5 ms·

The US Patent law, and the "entire patent system" are not broken. A lot of very vocal HNers like to go on ideological rants along these lines, but when pressed

by nirvana 14y ago

The US Patent law, and the "entire patent system" are not broken. A lot of very vocal HNers like to go on ideological rants along these lines, but when pressed for specifics they generally cannot back them up (eg: they haven't even read the patents in question, or don't know the difference between a utility patent and a design patent, or even what design or utility patents cover.) In fact, I have yet to meet someone who opposes the current patent system who understood what patents are. Anti-IP propaganda claiming that the patent system is "doing damage" by measuring the enforcement of patents against people will be good for ideological arguments but actually be pointless. Because it comes from that lack of understanding of the benefit patents provide. Patents incentivize the publication of inventions so that others, who may not have been up to speed on the state of the art, can come up to speed and start competing. They also disincentivize the need to obfuscate or protect your inventions using physical or technological means, which improves repairability and in fact, enabled the entire standard-component industrial sector we have that has allowed integrated circuits to be such a big part of our lives. Without patents, technological progress would be severely restricted-- not because there "would be no incentive to invent" (a straw-man that anti-IP people seem fond of knocking down) but because there would be vastly less communication and understanding of how other people's inventions work. And like Global Warming and "Quantitative Easing" and other nonsensical, anti-scientific, ideological positions, the proponents, rather than make or defend logical arguments for their positions, tend to use signaling like "most HNers know the US Patent law... is broken". You just presume your conclusion, and a lot of others do as well, which is why they can't make arguments and instead are forced to downvote or shout down those who make counter arguments. Since having a good argument (with well researched citations) is not a defense against downvotes on HN, your claim becomes self fulfilling-- anyone who might challenge the ideology of anti-IP with facts, logic or reason, is downvoted so you don't have to see them. Which, ironically, is why I'm posting this here. Becuase I really, really, hate to see the single mindedness, and cheering that groupthink. So, if you want to claim that the system is broken, feel free to make an argument, and feel free to account for the factors I briefly touched on.

ericdykstra 14y ago
I'm not an expert on patents in the least, but the system feels broken when a company can be awarded $1B from a patent infringement lawsuit. From what I've read (I'll add sources as I find them), the patent process takes more than two years on average to get approved, patent examiners are given patents that they don't have domain expertise in, and they don't get enough time to review patents. It seems, on the outside, that lots of money and time is spent on patent lawsuits and purchasing patent portfolios and none of it really leads to the advancement of anything besides lawyers and lawsuits. Do you think the patent system is fine how it is, or is there reform you would like to see?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Here's a counter example: ARM. In ARM's case, patents serve a valuable purpose: they allow a separation of concerns. The company that designs the microprocessor does not have to be the company that builds things using the microprocessor. Allowing ARM to focus on what they do best--designing microprocessors, and allowing say Samsung to focus on what they do best, manufacturing things, helps everyone. The patent in this case is simply a legal device that allows people to transact in terms of a design. Also, looking at the outlier damages award from a patent infringement isn't really meaningful, in the same way that looking at the damages award for medical malpractice isn't really meaningful. Occasionally, you'll have a jury that awards someone $10m for a stubbed toe, but if you look at comprehensive studies of medical malpractice suits you'll see that: 1) most of the time the jury is right; 2) the actual overhead of the system is 1-3% of a $1.5 trillion industry, which is tied to a profession that is otherwise almost entirely self-regulated. People tend to focus on the damages awards and think "oh that's costing the economy money" but obviously damages awards just shift money from one place to the other. The "cost" is in the litigation fees and how the law changes peoples' incentives, and that's much harder to evaluate than just looking at a big $100m judgment.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    This doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that, without patents, ARM couldn't license it's designs to Samsung? Why not? Or are you saying ARM wouldn't be able to stay in business because Samsung would just steal their designs? I don't think that is true, for the exact "expert" reasons you mention: ARM is great at designing processors. If Samsung wants reasonable updates to stay competitive with other manufacturers, they would need to pay for those experts.
tisme 14y ago
> A lot of very vocal HNers like to go on ideological rants Quite. > because there would be vastly less communication and understanding of how other people's inventions work. You must be familiar with the term 'reverse engineering'. There isn't much that can't be unwound. If secrecy of how things work was an effective protection there wouldn't be a patent system to begin with. Once you release something 'how it works' will be evident to anyone determined enough to find out.
- rayiner 14y ago
  People on HN have this view that the whole world is software. Reverse engineering may be practical and indeed trivial in software, but aren't for the circuits buried in an F-35. And publication is tremendously valuable for inventions that have cross-disciplinary value. Not many people working on artificial hearts would have the time or think to reverse engineer mechanical equipment used in a factory, even if there might be applicable inventions.
  - tisme 14y ago
    Reverse engineering has been applied to all the fields that you cite. The F-35 is a funny example in the sense that if there is one item that would be reverse engineered in its entirety down to the last transistor then it probably would be that plane if one accidentally made its way to China somehow. Nothing motivates more than a perceived gap in weapons systems ability. Reverse engineering of electronics is a solved problem, even though it may be a lot of work. Is there some proof that someone got a useful idea on how to make an artificial heart out of a patent published about mechanical equipment used in a factory? If you want to keep something secret, keep it to yourself. Monkey see, monkey do!
    - rayiner 14y ago
      It has been applied, but it's much less practical in those fields than it is in software. I'm just saying people on HN tend to see everything through the lens of software, and other engineering fields aren't the same.
nitrogen 14y ago
In fact, I have yet to meet someone who opposes the current patent system who understood what patents are. Are you talking about meeting someone on HN? How about HN user grellas, a Silicon Valley business lawyer? I doubt his arguments against the status quo are made in ignorance: http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=grellas+patent http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=grellas+pat... Edit to add: Without patents, technological progress would be severely restricted-- not because there "would be no incentive to invent" (a straw-man that anti-IP people seem fond of knocking down) but because there would be vastly less communication and understanding of how other people's inventions work. It is difficult to accept this argument when the majority of software patents we see in lawsuits are written as obtusely as possible. Software patent language is the antithesis of "communicat[ing]... how other people's inventions work."
- nirvana 14y ago
  Your response is exactly what I'm talking about. You believe, but you don't know. You can't make an argument, you point to someone else, and advocate faith. Imagine if a religious person had used that kind of "argument" to you, and referenced a priest regarding the law? It is ok to not know. And it is ok to take things on faith. The problem is, when people think that their faith means they are right and people who make arguments they can't counter are "Wrong" because it goes against their faith.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Claiming that nobody who disagrees with you knows what they are talking about is also a symptom of religious thinking. You sound exactly like your description. Have you made any arguments yourself that don't beg the question by saying that patents are good because they were intended to be? You said you've never met someone who knows what patents are and still opposes them, implying that nobody who knows is opposed to patents. I provided a proof by counterexample of someone it would be difficult for you to argue doesn't know what he is talking about. And you haven't. Instead you claim that I don't know what patents are. I do know the difference between a design patent and a utility patent (and a trademark, and copyright). I've seen good and bad examples of each. Yet I still oppose software patents, support reduced terms for all of the above except trademarks, and want to see a much higher burden of proof for a patent to be granted, and higher still for a lawsuit to proceed. I also argue that independent invention should be a defense against patent infringement that doesn't require an army of lawyers to raise. Yet somehow you will try to claim I don't know what I am talking about. The real test to distinguish rational from religious thought is the willingness to change one's mind. I'll tell you what would change mine: a plethora of incontrovetible, scientifically sound studies that prove that the harm done to and risk imposed upon small innovators and market competition is worth the benefit to society; or a solid implementation of the changes I'd like to see, that subsequently results in a collapse of innovation (collapse of any business alone does not count as a collapse of innovation). What would change your mind?
pitchups 14y ago
How about a sitting judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and one of the most respected and cited voices in intellectual property law? Judge Posner [1] http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/15/can-this-legal-heavyweight-remake-our-broken-paten.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/15/can-this-le...
cageface 14y ago
Congratulations. You've finally convinced me that an ignore list would be a good feature on HN. Listening to you rail against single-mindedness and groupthink when you're probably the single most self-righteous and closeminded and ideologically intolerant frequent poster on HN is surreal. It's really not easy to find people that are so reliably certain they have the answers to everything. You're certainly the first self-professed anarchist I've met that's a staunch proponent of patent and contract law.
- nirvana 14y ago
  The difference between me and you is, I make arguments to defend my positions, yet all you did is characterize me in a derogatory way. You are free to ignore me anytime, you don't need a new feature for that. Or you can reply to me with arguments, but you don't. In making this choice, you impeach every claim you make against me.
  - cageface 14y ago
    You will only brush off any rational argument I care to make. But let's play: you claim to be an anarchist yet are strongly in favor of patent and contract law. Explain how you can reconcile these two beliefs. Who do you imagine will enforce these laws and how?
Natsu 14y ago
USC 35 is freely available on the internet. You would be making a mistake to think that all the people who disagree with you do so because they know nothing about it. Especially when there are more than just design & utility patents out there -- http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/patdesc.htm http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/patdesc.htm
hxa7241 14y ago
Your 'publication of ideas' argument applies only to things that can be hidden. But the patent system applies to a super-set: things that are plain, too. Therefore, by your own argument, the patent system is operating beyond its justification, and so could indeed be described as 'broken'. In any case, the patent system is a trade-off -- of increasing production against restricting access (see: the standard economic model of it). If it is badly calibrated, the net effect is negative. And the current state of economic knowledge is that no-one knows whether it is set correctly (see: 'The economic structure of intellectual property law'; Landes, Posner; 2003. Conclusion, p422, s3.). When there is a whole big system, of various obvious costs, and you do not even know the net effect is positive, the sensible thing is to stop doing it (probably by phasing out), until something proves otherwise.
- nirvana 14y ago
  The patent system doesn't apply to things that are "plain", though this word is a bit broad, so it isn't clear if you mean it the way I take you to mean it. Further, I didn't say that this was the justification for it, I said that this was one of the advantages of it, and thus, even if you disagree with the advantage, that doesn't ipso facto, make the system broken. >When there is a whole big system, of various obvious costs, and you do not even know the net effect is positive, the sensible thing is to stop doing it (probably by phasing out), until something proves otherwise. Your argument also applies to government, in fact, from an economic perspective, government has a clear negative return (to the tune of $70 Trillion in the USA roughly). Get rid of the patent system by getting rid of government, and you'll have my agreement. If you think it is ok to have government but not a patent system, then there's contradiction in your positions.
noonespecial 14y ago
To be fair, most of the "trolls" that are abusing the system readily admit to not really understanding it either. They pick their targets without understanding the business of those targets solely based on the fact that they "look like companies we usually sue". They often name multiple patents with dozens of irrelevant claims hoping there's something in there that will stick. Clearly something in there is broken. I think the real contention on HN is whether or not there's a big enough baby in all that bathwater to be worth saving.

by nirvana 14y ago

ericdykstra 14y ago

I'm not an expert on patents in the least, but the system feels broken when a company can be awarded $1B from a patent infringement lawsuit. From what I've read (I'll add sources as I find them), the patent process takes more than two years on average to get approved, patent examiners are given patents that they don't have domain expertise in, and they don't get enough time to review patents. It seems, on the outside, that lots of money and time is spent on patent lawsuits and purchasing patent portfolios and none of it really leads to the advancement of anything besides lawyers and lawsuits. Do you think the patent system is fine how it is, or is there reform you would like to see?

rayiner 14y ago
Here's a counter example: ARM. In ARM's case, patents serve a valuable purpose: they allow a separation of concerns. The company that designs the microprocessor does not have to be the company that builds things using the microprocessor. Allowing ARM to focus on what they do best--designing microprocessors, and allowing say Samsung to focus on what they do best, manufacturing things, helps everyone. The patent in this case is simply a legal device that allows people to transact in terms of a design. Also, looking at the outlier damages award from a patent infringement isn't really meaningful, in the same way that looking at the damages award for medical malpractice isn't really meaningful. Occasionally, you'll have a jury that awards someone $10m for a stubbed toe, but if you look at comprehensive studies of medical malpractice suits you'll see that: 1) most of the time the jury is right; 2) the actual overhead of the system is 1-3% of a $1.5 trillion industry, which is tied to a profession that is otherwise almost entirely self-regulated. People tend to focus on the damages awards and think "oh that's costing the economy money" but obviously damages awards just shift money from one place to the other. The "cost" is in the litigation fees and how the law changes peoples' incentives, and that's much harder to evaluate than just looking at a big $100m judgment.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  This doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that, without patents, ARM couldn't license it's designs to Samsung? Why not? Or are you saying ARM wouldn't be able to stay in business because Samsung would just steal their designs? I don't think that is true, for the exact "expert" reasons you mention: ARM is great at designing processors. If Samsung wants reasonable updates to stay competitive with other manufacturers, they would need to pay for those experts.

tisme 14y ago

> A lot of very vocal HNers like to go on ideological rants Quite. > because there would be vastly less communication and understanding of how other people's inventions work. You must be familiar with the term 'reverse engineering'. There isn't much that can't be unwound. If secrecy of how things work was an effective protection there wouldn't be a patent system to begin with. Once you release something 'how it works' will be evident to anyone determined enough to find out.

rayiner 14y ago
People on HN have this view that the whole world is software. Reverse engineering may be practical and indeed trivial in software, but aren't for the circuits buried in an F-35. And publication is tremendously valuable for inventions that have cross-disciplinary value. Not many people working on artificial hearts would have the time or think to reverse engineer mechanical equipment used in a factory, even if there might be applicable inventions.
- tisme 14y ago
  Reverse engineering has been applied to all the fields that you cite. The F-35 is a funny example in the sense that if there is one item that would be reverse engineered in its entirety down to the last transistor then it probably would be that plane if one accidentally made its way to China somehow. Nothing motivates more than a perceived gap in weapons systems ability. Reverse engineering of electronics is a solved problem, even though it may be a lot of work. Is there some proof that someone got a useful idea on how to make an artificial heart out of a patent published about mechanical equipment used in a factory? If you want to keep something secret, keep it to yourself. Monkey see, monkey do!
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It has been applied, but it's much less practical in those fields than it is in software. I'm just saying people on HN tend to see everything through the lens of software, and other engineering fields aren't the same.

nitrogen 14y ago

In fact, I have yet to meet someone who opposes the current patent system who understood what patents are. Are you talking about meeting someone on HN? How about HN user grellas, a Silicon Valley business lawyer? I doubt his arguments against the status quo are made in ignorance: http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=grellas+patent http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=grellas+pat... Edit to add: Without patents, technological progress would be severely restricted-- not because there "would be no incentive to invent" (a straw-man that anti-IP people seem fond of knocking down) but because there would be vastly less communication and understanding of how other people's inventions work. It is difficult to accept this argument when the majority of software patents we see in lawsuits are written as obtusely as possible. Software patent language is the antithesis of "communicat[ing]... how other people's inventions work."

nirvana 14y ago
Your response is exactly what I'm talking about. You believe, but you don't know. You can't make an argument, you point to someone else, and advocate faith. Imagine if a religious person had used that kind of "argument" to you, and referenced a priest regarding the law? It is ok to not know. And it is ok to take things on faith. The problem is, when people think that their faith means they are right and people who make arguments they can't counter are "Wrong" because it goes against their faith.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Claiming that nobody who disagrees with you knows what they are talking about is also a symptom of religious thinking. You sound exactly like your description. Have you made any arguments yourself that don't beg the question by saying that patents are good because they were intended to be? You said you've never met someone who knows what patents are and still opposes them, implying that nobody who knows is opposed to patents. I provided a proof by counterexample of someone it would be difficult for you to argue doesn't know what he is talking about. And you haven't. Instead you claim that I don't know what patents are. I do know the difference between a design patent and a utility patent (and a trademark, and copyright). I've seen good and bad examples of each. Yet I still oppose software patents, support reduced terms for all of the above except trademarks, and want to see a much higher burden of proof for a patent to be granted, and higher still for a lawsuit to proceed. I also argue that independent invention should be a defense against patent infringement that doesn't require an army of lawyers to raise. Yet somehow you will try to claim I don't know what I am talking about. The real test to distinguish rational from religious thought is the willingness to change one's mind. I'll tell you what would change mine: a plethora of incontrovetible, scientifically sound studies that prove that the harm done to and risk imposed upon small innovators and market competition is worth the benefit to society; or a solid implementation of the changes I'd like to see, that subsequently results in a collapse of innovation (collapse of any business alone does not count as a collapse of innovation). What would change your mind?

pitchups 14y ago

How about a sitting judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and one of the most respected and cited voices in intellectual property law? Judge Posner [1] http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/15/can-this-legal-heavyweight-remake-our-broken-paten.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/15/can-this-le...

cageface 14y ago

Congratulations. You've finally convinced me that an ignore list would be a good feature on HN. Listening to you rail against single-mindedness and groupthink when you're probably the single most self-righteous and closeminded and ideologically intolerant frequent poster on HN is surreal. It's really not easy to find people that are so reliably certain they have the answers to everything. You're certainly the first self-professed anarchist I've met that's a staunch proponent of patent and contract law.

nirvana 14y ago
The difference between me and you is, I make arguments to defend my positions, yet all you did is characterize me in a derogatory way. You are free to ignore me anytime, you don't need a new feature for that. Or you can reply to me with arguments, but you don't. In making this choice, you impeach every claim you make against me.
- cageface 14y ago
  You will only brush off any rational argument I care to make. But let's play: you claim to be an anarchist yet are strongly in favor of patent and contract law. Explain how you can reconcile these two beliefs. Who do you imagine will enforce these laws and how?

Natsu 14y ago

USC 35 is freely available on the internet. You would be making a mistake to think that all the people who disagree with you do so because they know nothing about it. Especially when there are more than just design & utility patents out there -- http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/patdesc.htm http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/patdesc.htm

hxa7241 14y ago

Your 'publication of ideas' argument applies only to things that can be hidden. But the patent system applies to a super-set: things that are plain, too. Therefore, by your own argument, the patent system is operating beyond its justification, and so could indeed be described as 'broken'. In any case, the patent system is a trade-off -- of increasing production against restricting access (see: the standard economic model of it). If it is badly calibrated, the net effect is negative. And the current state of economic knowledge is that no-one knows whether it is set correctly (see: 'The economic structure of intellectual property law'; Landes, Posner; 2003. Conclusion, p422, s3.). When there is a whole big system, of various obvious costs, and you do not even know the net effect is positive, the sensible thing is to stop doing it (probably by phasing out), until something proves otherwise.

nirvana 14y ago
The patent system doesn't apply to things that are "plain", though this word is a bit broad, so it isn't clear if you mean it the way I take you to mean it. Further, I didn't say that this was the justification for it, I said that this was one of the advantages of it, and thus, even if you disagree with the advantage, that doesn't ipso facto, make the system broken. >When there is a whole big system, of various obvious costs, and you do not even know the net effect is positive, the sensible thing is to stop doing it (probably by phasing out), until something proves otherwise. Your argument also applies to government, in fact, from an economic perspective, government has a clear negative return (to the tune of $70 Trillion in the USA roughly). Get rid of the patent system by getting rid of government, and you'll have my agreement. If you think it is ok to have government but not a patent system, then there's contradiction in your positions.

noonespecial 14y ago

To be fair, most of the "trolls" that are abusing the system readily admit to not really understanding it either. They pick their targets without understanding the business of those targets solely based on the fact that they "look like companies we usually sue". They often name multiple patents with dozens of irrelevant claims hoping there's something in there that will stick. Clearly something in there is broken. I think the real contention on HN is whether or not there's a big enough baby in all that bathwater to be worth saving.