5 ms·

Hm. I'm unsure. I think current software patents last too long, to a point where non-obvious inventions become obvious as a field develops, and too many obviou

by halo 17y ago

Hm. I'm unsure. I think current software patents last too long, to a point where non-obvious inventions become obvious as a field develops, and too many obvious or suitably vague patents are passed as well. Clearly you shouldn't be able to patent how many clicks something takes. Whatsmore, submarine patents really are a threat, and there should be a 'use it or lose it' enforcement clause, similar to trademarks. But these aren't problems of software patents alone, these also apply to patents in general, and situation really needs to change. However, I'm not sure I can say that software patents are inherently a bad idea. I have no real objection to the creators of the MP3 format receiving income from their innovations, for example, or other, similarly complex software innovations. The current system being flawed doesn't mean that a better, more reasonable, system couldn't be made.

dantheman 17y ago
Patents were to cover inventions not algorithms... copyright covers the implementation of a piece of software, a patent is not needed if you look at a piece of software and copy it then you've violated copyright. There is not copyright on physical inventions, hence the "need" for patent protection. The main issue is that sure it's great to be compensated for your work but it is not a right. Patents and copyrights are to encourage people to produce & that is all. The software industry does not need patents to encourage people to innovate, so by definition we don't need patents in software.
- gaius 17y ago
  The software industry does not need patents to encourage people to innovate Without intellectual property, why would anyone ever acquire a startup? Just copy it or poach a few key developers. Remember, everyone's gotta eat, put a roof over their head and so on. RMS has got that covered with a million-dollar grant from the MacArthur Foundation and another cool million from the Takeda foundation. What do you got?
  - kiba 17y ago
    Well, RedHat is doing fine. Anybody can poach a few developers or copy from them. In fact, there are copycats who did just that. However, RedHat manages to survive and even thrive just fine.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    > Without intellectual property, why would anyone ever acquire a startup? Just copy it or poach a few key developers. Reddit has no unique "intellectual property" of a make-or-break nature, as far as I know. Yet they were bought. There are lots of reasons to buy startups that have nothing to do with patents or copyright: to get the founders, to get the name, domain, and code, to get the userbase (same as last, in some cases), to get contracts or other associated deals, and probably lots more.
    - vorador 17y ago
      And don't forget the spirit. The spirit is more important than the product.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    Well, personally I'm not a huge fan of intellectual property (except for trademarks -- a way of reducing fraud), but I wasn't talking about copyright I was talking about patents. With copyright I can't take Microsoft office, but I can reimplement it; with patents I can't do that -- I'm forbidden to do what the patents cover. Imagine patenting the WYSIWG interface. There is a huge amount of value in having code that works so copyright is more than enough for companies to profit off their software. Now,as I mentioned earlier I don't really agree with copyright, primarily because it lasts too long & its not a voluntary contract between individuals. Everything that copyright covers could be defined in a contract between the buyer and seller and not defined by politicians.
  - greendestiny 17y ago
    We were talking about patents not copyright. You can't take all their submissions, comments and votes and make your own site with it. I think software patents harm innovation. I think file sharing is a very minor offense that shouldn't entertain anywhere near the penalties it does. I think industries like drug companies ought to be able to get some protection on their very expensive research and trials - but the time frame should be based on the necessity of protecting that research pathway. I think artists should be able to set licenses they want their work to carry, we should go to other artists work if we disagree with the license rather than getting rid of copyright. Its hard to ever get into the subtleties of the subject, because people get so angry about bad patents or copyright penalties that they are drawn to pleasingly utopian fantasies where we get rid of all IP laws.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Patents were to cover inventions not algorithms Patents don't cover algorithms. They can cover the use of algorithms to accomplish a particular task but that doesn't affect others much. In fact, the general patents rely on the doctrine of equivalents and are thus algorithm independent. The closest you can get to an algorithm patent is to claim the use of an algorithm to produce algorithm-specific output. For example, one could patent the use of a new sorting algorithm to produce sorted output. However, such patents are almost all extremely weak because there are typically multiple algorithms to accomplish the same result. Yes, a patent on an algorithm to solve a specific NP-complete problem in polynomial time would affect others, but isn't that exactly the sort of thing that patents should cover?
greendestiny 17y ago
The problem with software patents is that a patent doesn't need to copied to infringe. Almost all patent infringement in software involve simultaneous invention, which means they are doing more restricting than protecting. Copyright should be enough for the software industry.
hc 17y ago
in case anyone hasn't seen this, john carmack (of id software)'s views on software patents are worth reading: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745

by halo 17y ago

dantheman 17y ago

Patents were to cover inventions not algorithms... copyright covers the implementation of a piece of software, a patent is not needed if you look at a piece of software and copy it then you've violated copyright. There is not copyright on physical inventions, hence the "need" for patent protection. The main issue is that sure it's great to be compensated for your work but it is not a right. Patents and copyrights are to encourage people to produce & that is all. The software industry does not need patents to encourage people to innovate, so by definition we don't need patents in software.

gaius 17y ago
The software industry does not need patents to encourage people to innovate Without intellectual property, why would anyone ever acquire a startup? Just copy it or poach a few key developers. Remember, everyone's gotta eat, put a roof over their head and so on. RMS has got that covered with a million-dollar grant from the MacArthur Foundation and another cool million from the Takeda foundation. What do you got?
- kiba 17y ago
  Well, RedHat is doing fine. Anybody can poach a few developers or copy from them. In fact, there are copycats who did just that. However, RedHat manages to survive and even thrive just fine.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  > Without intellectual property, why would anyone ever acquire a startup? Just copy it or poach a few key developers. Reddit has no unique "intellectual property" of a make-or-break nature, as far as I know. Yet they were bought. There are lots of reasons to buy startups that have nothing to do with patents or copyright: to get the founders, to get the name, domain, and code, to get the userbase (same as last, in some cases), to get contracts or other associated deals, and probably lots more.
  - vorador 17y ago
    And don't forget the spirit. The spirit is more important than the product.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Well, personally I'm not a huge fan of intellectual property (except for trademarks -- a way of reducing fraud), but I wasn't talking about copyright I was talking about patents. With copyright I can't take Microsoft office, but I can reimplement it; with patents I can't do that -- I'm forbidden to do what the patents cover. Imagine patenting the WYSIWG interface. There is a huge amount of value in having code that works so copyright is more than enough for companies to profit off their software. Now,as I mentioned earlier I don't really agree with copyright, primarily because it lasts too long & its not a voluntary contract between individuals. Everything that copyright covers could be defined in a contract between the buyer and seller and not defined by politicians.
- greendestiny 17y ago
  We were talking about patents not copyright. You can't take all their submissions, comments and votes and make your own site with it. I think software patents harm innovation. I think file sharing is a very minor offense that shouldn't entertain anywhere near the penalties it does. I think industries like drug companies ought to be able to get some protection on their very expensive research and trials - but the time frame should be based on the necessity of protecting that research pathway. I think artists should be able to set licenses they want their work to carry, we should go to other artists work if we disagree with the license rather than getting rid of copyright. Its hard to ever get into the subtleties of the subject, because people get so angry about bad patents or copyright penalties that they are drawn to pleasingly utopian fantasies where we get rid of all IP laws.
anamax 17y ago
> Patents were to cover inventions not algorithms Patents don't cover algorithms. They can cover the use of algorithms to accomplish a particular task but that doesn't affect others much. In fact, the general patents rely on the doctrine of equivalents and are thus algorithm independent. The closest you can get to an algorithm patent is to claim the use of an algorithm to produce algorithm-specific output. For example, one could patent the use of a new sorting algorithm to produce sorted output. However, such patents are almost all extremely weak because there are typically multiple algorithms to accomplish the same result. Yes, a patent on an algorithm to solve a specific NP-complete problem in polynomial time would affect others, but isn't that exactly the sort of thing that patents should cover?

greendestiny 17y ago

The problem with software patents is that a patent doesn't need to copied to infringe. Almost all patent infringement in software involve simultaneous invention, which means they are doing more restricting than protecting. Copyright should be enough for the software industry.

hc 17y ago

in case anyone hasn't seen this, john carmack (of id software)'s views on software patents are worth reading: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745