious answer would be through some form of tax based scheme that then plows the money into research primarily based on clinical need, which funnily enough is how a hell of a lot of the drugs that are actually useful get developed currently. But expanding these kind of solutions is very unpopular in the states from what I gather, apart from in the case of weaponry, so how about some form of kickstarter for medical research? People throw loads of money at products that don't and may never exist on there, so you should be able to get tonnes of cash by just repeating the word "cancer" a lot. [edit] I went off and found some figures on this: "In 1999 the National Cancer Policy Board conducted a survey of federal and nonfederal sources of cancer research funding [ 11]. The board found, for the fiscal year 1996/1997, that the total amount spent on cancer research funding was US$5.165 billion. The three major contributors were (1) federal funding, US$3.060 billion (almost entirely from National Cancer Institute); (2) industry funding, US$1.6 billion; and (3) funding by nonprofit organisations (e.g., Howard Hughes Medical Institute, American Cancer Society, Komen Foundation), US$305 million." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513045/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513045/ So, for cancer at least, government and charity funding combined, dwarfs the amount spent by the pharmaceutical industry on research in the US.
ktizo 14y ago
Would the world be a better place if git and github did not exist No, but certain people think they would be richer. Unfortunately the idea of increasing general wealth through the expansion of the commons is one that also makes the same people scared shitless, even if they themselves benefit. If you view the economy as a zero sum game, which might hold true, but only if you include the entire universe in your economic model, then you can only do better if others do worse. So those who hold that as a principle cannot even conceive of the idea that things like git being available might just be better for everyone as they genuinely believe that a gain by the majority is a loss to themselves.
- pdonis 14y ago
  > If you view the economy as a zero sum game, which might hold true, but only if you include the entire universe in your economic model This is the best way of putting this point I have ever seen.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Thank you. :) Was from thinking what "any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players" actually meant, when applied to the physical world.

by defen 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jabiko 14y ago

Press release: http://news.priorsmart.com/personalweb-technologies-v-rackspace-l6JD/ http://news.priorsmart.com/personalweb-technologies-v-racksp... Complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106190890/PersonalWeb-Technologies-et-al-v-Rackspace-et-al http://www.scribd.com/doc/106190890/PersonalWeb-Technologies...

luriel 14y ago

> Is anyone actually arguing at this point that our current patent regime is accomplishing this end? All through history patents have always hindered innovation and progress, and there is plenty of research to back this up: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h... I think it should be obvious by now for anyone that we are well past the point where the system is fixable, the only solution is to abolish it or it will again become captured by trolls, oligopolies and lawyers and used to crush anyone doing anything innovative and useful.

kiba 14y ago
I read Tim Wu's The Master Switch, and even there patents are often used as a weapon to monopolize or terrorize competitors.
maratd 14y ago
Nice sentiment. I share it. It's also a waste of breath. > trolls, oligopolies and lawyers Every member of that group is well funded, highly connected, and very aggressive. They are ready to devote untold resources to crush your sentiment and should that fail, to redirect your reform efforts into a more palatable outcome. Every piece of legislation is a compromise between competing interests and their competing interest guarantees that the system will never be abolished. A far more successful strategy would be to chip away at the fringes. Add restrictions and more bureaucracy until the system becomes cumbersome for even the most resourceful player to use. Bit by bit, piece by piece. Add complexity until it collapses on its own.
- ortusdux 14y ago
  Step one: variable patent lengths.
  - regularfry 14y ago
    Or an automatic re-examination on litigation.
    - PatentTroll 14y ago
      The results of the re-exam would always be litigated, every time.
      - regularfry 14y ago
        That's still an improvement.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    On what basis would the length be determined?
- diminish 14y ago
  Apple -a beloved public fetish - and its patent wins have paved the way for the attack of the patent empires and rogue states, in broader public opinion. Forget abolishing patents, I would expect more litigations and monetization attempts from software patent holders and a more proprietary, closed world for a decade or so; till the heritage of the "new Apple" erodes. ++@betterth Because Apple is more positively perceived by media, lawmakers and general public in comparison to unnamed companies which are quickly named as "trolls", Apple's patent wins created more sympathy towards patents. By "paved the way" I just mean that, in public opinion, patents are justified, because people think "Apple deserves to sue others, so patents must be good".
davidw 14y ago
Here's the Amazon link, just for fun: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001E9731A/?tag=dedasys-20 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001E9731A/?tag=dedasys-20 The author - or one of them, at least - Michele Boldrin is a very bright guy, who also does a lot of writing in Italian here: http://noisefromamerika.org/ http://noisefromamerika.org/ And has a hand in starting a political movement in Italy, here: http://fermareildeclino.it/ http://fermareildeclino.it/ He also happens to be from Padova, my home away from home in Italy, although I've never had the occasion to meet him, as he lives and works in the US. Worth noting though, that the book itself does not appear to be available under a free license...

geoka9 14y ago

I don't think software patents in the US will be abolished any time soon. The affected parties that have the most clout with the lawmakers (large software companies) chose to hoard up billions in patent portfolios for themselves, instead of lobbying for a patent reform. I can't imagine them writing off those huge assets; it's a deadlock now.

andreasvc 14y ago
Well they could simply stop issuing new (software) patents, and within 20 years (I believe) there would be no more (software) patents.

snowwrestler 14y ago

Patents cover areas of technology where developing a solution that can be commercialized at scale is much, much more expensive than software. Without patents, how is a pharma company expected to pay the enormous cost of research, development, and FDA approval of new drugs? Let's not let obvious flaws in software IP protection condemn the concept of patents in general.

defen 14y ago
Pharmaceuticals definitely seem to be an exception, since the time + cost of developing a drug (years + billions of dollars) is so staggeringly large compared to the cost of manufacturing / copying. So maybe there needs to be a special type of patent that only applies to drugs and treatments for medical conditions. Going up one level though - how much has society truly benefitted from the billions (trillions?) of dollars that have been spent on developing new drugs? This is admittedly a field I know very little about, but to what extent are improvements in quality of life / life expectancy in the U.S. in the past 40 years due to new drugs, vs better diet, exercise, reductions in smoking, better emergency medicine, occupational safety regulations, safer cars, etc?
- cpeterso 14y ago
  Some reports claim the pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on marketing and promotion as it does on research and development. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht...
ktizo 14y ago
Without patents, how is a pharma company expected to pay the enormous cost of research, development, and FDA approval of new drugs? Well the obvious answer would be through some form of tax based scheme that then plows the money into research primarily based on clinical need, which funnily enough is how a hell of a lot of the drugs that are actually useful get developed currently. But expanding these kind of solutions is very unpopular in the states from what I gather, apart from in the case of weaponry, so how about some form of kickstarter for medical research? People throw loads of money at products that don't and may never exist on there, so you should be able to get tonnes of cash by just repeating the word "cancer" a lot. [edit] I went off and found some figures on this: "In 1999 the National Cancer Policy Board conducted a survey of federal and nonfederal sources of cancer research funding [ 11]. The board found, for the fiscal year 1996/1997, that the total amount spent on cancer research funding was US$5.165 billion. The three major contributors were (1) federal funding, US$3.060 billion (almost entirely from National Cancer Institute); (2) industry funding, US$1.6 billion; and (3) funding by nonprofit organisations (e.g., Howard Hughes Medical Institute, American Cancer Society, Komen Foundation), US$305 million." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513045/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513045/ So, for cancer at least, government and charity funding combined, dwarfs the amount spent by the pharmaceutical industry on research in the US.

ktizo 14y ago

Would the world be a better place if git and github did not exist No, but certain people think they would be richer. Unfortunately the idea of increasing general wealth through the expansion of the commons is one that also makes the same people scared shitless, even if they themselves benefit. If you view the economy as a zero sum game, which might hold true, but only if you include the entire universe in your economic model, then you can only do better if others do worse. So those who hold that as a principle cannot even conceive of the idea that things like git being available might just be better for everyone as they genuinely believe that a gain by the majority is a loss to themselves.

pdonis 14y ago
> If you view the economy as a zero sum game, which might hold true, but only if you include the entire universe in your economic model This is the best way of putting this point I have ever seen.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Thank you. :) Was from thinking what "any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players" actually meant, when applied to the physical world.