8 ms·

Abolish software patents. A world without software patents is a world of free and faster innovation, of equal opportunity, and of open and cheap access to tech

Abolish software patents. A world without software patents is a world of free and faster innovation, of equal opportunity, and of open and cheap access to technology. Firms that have patentable knowledge are strong enough to not need governmental protection. Inventing something before others gives one technical advantage and time to make profit ahead of others. Too much effort is spent on the patent process, that could be spent directly on innovation. In today's software world, 20 years of monopoly is like 100 years of monopoly when the constitution was signed. The solution should probably come from the legislative branch.

javindo 13y ago
One of the main arguments for patents is just the fact that some things require a bit of capital to get going and what is to stop some venture capitalist from taking pitches, telling the person it's a rubbish idea then going off and funding the idea himself?
- sushirain 13y ago
  Patents won't help the engineer anyway, patents are made to protect the venture capitalist who invests the significant amount of money required to file the patent. That's the difference between the "inventor" and the "owner" as in patent law.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    With all due respect, I don't think you actually understand what patents do. Every year we hear of companies where people have invested much of their time and energy in giving life to an inventive idea or process, which at some point is acquired by another company in exchange for cash, stock, or both. And those negotiations would often not even start if the engineers building their idea were not able to protect their work using a patent. That single process is the difference between an acquirer taking all of their work and just re-implmenting, now that its clear what the issues are, and giving them nothing. And that company having to negotiate with the engineers about their work and pay them fairly for it if they want it. Patents have not always existed, and it is useful to see what it was like when they didn't exist to understand what it is they protect. That said, patent administration has not kept up with technology, although if you've been involved with the patent office as long as I have you will know it has gotten much better at figuring out what should and what should not be patentable. Further, the judiciary is getting much more in tune to the abusive nature that people wielding bad patents can have on an industry. It is getting better, and the people who need to make it better (the Supreme court in the US and the 'patent' court) are motivated to make it better and have been making changes along those lines. Not a quickly as some might like but being quick in complex areas of law is often dangerous so some caution is advised.
    - technoir 13y ago
      This is a nice story, but not an accurate reflection of reality. Look at the statistics on who are issued patents, who receives royalties. It's not the noble independent inventor, it's old MegaCorp that doesn't blink at underwriting the massive expense of prosecuting a good patent. The story you describe is a convenient myth to justify a system that benefits established interests.
      - ChuckMcM 13y ago
        You could actually do some research if you wanted to and realize the truth of the statement, I'll give you the couch potato version, watch 'Shark Tank' or 'Dragon's Den' and rank all of the engagements where the question of a patent came up. Or you could do as I have done and participate in on M&A discussions for over a decade as part of the due diligence team and compare outcomes when patents exist and when they don't. Or you could approach the question using some basic reasoning, if the BigCorp is spending millions a year to develop a patent portfolio, how much of that value would carry over into the acquisition of SmallCorp with or without patents? Zero? Non-zero? How much non-zero? Can that number be deduced? You don't have to believe some random guy commenting on Hackernews here, but you do have to actually think about it and test your assumptions.
      - technoir 13y ago
        ChuckM, I appreciate your polite tone and sincerity. To illustrate my point, consider my story. I'm a software developer with entrepreneurial ambition and I'm developing a product I have dreams of marketing and selling. Last week I probably came up with 5 methods of doing some novel data analysis that are patent-able. How many will I patent? Well considering it would cost about 100-150k to adequately protect that intellectual property and I have only my own boots to my name, ... I'll patent zero of them. Clearly the system does not work for me. This is one extreme scenario, but consider the continuum. What about a startup with 500k in seed funding? Should they spend 50% of their capital to protect their intellectual property before they've finished a product and made sales? Meanwhile large companies spend millions on patent programs which sweep up wide swaths of IP on nebulous grounds of validity. Not only can I not afford to prosecute a patent, I can't even afford to respond to a cease and desist letter based on an invalid patent which came out of the "innovation process" of MegaCorp. Sorry, but the system is not for the little guy or the start up.
- baddox 13y ago
  In that specific case, a contract could easily protect the inventor.
qq66 13y ago
Why abolish software patents but not all patents?
- sushirain 13y ago
  Just because I don't have enough understanding in other fields outside of software. It is possible, for example, that medicine today requires patents to advance faster.
  - alok-g 13y ago
    This is exactly why your opinion on abolishing patents does not hold water. You do not yet know. I am not necessarily in the favor patents, but do not agree that a resolution should be reached without thinking it through in its entirety. Edit (to answer biehl's comment): I meant abolish "software" patents.
    - biehl 13y ago
      He did not ask for "abolishing patents" he asked for the more narrow "abolish software patents". There is no need to broaden the subject to all patents. (Edit: Then your statement still makes no sense. If you understand that he spoke only about software patents - why do you then needlessly broaden the subject?) Edit2: It is worse-than-useless to demand no action for softwarepatents until all patent types have been analyzed. Do you also support stabbing people being legal until all uses of knives (in kitchens etc.) have been analyzed? Or do you see that we can reasonably outlaw some form of knife-use?
      - alok-g 13y ago
        Right. I edited my comment to clarify. What I am saying is that the narrow "abolish software patents" should not be applied without thinking about all other fields where the same course of action would be helpful. You cannot just make Pluto not a planet without defining what's the new criteria that separates a planet from a non-planet that is better than saying anything named "Pluto" is not a planet, unless there is a specific justifiable reason that isolates just software and nothing else. (Obviously, not understanding beyond software is not an answer.)
alok-g 13y ago
Let's look at "abolish software patents" more deeply: Is this retroactive, i.e., all software patents filed and granted in the past too are abolished? If 'no', this can bring disadvantage to new comers who cannot file any new patents against those who have already have then granted. If 'yes', what happens to all the money companies have already spent on the patents they currently have? (International filings in many different countries can set a company back by several hundred thousands of dollars.) I am open to considering favoring abolishing patents (see also the alternative discussion on why only for software) provided it is applied uniformly to the past as well as the future without disadvantaging new comers. I do agree that on the very least, the term of the patent should be dependent on the degree of innovation involved whether in terms of time (number of years of validity) or money (maximum amount of gain in proportion to the R&D expenditure). People on HN have generally opposed this thought due to the overheads involved, etc.
- Hermel 13y ago
  The smooth way would obviously be to invalidate all patents exactly 20 years from now. That's how long patents last. You don't take away anything from anyone. The only drawback is that it will take 20 years to implement. However, it will already have an effect much sooner - why filing for a patent in 2030 when it expires already in 2034?
- shawn-furyan 13y ago
  Wouldn't the signal sent by abolishing all future software patents likely bias courts in the direction of not upholding current software patents even if we didn't explicitly invalidate all current patents? It seems that it would be a lot harder to get a judgement against an "infringer" of a bogus software patent if all software patents were considered invalid. So even if we didn't get all past software patent awards retroactively invalidated it seems plausible that it would significantly declaw them. It seems like the holder of a software patent would really have to have something to get it to stick in such an environment. Because of that potentiality it doesn't seem like an all or nothing proposition to me.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  > Is this retroactive, i.e., all software patents filed and granted in the past too are abolished? It seems to me the way to do it is to establish that software alone (or software in combination with a prior art computer) cannot infringe any patent. > If 'yes', what happens to all the money companies have already spent on the patents they currently have? The assumption is that abolishing software patents will have a net positive result. Practicing entities thereby have more to gain by avoiding the future costs of zero sum patent prosecution, licensing negotiations and patent litigation than they have to lose in sunk patent prosecution costs. The hardest hit would of course be patent trolls with no other line of business, whose dissolution into bankruptcy can only be celebrated. Your concern is like being concerned for the costs incurred by kidnappers in purchasing unmarked vans and securing abandoned warehouses when the day comes that we abolish kidnapping.

javindo 13y ago

One of the main arguments for patents is just the fact that some things require a bit of capital to get going and what is to stop some venture capitalist from taking pitches, telling the person it's a rubbish idea then going off and funding the idea himself?

sushirain 13y ago
Patents won't help the engineer anyway, patents are made to protect the venture capitalist who invests the significant amount of money required to file the patent. That's the difference between the "inventor" and the "owner" as in patent law.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  With all due respect, I don't think you actually understand what patents do. Every year we hear of companies where people have invested much of their time and energy in giving life to an inventive idea or process, which at some point is acquired by another company in exchange for cash, stock, or both. And those negotiations would often not even start if the engineers building their idea were not able to protect their work using a patent. That single process is the difference between an acquirer taking all of their work and just re-implmenting, now that its clear what the issues are, and giving them nothing. And that company having to negotiate with the engineers about their work and pay them fairly for it if they want it. Patents have not always existed, and it is useful to see what it was like when they didn't exist to understand what it is they protect. That said, patent administration has not kept up with technology, although if you've been involved with the patent office as long as I have you will know it has gotten much better at figuring out what should and what should not be patentable. Further, the judiciary is getting much more in tune to the abusive nature that people wielding bad patents can have on an industry. It is getting better, and the people who need to make it better (the Supreme court in the US and the 'patent' court) are motivated to make it better and have been making changes along those lines. Not a quickly as some might like but being quick in complex areas of law is often dangerous so some caution is advised.
  - technoir 13y ago
    This is a nice story, but not an accurate reflection of reality. Look at the statistics on who are issued patents, who receives royalties. It's not the noble independent inventor, it's old MegaCorp that doesn't blink at underwriting the massive expense of prosecuting a good patent. The story you describe is a convenient myth to justify a system that benefits established interests.
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      You could actually do some research if you wanted to and realize the truth of the statement, I'll give you the couch potato version, watch 'Shark Tank' or 'Dragon's Den' and rank all of the engagements where the question of a patent came up. Or you could do as I have done and participate in on M&A discussions for over a decade as part of the due diligence team and compare outcomes when patents exist and when they don't. Or you could approach the question using some basic reasoning, if the BigCorp is spending millions a year to develop a patent portfolio, how much of that value would carry over into the acquisition of SmallCorp with or without patents? Zero? Non-zero? How much non-zero? Can that number be deduced? You don't have to believe some random guy commenting on Hackernews here, but you do have to actually think about it and test your assumptions.
    - technoir 13y ago
      ChuckM, I appreciate your polite tone and sincerity. To illustrate my point, consider my story. I'm a software developer with entrepreneurial ambition and I'm developing a product I have dreams of marketing and selling. Last week I probably came up with 5 methods of doing some novel data analysis that are patent-able. How many will I patent? Well considering it would cost about 100-150k to adequately protect that intellectual property and I have only my own boots to my name, ... I'll patent zero of them. Clearly the system does not work for me. This is one extreme scenario, but consider the continuum. What about a startup with 500k in seed funding? Should they spend 50% of their capital to protect their intellectual property before they've finished a product and made sales? Meanwhile large companies spend millions on patent programs which sweep up wide swaths of IP on nebulous grounds of validity. Not only can I not afford to prosecute a patent, I can't even afford to respond to a cease and desist letter based on an invalid patent which came out of the "innovation process" of MegaCorp. Sorry, but the system is not for the little guy or the start up.
baddox 13y ago
In that specific case, a contract could easily protect the inventor.

qq66 13y ago

Why abolish software patents but not all patents?

sushirain 13y ago
Just because I don't have enough understanding in other fields outside of software. It is possible, for example, that medicine today requires patents to advance faster.
- alok-g 13y ago
  This is exactly why your opinion on abolishing patents does not hold water. You do not yet know. I am not necessarily in the favor patents, but do not agree that a resolution should be reached without thinking it through in its entirety. Edit (to answer biehl's comment): I meant abolish "software" patents.
  - biehl 13y ago
    He did not ask for "abolishing patents" he asked for the more narrow "abolish software patents". There is no need to broaden the subject to all patents. (Edit: Then your statement still makes no sense. If you understand that he spoke only about software patents - why do you then needlessly broaden the subject?) Edit2: It is worse-than-useless to demand no action for softwarepatents until all patent types have been analyzed. Do you also support stabbing people being legal until all uses of knives (in kitchens etc.) have been analyzed? Or do you see that we can reasonably outlaw some form of knife-use?
    - alok-g 13y ago
      Right. I edited my comment to clarify. What I am saying is that the narrow "abolish software patents" should not be applied without thinking about all other fields where the same course of action would be helpful. You cannot just make Pluto not a planet without defining what's the new criteria that separates a planet from a non-planet that is better than saying anything named "Pluto" is not a planet, unless there is a specific justifiable reason that isolates just software and nothing else. (Obviously, not understanding beyond software is not an answer.)

alok-g 13y ago

Let's look at "abolish software patents" more deeply: Is this retroactive, i.e., all software patents filed and granted in the past too are abolished? If 'no', this can bring disadvantage to new comers who cannot file any new patents against those who have already have then granted. If 'yes', what happens to all the money companies have already spent on the patents they currently have? (International filings in many different countries can set a company back by several hundred thousands of dollars.) I am open to considering favoring abolishing patents (see also the alternative discussion on why only for software) provided it is applied uniformly to the past as well as the future without disadvantaging new comers. I do agree that on the very least, the term of the patent should be dependent on the degree of innovation involved whether in terms of time (number of years of validity) or money (maximum amount of gain in proportion to the R&D expenditure). People on HN have generally opposed this thought due to the overheads involved, etc.

Hermel 13y ago
The smooth way would obviously be to invalidate all patents exactly 20 years from now. That's how long patents last. You don't take away anything from anyone. The only drawback is that it will take 20 years to implement. However, it will already have an effect much sooner - why filing for a patent in 2030 when it expires already in 2034?
shawn-furyan 13y ago
Wouldn't the signal sent by abolishing all future software patents likely bias courts in the direction of not upholding current software patents even if we didn't explicitly invalidate all current patents? It seems that it would be a lot harder to get a judgement against an "infringer" of a bogus software patent if all software patents were considered invalid. So even if we didn't get all past software patent awards retroactively invalidated it seems plausible that it would significantly declaw them. It seems like the holder of a software patent would really have to have something to get it to stick in such an environment. Because of that potentiality it doesn't seem like an all or nothing proposition to me.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> Is this retroactive, i.e., all software patents filed and granted in the past too are abolished? It seems to me the way to do it is to establish that software alone (or software in combination with a prior art computer) cannot infringe any patent. > If 'yes', what happens to all the money companies have already spent on the patents they currently have? The assumption is that abolishing software patents will have a net positive result. Practicing entities thereby have more to gain by avoiding the future costs of zero sum patent prosecution, licensing negotiations and patent litigation than they have to lose in sunk patent prosecution costs. The hardest hit would of course be patent trolls with no other line of business, whose dissolution into bankruptcy can only be celebrated. Your concern is like being concerned for the costs incurred by kidnappers in purchasing unmarked vans and securing abandoned warehouses when the day comes that we abolish kidnapping.