4 ms·

You have no idea how the USPTO works. They will never have the ability to spend more time with software patents. Especially if you ask that filing fees go dow

You have no idea how the USPTO works. They will never have the ability to spend more time with software patents. Especially if you ask that filing fees go down and the volume of filings goes up. On top of that, there is a conceptual problem with software patents. There is no clear line between the trivial and the non-trivial. The question you should ask is, what fucking benefits do we get from this shit? Look at the fucking costs levied on our society by this system. 26 year old patent attorneys make 200,000 dollars a year, after three years of practice STANDARD! Half of them don't know Javascript from Java (I'm not fucking kidding you). How the fuck are they gonna know what is trivial and what is not. The USPTO is staffed with people from foreign countries who can barely speak English ... much less understand a patent document. And they are only given like two hours to search and understand a patent document. And Patent Attorneys do their best to fill a patent document with utter rubbish legalese. The only people in support of this system are people that have never read a patent document, who have never been involved in a patent suit, and who have never talked to a USPTO examiner. Everyone else ... EVERYONE ELSE ... knows this system is garbage. These fucking patent kangaroo courts, and these fucking lawyers are parasitic upon Silicon Valley and the world software technology industries. That's the only way to look at it. And we might never get rid of them, because of this rhetoric and the power of the lobby. Its no more just than the fucking car dealerships and their stranglehold on car distribution. Or the sugar lobby and their subsidies. Just another garbage, rent-seeking group of assholes.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
Good post. I particularly liked your well thought out and clearly communicated arguments.
- TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
  You ever wonder why patent law proponents never ask the pragmatic question: Do all these legal/regulatory costs for the patent system result in increased innovation? After all, if we were starting from scratch today, wouldn't we ask for overwhelming evidence that such a regulatory scheme would produce more innovation, before implementing such terrible laws? Not only are there no studies that show conclusively that patent rights encourage more innovation in the economy, there aren't even studies to show it has a marginally better effect than no patents at all. So the legal costs are a dead loss for the economy. All we have is the blind faith regurgitations of the patent fans ... OMG IT MUST ENCOURAGE INNOVATION MORE THAN NOT HAVING PATENTS BECAUSE MONOPOLY!!!! In software particularly this is an idiotic argument. Microsoft and other current front-runners in patent filings hardly filed patents at all when they were growing rapidly in the 80s and early 90s. Its only after being hit by patent suits from the old-timers in the industry ... horseshit patents BTW ... that they understood that they had to play this corrupt game. Bill Gates' early writing about software patents tells you everything you need to know from a businessman's perspective. Patents are a way for encumbents to raise barriers to entry in a mature business. They aren't a way to encourage the development of new businesses by players will little power/capital. This system (and many of its supporters) make me sick to my stomach.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Your example is telling: of course Bill Gates would be against patents, he stole the very basis for his entire empire from Xerox! I don't have studies to cite, and that is certainly a fair argument against patents. However, there is a principle at play here that is very relevant. Is society better off where one can reap benefits for their efforts? Most would say yes. At least in some cases, patents increase order and fairness in society by creating a mechanism for one to benefit from efforts that would otherwise go unrewarded by the market. If society deems these efforts worthwhile, then society legislates a mechanism for compensation. There's nothing irrational about this.
    - TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
      Do you make stuff? How is it fair that I make something in my garage, and some assmonkey drags my ass to the Eastern District of Texas to claim he deserves 15% of my revenue because my app sends a message from a smartphone client, containing contact information, to a server, where it is stored in a database. Sounds like a really complicated process ... if you are a non-technical person ... but any engineer is like that is fucking trivial. And yet we have to settle lawsuits like this shit all the time. If we are lucky -- $50,000 a pop. If not, more. You think this highway robbery is justice/fairness? You know what would be fair? If people didn't die under cars when they are riding their bikes. Lets build a completely different highway system for bikes, parallel to the existing highway system, so cars can't touch them. Don't we factor in costs when considering such utopian schemes to solve problems? Shouldn't we factor in the costs to innocent bystanders when creating an incentive system for creators? Look at how many creators are DISINCENTIVIZED by the current system. We don't make software to file patents. We never have. If you go to Meetups in SF, you'll never meet engineers that want to file patents either. What entrepreneur wants to file patents? I've never met one. Maybe such entrepreneurs exist outside my circles. For the most part, we are all fucking sick of these lawyers and this horseshit.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        >Do you make stuff? How is it fair that I make something in my garage, and some assmonkey drags my ass to the Eastern District of Texas to claim he deserves 15% of my revenue... I am a software developer myself. Yes, there are an endless number of examples of clearly frivolous patents. This is not an argument against software patents in general. If you can only cite the obviously broken cases to make your argument, your argument isn't that strong. Of course entrepreneurs are generally going to be against patents, they operate on the "market" side of society by definition. Ask that same question to inventors and you'll get different answers. Some people do not have the inclination to be entrepreneurs. Does that mean their contributions to society are worthless simply because they lack the particular skill of entrepreneurship? Would society be better off if inventors were likely to not reap the benefit of their efforts, or would otherwise have to keep the details of their invention secret? Is society better off with Watson's inner workings a trade secret? >We don't make software to file patents. We never have. If you go to Meetups in SF, you'll never meet engineers that want to file patents either. There is a subset of software development that would qualify as inventing. I see no reason why these cases should not be patentable. Just because the vast majority of developers are not inventors and thus see no benefit to patents is not a strong argument.

hackinthebochs 13y ago

Good post. I particularly liked your well thought out and clearly communicated arguments.

TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
You ever wonder why patent law proponents never ask the pragmatic question: Do all these legal/regulatory costs for the patent system result in increased innovation? After all, if we were starting from scratch today, wouldn't we ask for overwhelming evidence that such a regulatory scheme would produce more innovation, before implementing such terrible laws? Not only are there no studies that show conclusively that patent rights encourage more innovation in the economy, there aren't even studies to show it has a marginally better effect than no patents at all. So the legal costs are a dead loss for the economy. All we have is the blind faith regurgitations of the patent fans ... OMG IT MUST ENCOURAGE INNOVATION MORE THAN NOT HAVING PATENTS BECAUSE MONOPOLY!!!! In software particularly this is an idiotic argument. Microsoft and other current front-runners in patent filings hardly filed patents at all when they were growing rapidly in the 80s and early 90s. Its only after being hit by patent suits from the old-timers in the industry ... horseshit patents BTW ... that they understood that they had to play this corrupt game. Bill Gates' early writing about software patents tells you everything you need to know from a businessman's perspective. Patents are a way for encumbents to raise barriers to entry in a mature business. They aren't a way to encourage the development of new businesses by players will little power/capital. This system (and many of its supporters) make me sick to my stomach.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  Your example is telling: of course Bill Gates would be against patents, he stole the very basis for his entire empire from Xerox! I don't have studies to cite, and that is certainly a fair argument against patents. However, there is a principle at play here that is very relevant. Is society better off where one can reap benefits for their efforts? Most would say yes. At least in some cases, patents increase order and fairness in society by creating a mechanism for one to benefit from efforts that would otherwise go unrewarded by the market. If society deems these efforts worthwhile, then society legislates a mechanism for compensation. There's nothing irrational about this.
  - TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
    Do you make stuff? How is it fair that I make something in my garage, and some assmonkey drags my ass to the Eastern District of Texas to claim he deserves 15% of my revenue because my app sends a message from a smartphone client, containing contact information, to a server, where it is stored in a database. Sounds like a really complicated process ... if you are a non-technical person ... but any engineer is like that is fucking trivial. And yet we have to settle lawsuits like this shit all the time. If we are lucky -- $50,000 a pop. If not, more. You think this highway robbery is justice/fairness? You know what would be fair? If people didn't die under cars when they are riding their bikes. Lets build a completely different highway system for bikes, parallel to the existing highway system, so cars can't touch them. Don't we factor in costs when considering such utopian schemes to solve problems? Shouldn't we factor in the costs to innocent bystanders when creating an incentive system for creators? Look at how many creators are DISINCENTIVIZED by the current system. We don't make software to file patents. We never have. If you go to Meetups in SF, you'll never meet engineers that want to file patents either. What entrepreneur wants to file patents? I've never met one. Maybe such entrepreneurs exist outside my circles. For the most part, we are all fucking sick of these lawyers and this horseshit.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      >Do you make stuff? How is it fair that I make something in my garage, and some assmonkey drags my ass to the Eastern District of Texas to claim he deserves 15% of my revenue... I am a software developer myself. Yes, there are an endless number of examples of clearly frivolous patents. This is not an argument against software patents in general. If you can only cite the obviously broken cases to make your argument, your argument isn't that strong. Of course entrepreneurs are generally going to be against patents, they operate on the "market" side of society by definition. Ask that same question to inventors and you'll get different answers. Some people do not have the inclination to be entrepreneurs. Does that mean their contributions to society are worthless simply because they lack the particular skill of entrepreneurship? Would society be better off if inventors were likely to not reap the benefit of their efforts, or would otherwise have to keep the details of their invention secret? Is society better off with Watson's inner workings a trade secret? >We don't make software to file patents. We never have. If you go to Meetups in SF, you'll never meet engineers that want to file patents either. There is a subset of software development that would qualify as inventing. I see no reason why these cases should not be patentable. Just because the vast majority of developers are not inventors and thus see no benefit to patents is not a strong argument.