3 ms·

> Who profits from software patents? Who gets held back? That is the only question that matters (beyond just "software" patents,) And there is a lot of work by

> Who profits from software patents? Who gets held back? That is the only question that matters (beyond just "software" patents,) And there is a lot of work by a lot of people that try to answer the question. Search ssrn for work by authors like Risch, Merges, Allison, Lemley, Mann, Zeidonis, Etro (just for starters) and you'll see that the issue is much more nuanced and complex than what the common narrative tells you. So does the narrative matter? Well, let's look at the rest of your comment. You mention a "doubly linked list" patent. That patent is not the greatest ever, but it is not a doubly linked list: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-for-linked-list-secondary-and-tertiary-traversal http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-for... (Note that even the highest rated answers there get it slightly off.) Then, pinch to zoom; I'm not sure what you refer to by that, but the last time Apple's patent was mentioned on HN, its scope was also grossly misrepresented. Your reply makes two things clear: 1) you have strong emotions about this topic; and 2) you don't really understand how these things work. And seeing other comments on HN over many years, I can safely extrapolate another thing: 3) your condition is common to the vast majority of commenters here. At least to me it seems clear why the narrative matters.

batgaijin 13y ago
Why can't an astroturfer at least use a good pseudonym. a). A data structure is patented. I'll give you that it's not a doubly linked-list, but seriously. If we are going to start claiming modifications are unique enough for a patent I guess I should probably look into copying some n-array. b). http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,844,915.PN.&OS=PN/7,844,915&RS=PN/7,844,915 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... That patent is for zooming and making the UI 'bounce' as though somehow that is an amazing and ingenious idea. No, it's not. Just because I'm too stupid too invent an iPhone does not mean I couldn't have invented that in less than a week. I do have strong emotions about this topic! When a company infringes on the hard work of others I think it's a real fucking big deal. When tripe shit gets media attention and takes years to settle, it just fucks over everyone with a real patent. Listen, I agree with the Rearden steel narrative. But if we are going to let any fucker who can fill out a patent application get dibs on a goddamn data structure, well you can go fuck yourself. I'd rather be a damn hermit at that point.
- throwawaykf 13y ago
  Apologies for late reply. Who would I be astroturfing for, exactly? a. Can you make a logical argument why data structures should not be patented, as opposed to, say, mechanical or electronic structures? Try to differentiate them using concrete, technical reasons rather than handwavy "software is math" (aka "mechanisms are just physics" or "electronics are just flowing particles") arguments. Also, modifications have always been patentable ("a better mousetrap" etc.) The thing is, this patent is not even a straightforward modification; I still have not figured out a solid reason why anyone would use this, a single multiply-ordered linked list, over multiple differently-ordered linked lists. b. That's not the "rubber banding" patent you linked, that's the "pinch-to-zoom-if-touch-input-is-multi-point-else-scroll" patent. Anyway. You could argue both of those are bogus patents, but you have the benefit of hindsight. Hindsight is a very powerful bias, which is precisely why US (and most other places) require examiners to provide concrete proof, in the form of dated, published documents, of non-novelty or obviousness to deny a claim. This is, as far as I can tell, the only way to truly objectively quantify a claim's contribution, and this is why you see the patents you see. Not saying it's a perfect system, but once you decide that patents should be a thing, I personally can't think of a more objective one. Also, if you think it's as easy as "fill out a patent application to get dibs on something", I strongly encourage you to give it a shot. Assuming a micro-entity status in the US, it should cost you a couple hundred bucks.

batgaijin 13y ago

Why can't an astroturfer at least use a good pseudonym. a). A data structure is patented. I'll give you that it's not a doubly linked-list, but seriously. If we are going to start claiming modifications are unique enough for a patent I guess I should probably look into copying some n-array. b). http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,844,915.PN.&OS=PN/7,844,915&RS=PN/7,844,915 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... That patent is for zooming and making the UI 'bounce' as though somehow that is an amazing and ingenious idea. No, it's not. Just because I'm too stupid too invent an iPhone does not mean I couldn't have invented that in less than a week. I do have strong emotions about this topic! When a company infringes on the hard work of others I think it's a real fucking big deal. When tripe shit gets media attention and takes years to settle, it just fucks over everyone with a real patent. Listen, I agree with the Rearden steel narrative. But if we are going to let any fucker who can fill out a patent application get dibs on a goddamn data structure, well you can go fuck yourself. I'd rather be a damn hermit at that point.

throwawaykf 13y ago
Apologies for late reply. Who would I be astroturfing for, exactly? a. Can you make a logical argument why data structures should not be patented, as opposed to, say, mechanical or electronic structures? Try to differentiate them using concrete, technical reasons rather than handwavy "software is math" (aka "mechanisms are just physics" or "electronics are just flowing particles") arguments. Also, modifications have always been patentable ("a better mousetrap" etc.) The thing is, this patent is not even a straightforward modification; I still have not figured out a solid reason why anyone would use this, a single multiply-ordered linked list, over multiple differently-ordered linked lists. b. That's not the "rubber banding" patent you linked, that's the "pinch-to-zoom-if-touch-input-is-multi-point-else-scroll" patent. Anyway. You could argue both of those are bogus patents, but you have the benefit of hindsight. Hindsight is a very powerful bias, which is precisely why US (and most other places) require examiners to provide concrete proof, in the form of dated, published documents, of non-novelty or obviousness to deny a claim. This is, as far as I can tell, the only way to truly objectively quantify a claim's contribution, and this is why you see the patents you see. Not saying it's a perfect system, but once you decide that patents should be a thing, I personally can't think of a more objective one. Also, if you think it's as easy as "fill out a patent application to get dibs on something", I strongly encourage you to give it a shot. Assuming a micro-entity status in the US, it should cost you a couple hundred bucks.