4 ms·

That's hard to do after the fact. It may be that it is now obvious to everybody because of the patented technology. Something needs to be done, but there are no

That's hard to do after the fact. It may be that it is now obvious to everybody because of the patented technology. Something needs to be done, but there are no easy answers.

chii 14y ago
this is where the ideology between us differ - the classic example i use when i argue with friends on this topic is 'the wheel'. Some of my friends argue (and i assume this is your point of view), that the wheel would've been granted a patent should it be invented today. I argue that even tho the idea is novel, there is no "secret" that you can hide with the wheel invention, and hence, there is no incentive for society to give you a monopoly, because you can't both use the invention, but hide its implementation from society. The price for said monopoly is the devulsion of the secret, and if there are none to give, you do not deserve the payment. If the patent was for some complicated industrial process to produce better paint, an expert looking at the paint can't work out what went on in the process. But if you look at the sort of "design patents" that have come out, the amazon one-click is the classic example here, there is absolutely nothing that they can hide about the workings of the patent, and thus don't deserve a monopoly.
- alok-g 14y ago
  A patent is granted for an "invention", whether it is visible or not. I do not see why a visible invention is not an invention. See my separate comment for more on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5071287 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5071287
CamperBob2 14y ago
Patents aren't intended to protect an existence proof. They're intended to protect the underlying methods. If, after seeing a swipe-to-unlock gesture on an iPhone for instance, someone of ordinary skill can implement it without referring to the teachings of the patent, then the patent is bullshit. (Of course, that's not the way it works, but it's the way it should work. Remember that patents exist to give inventors an alternative to keeping trade secrets. Something that would make a laughable trade secret should also constitute a frivolous patent claim.)

That's hard to do after the fact. It may be that it is now obvious to everybody because of the patented technology. Something needs to be done, but there are no easy answers.

chii 14y ago

this is where the ideology between us differ - the classic example i use when i argue with friends on this topic is 'the wheel'. Some of my friends argue (and i assume this is your point of view), that the wheel would've been granted a patent should it be invented today. I argue that even tho the idea is novel, there is no "secret" that you can hide with the wheel invention, and hence, there is no incentive for society to give you a monopoly, because you can't both use the invention, but hide its implementation from society. The price for said monopoly is the devulsion of the secret, and if there are none to give, you do not deserve the payment. If the patent was for some complicated industrial process to produce better paint, an expert looking at the paint can't work out what went on in the process. But if you look at the sort of "design patents" that have come out, the amazon one-click is the classic example here, there is absolutely nothing that they can hide about the workings of the patent, and thus don't deserve a monopoly.

alok-g 14y ago
A patent is granted for an "invention", whether it is visible or not. I do not see why a visible invention is not an invention. See my separate comment for more on this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5071287 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5071287

CamperBob2 14y ago

Patents aren't intended to protect an existence proof. They're intended to protect the underlying methods. If, after seeing a swipe-to-unlock gesture on an iPhone for instance, someone of ordinary skill can implement it without referring to the teachings of the patent, then the patent is bullshit. (Of course, that's not the way it works, but it's the way it should work. Remember that patents exist to give inventors an alternative to keeping trade secrets. Something that would make a laughable trade secret should also constitute a frivolous patent claim.)