4 ms·

I might be completely wrong but I think you can make the argument that back then the challenge was in the implementation since there were so many technical diff

I might be completely wrong but I think you can make the argument that back then the challenge was in the implementation since there were so many technical difficulties and there was no need to patent an approach since it would be difficult to replicate. Now with modern tools it's pretty easy to replicate most software so getting a patent makes more sense. I don't think software patents should be granted but clearly there's an incentive to patent as much as you can.

eterm 13y ago
Is it actually easy to replicate most software or does it just appear that way until you try?
- x0054 13y ago
  The problem is, the software patents don't really explain implementation, they simply describe it. Take the scan and email button patent. It presented no implementation at all, in fact the original "inventor" never actually managed to get it to work. So, what's the value to the society in that patent? What's the value to the society in a lot of software patents that offer no actual implementation, or general idea patents. It used to be that you could patent specific implementations, and of some one could come up with a better implementation, they could patent that. Nowadays, it seams like you can patent just about anything, regardless of whether or not it can be implemented at the moment. It would be like the Wright Brothers patenting "a flying device that uses an engine and a propeller" without ever even trying to build one.
  - eterm 13y ago
    This is an accurate description of the problem. In theory a patent for "A flying device by propulsion of engine and rotary propeller" is a fine patent, but the details of the patent would have to go into implementation. Patents, in theory, apply to methods rather than concepts, so if someone does patent "a one click shopping button" they should only hold patent for their implementation. The problem is both the misapplication of patents which appear to grant patents over any implementation, as well as patents over implementations which are too simple, such that anyone who wants to build a similar item would go to that implementation as an obvious solution.
- dangoldin 13y ago
  I think given the volume of software out there now it's a lot easier to replicate than it used to be. You'd have to be pretty clever to achieve some of the things that were done before the 90s but now most products can be copied pretty easily - not necessarily scaled though.

eterm 13y ago

Is it actually easy to replicate most software or does it just appear that way until you try?

x0054 13y ago
The problem is, the software patents don't really explain implementation, they simply describe it. Take the scan and email button patent. It presented no implementation at all, in fact the original "inventor" never actually managed to get it to work. So, what's the value to the society in that patent? What's the value to the society in a lot of software patents that offer no actual implementation, or general idea patents. It used to be that you could patent specific implementations, and of some one could come up with a better implementation, they could patent that. Nowadays, it seams like you can patent just about anything, regardless of whether or not it can be implemented at the moment. It would be like the Wright Brothers patenting "a flying device that uses an engine and a propeller" without ever even trying to build one.
- eterm 13y ago
  This is an accurate description of the problem. In theory a patent for "A flying device by propulsion of engine and rotary propeller" is a fine patent, but the details of the patent would have to go into implementation. Patents, in theory, apply to methods rather than concepts, so if someone does patent "a one click shopping button" they should only hold patent for their implementation. The problem is both the misapplication of patents which appear to grant patents over any implementation, as well as patents over implementations which are too simple, such that anyone who wants to build a similar item would go to that implementation as an obvious solution.
dangoldin 13y ago
I think given the volume of software out there now it's a lot easier to replicate than it used to be. You'd have to be pretty clever to achieve some of the things that were done before the 90s but now most products can be copied pretty easily - not necessarily scaled though.