4 ms·

> worry not HNers who are against software patents Well I guess those HNers among us who are against all patents will continue to worry then. ;)

by Arelius 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
Being against all patents is an extreme position. Imagine investing 10 years and Hundreds of millions of dollars into making a brand new revolutionary motor for train propulsion. And having it ripped off within the first year of commercially using it because it wasn't patented.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  The point of patents (at least in the US) is to benefit society. The question is if granting a monopoly on ideas is actually benefiting society. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe ... seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, ... incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."[1] He then goes on to point out that patents "may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody". Given the abuse of the patent system and little evidence of it benefiting society, it's hardly an "extreme position" to be against patents. 1: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....
  - yakiv 14y ago
    > The point of patents (at least in the US) is to benefit society. The question is if granting a monopoly on ideas is actually benefiting society. Yes. > And having it ripped off within the first year of commercially using it because it wasn't patented. "Ripped off" is kind of a biased way of phrasing it.
  - leoedin 14y ago
    I think the problem is that "idea" is such a broad spectrum. The "idea" of 1 click purchasing being patented -that's not helping anyone. The "idea" of a specific valve design which gives a 5% boost in efficiency? Something like that might have taken 10 years to figure out, but if it has no patent protection it can (and will) be copied by competitors the moment they can get their hands on your first machine. Thomas Jefferson lived in a very different time to us. The investment in time and resources required to develop incremental modern technology is so vastly greater than it was then that his words are almost moot.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      One weakness I see in arguments based on the amount of time required to discover something is that they don't take into account the possibility that lone inventor A used a painstaking brute force search to come up with a solution to a problem, when independent researcher B could have solved the problem in five minutes by applying known theory. "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. ... I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor." - Nikola Tesla
      - leoedin 14y ago
        There are times when that applies and times when it definitely doesn't. It's almost impossible to construct a legal system which recognises that. I'm not sure if quoting people who lived over a century ago is useful when discussing modern patent needs though. In the time since then we've established a much more defined engineering process informed by scientific research. Inventors typically aren't dabbling in new fields, but have spent years understanding the background of the field in which they work. There are many industrial processes, mechanical and electrical designs and drugs which would have been almost impossible to arrive at without extensive testing and trial and error. It's worth noting that hindsight is key. It's easy to look back at almost any patent and say "it's obvious that that nozzle design or molecule works like it does, because it fits these theories. Fundamentally, legal protection of innovation is required for investment. The current patent system is certainly flawed, but to argue for the complete abolition of it doesn't recognise the significant investment required to advance many technologies.
- cwp 14y ago
  So we should continue with the patent system because, without it, inventor's feelings might get hurt?
ComputerGuru 14y ago
Let me share with you my scenario: I have spent 5 years and a considerable amount of my yearly income developing a product I think can honestly revolutionize the electronic braille reader industry for the blind. This is a multi-billion a year industry that has stagnated and seen no innovation or development in 30 years. It is in dire need of disruption, and there are hundreds of millions of people around the globe that can benefit from new technology here. I am a "lone wolf" garage-based inventor. If there was no such thing as patent protection, by the time I went from zero to manufacturing and product availability, any of the current big names in the market could take my tech and bring it to market with their existing connections and heavy market presence and there would be a) nothing I could do about it and b) no incentive for me to innovate and come at a solution in such market space at such a heavy cost to myself. Patents actually work really well for this sort of thing. I'd be interested to here in alternatives you think could work, that don't rely on keeping the idea secret to the last second and securing millions to billions in angel/vc capital.
- a3_nm 14y ago
  > If there was no such thing as patent protection [...] any of the current big names in the market could take my tech and bring it to market with their existing connections and heavy market presence If they do it despite patent protection, do you believe you would have the time and resources to sue them, and that you would actually win? I imagine those companies would have more time to dedicate to a lawsuit, better knowledge of the patent system, and that they could afford to lose more money than you... This is an honest question, I see patents used by big company A to sue big company B but I have no idea if the US patent system actually manages to protect the interests of "lone wolf" inventors like you in this kind of setting.
  - Arelius 14y ago
    I find this a very good question!
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  This assumes that without patents no one else would invent this tech, that you wouldn't approach companies with rough outlines and sell the designs for a one-time payment, that you wouldn't work for such a company and invent the technology during your employment, etc. Without patents, if the tech is invented, it gets distributed quicker/faster/cheaper - that's a benefit to society, even though it's not nice for you. So the real question is: Are there enough folks like you actually bringing real inventions that need patents as an incentive to outweigh the damage done by the patent system? I don't know, but it seems like cases like yours are not so common. I've only read anti-patent studies, so I lack information to know if cases like yours are actually providing a net positive.

> worry not HNers who are against software patents Well I guess those HNers among us who are against all patents will continue to worry then. ;)

by Arelius 14y ago

> worry not HNers who are against software patents Well I guess those HNers among us who are against all patents will continue to worry then. ;)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ChrisNorstrom 14y ago

Being against all patents is an extreme position. Imagine investing 10 years and Hundreds of millions of dollars into making a brand new revolutionary motor for train propulsion. And having it ripped off within the first year of commercially using it because it wasn't patented.

MichaelGG 14y ago
The point of patents (at least in the US) is to benefit society. The question is if granting a monopoly on ideas is actually benefiting society. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe ... seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, ... incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."[1] He then goes on to point out that patents "may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody". Given the abuse of the patent system and little evidence of it benefiting society, it's hardly an "extreme position" to be against patents. 1: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....
- yakiv 14y ago
  > The point of patents (at least in the US) is to benefit society. The question is if granting a monopoly on ideas is actually benefiting society. Yes. > And having it ripped off within the first year of commercially using it because it wasn't patented. "Ripped off" is kind of a biased way of phrasing it.
- leoedin 14y ago
  I think the problem is that "idea" is such a broad spectrum. The "idea" of 1 click purchasing being patented -that's not helping anyone. The "idea" of a specific valve design which gives a 5% boost in efficiency? Something like that might have taken 10 years to figure out, but if it has no patent protection it can (and will) be copied by competitors the moment they can get their hands on your first machine. Thomas Jefferson lived in a very different time to us. The investment in time and resources required to develop incremental modern technology is so vastly greater than it was then that his words are almost moot.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    One weakness I see in arguments based on the amount of time required to discover something is that they don't take into account the possibility that lone inventor A used a painstaking brute force search to come up with a solution to a problem, when independent researcher B could have solved the problem in five minutes by applying known theory. "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. ... I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor." - Nikola Tesla
    - leoedin 14y ago
      There are times when that applies and times when it definitely doesn't. It's almost impossible to construct a legal system which recognises that. I'm not sure if quoting people who lived over a century ago is useful when discussing modern patent needs though. In the time since then we've established a much more defined engineering process informed by scientific research. Inventors typically aren't dabbling in new fields, but have spent years understanding the background of the field in which they work. There are many industrial processes, mechanical and electrical designs and drugs which would have been almost impossible to arrive at without extensive testing and trial and error. It's worth noting that hindsight is key. It's easy to look back at almost any patent and say "it's obvious that that nozzle design or molecule works like it does, because it fits these theories. Fundamentally, legal protection of innovation is required for investment. The current patent system is certainly flawed, but to argue for the complete abolition of it doesn't recognise the significant investment required to advance many technologies.
cwp 14y ago
So we should continue with the patent system because, without it, inventor's feelings might get hurt?

ComputerGuru 14y ago

Let me share with you my scenario: I have spent 5 years and a considerable amount of my yearly income developing a product I think can honestly revolutionize the electronic braille reader industry for the blind. This is a multi-billion a year industry that has stagnated and seen no innovation or development in 30 years. It is in dire need of disruption, and there are hundreds of millions of people around the globe that can benefit from new technology here. I am a "lone wolf" garage-based inventor. If there was no such thing as patent protection, by the time I went from zero to manufacturing and product availability, any of the current big names in the market could take my tech and bring it to market with their existing connections and heavy market presence and there would be a) nothing I could do about it and b) no incentive for me to innovate and come at a solution in such market space at such a heavy cost to myself. Patents actually work really well for this sort of thing. I'd be interested to here in alternatives you think could work, that don't rely on keeping the idea secret to the last second and securing millions to billions in angel/vc capital.

a3_nm 14y ago
> If there was no such thing as patent protection [...] any of the current big names in the market could take my tech and bring it to market with their existing connections and heavy market presence If they do it despite patent protection, do you believe you would have the time and resources to sue them, and that you would actually win? I imagine those companies would have more time to dedicate to a lawsuit, better knowledge of the patent system, and that they could afford to lose more money than you... This is an honest question, I see patents used by big company A to sue big company B but I have no idea if the US patent system actually manages to protect the interests of "lone wolf" inventors like you in this kind of setting.
- Arelius 14y ago
  I find this a very good question!
MichaelGG 14y ago
This assumes that without patents no one else would invent this tech, that you wouldn't approach companies with rough outlines and sell the designs for a one-time payment, that you wouldn't work for such a company and invent the technology during your employment, etc. Without patents, if the tech is invented, it gets distributed quicker/faster/cheaper - that's a benefit to society, even though it's not nice for you. So the real question is: Are there enough folks like you actually bringing real inventions that need patents as an incentive to outweigh the damage done by the patent system? I don't know, but it seems like cases like yours are not so common. I've only read anti-patent studies, so I lack information to know if cases like yours are actually providing a net positive.