4 ms·

As usually RMS is spot on. "Can a person program a new solution to a problem?" Any answer involving "no" seems a bit like insanity. Duffy on the other hand mis

As usually RMS is spot on. "Can a person program a new solution to a problem?" Any answer involving "no" seems a bit like insanity. Duffy on the other hand misses the point (IMHO): "The question is, will you get very serious research that is patent-motivated?" There is no "serious [software] research" that actually costs money. I have yet to be shown a single software patent that is the result of research and not just a spark on insight. Sparks of insights are great. The point to note, though, is that they would have happened anyway, they do not cost anything. Granting a legal monopoly on them does not benefit society as a whole. I have no illusion that anything will change. Big companies (with the notable exception of Google) love software patents to keep the competition (especially new players) at bay. Patent trolls love patents, which they can exploit with extortion schemes. Last not least lawyers love software patents; not a single patent case is won or lost without the involved lawyers being rewarded handsomely.

randomdata 14y ago
I have yet to be shown a single software patent that is the result of research and not just a spark on insight. You could argue that every patent is just a spark of insight. However, how many sparks could be made if not for all the research that came before them? Google's driverless car comes to mind as a well-known present-day software research project. When you boil down their achievements, they are all just small sparks of insight. But without all that funding and time put into the overall research, would those sparks have ever materialized? There is little reason for one of the algorithms they have developed to just pop into someone's head otherwise.
- linuxhansl 14y ago
  I agree. It is not always clear cut. I would stand by initial statement, though, that patents on software do not serve society as a whole.
cousin_it 14y ago
> I have yet to be shown a single software patent that is the result of research and not just a spark on insight. For example, the MP3 and SIFT patents are based on research. Most programmers even today could not recreate these technologies starting from scratch.

randomdata 14y ago

I have yet to be shown a single software patent that is the result of research and not just a spark on insight. You could argue that every patent is just a spark of insight. However, how many sparks could be made if not for all the research that came before them? Google's driverless car comes to mind as a well-known present-day software research project. When you boil down their achievements, they are all just small sparks of insight. But without all that funding and time put into the overall research, would those sparks have ever materialized? There is little reason for one of the algorithms they have developed to just pop into someone's head otherwise.

linuxhansl 14y ago
I agree. It is not always clear cut. I would stand by initial statement, though, that patents on software do not serve society as a whole.

cousin_it 14y ago

> I have yet to be shown a single software patent that is the result of research and not just a spark on insight. For example, the MP3 and SIFT patents are based on research. Most programmers even today could not recreate these technologies starting from scratch.