3 ms·

Yeah, that's an excellent selling/lobbying tactic - limit the choice to as few alternatives as possible, ideally two. E.g. the alternative to smoking is drug ab

Yeah, that's an excellent selling/lobbying tactic - limit the choice to as few alternatives as possible, ideally two. E.g. the alternative to smoking is drug abuse, so smoking is not simple... How do you see an industrial secret being an alternative for a video game (the original post)?? Current patents are not about exchange of knowledge (I'd ask what have you been smoking, but it's against the HN guidelines, in your view the patent trolls must be the bringers of fire) - Apple patents on rectangular form, Monsanto and Co patents on genes, the mind blowing obvious software patents.

danso 14y ago
Yeah I don't think anyone here is going to agree with you that computing and life has been vastly curtailed in creativity after the dominance of Apple and its copyright-imposing policies.
- Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
  Talking about simplification ...
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>the mind blowing obvious software patents // Poor implementation in your jurisdiction doesn't make the idea of patents wrong.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  Give me a single example of a patentable thing in software that is nonobvious and so expensive to develop, that you need patents to protect it, 'less someone copies it the minute you enter market and steal your entire cake.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >a single example of a patentable thing in software that is nonobvious and so expensive to develop, that you need patents to protect it // Maybe something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welc... or a video codec like H264. Though personally I think the wording of UK patent law by the letter rules out patenting of such algos (that's always bugged me a little), but you asked. I think the notion of being expensive to develop is misguided as a test for worth of a patent. Similarly the question of whether it 'needs to be protected' (paraphrasing you). The question should be does it serve the public to stimulate the free exchanged of ideas in this way; does it promote useful technologies; does it encourage innovation. [Aside: My preference would be for a shorter patent term to reflect the faster pace of technical change. I'd also bring copyright terms in line with current patent terms as a maximum period.]
Retric 14y ago
It can be argued that patents are more effective for older fields than new ones. In 1992 people where building high quality cars engines that are much like today's engines and all patents protecting a 1992 engine has expired. So, any new patent must be a non obvious improvement on a fairly high quality design. Software and DNA patents can still cover obvious things because the field has moved so rapidly. However, it seems like most fields are integrating improvements from computing so there is a lot of low hanging fruit out there.
gurkendoktor 14y ago
> How do you see an industrial secret being an alternative for a video game (the original post)?? Now THAT is an easy one. You make your game multi-player online and host all the IP on the server. That is the alternative that the world is being pushed towards. Perfect DRM, and less power in the hands of consumers than we have ever seen before. (Playing it offline or after the company has gone out of business? Forget about it.)

danso 14y ago

Yeah I don't think anyone here is going to agree with you that computing and life has been vastly curtailed in creativity after the dominance of Apple and its copyright-imposing policies.

Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
Talking about simplification ...

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

>the mind blowing obvious software patents // Poor implementation in your jurisdiction doesn't make the idea of patents wrong.

TeMPOraL 14y ago
Give me a single example of a patentable thing in software that is nonobvious and so expensive to develop, that you need patents to protect it, 'less someone copies it the minute you enter market and steal your entire cake.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >a single example of a patentable thing in software that is nonobvious and so expensive to develop, that you need patents to protect it // Maybe something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welc... or a video codec like H264. Though personally I think the wording of UK patent law by the letter rules out patenting of such algos (that's always bugged me a little), but you asked. I think the notion of being expensive to develop is misguided as a test for worth of a patent. Similarly the question of whether it 'needs to be protected' (paraphrasing you). The question should be does it serve the public to stimulate the free exchanged of ideas in this way; does it promote useful technologies; does it encourage innovation. [Aside: My preference would be for a shorter patent term to reflect the faster pace of technical change. I'd also bring copyright terms in line with current patent terms as a maximum period.]

Retric 14y ago

It can be argued that patents are more effective for older fields than new ones. In 1992 people where building high quality cars engines that are much like today's engines and all patents protecting a 1992 engine has expired. So, any new patent must be a non obvious improvement on a fairly high quality design. Software and DNA patents can still cover obvious things because the field has moved so rapidly. However, it seems like most fields are integrating improvements from computing so there is a lot of low hanging fruit out there.

gurkendoktor 14y ago

> How do you see an industrial secret being an alternative for a video game (the original post)?? Now THAT is an easy one. You make your game multi-player online and host all the IP on the server. That is the alternative that the world is being pushed towards. Perfect DRM, and less power in the hands of consumers than we have ever seen before. (Playing it offline or after the company has gone out of business? Forget about it.)