3 ms·

The core of the issue (if any) is that historically, the patent system is inextricably tied into the free-market/laissez-faire economic system, which for all it

The core of the issue (if any) is that historically, the patent system is inextricably tied into the free-market/laissez-faire economic system, which for all its flaws, did create the world as we know it for the last ~ 200 to 300 years which led to an exponential rise in technological development - a unique phase started in the Western world, where now some of the 'successful and well-developed' countries in the Eastern world (e.g. Japan, South Korea, Singapore) have incorporated into their respective systems. From Stallman's article which did show up here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html "Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others." The real question is does all software patents come in the last part of the aforesaid sentence: ".....—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others." A knee-jerk reaction to throw out the baby out with the bathwater by abolishing the whole patent system may not be the right solution here.

quink 12y ago
> A knee-jerk reaction to throw out the baby out with the bathwater by abolishing the whole patent system may not be the right solution here. To further that analogy, if that bathwater is a toxic brew with, at least in the software industry, a serious chilling effect on innovation and enterprise is that really a bathwater the baby should be in? If you can point out to me more success stories because of software patents than nightmare scenarios like the above and the X-Plane saga, then I might agree. But as it stands, the biggest success story, Uniloc, that's relevant to Australia, which is where I am, makes me just pissed off.
- flipped_bit 12y ago
  Sorry to get back too late for the response as I hadn't seen it earlier. I do agree that the patent system as it is applied to software (and possibly other areas too like biotechnology) needs to be reformed. I am not defending the status quo but just pointing out that people who argue for abolishing the whole system needs to first understand its historical role before taking a drastic action. At the risk of over-simplifying, there is a tussle between 'software as a collection of algorithms which in turn are defined as a special class of mathematics' which is not patentable, vs software as a 'product' that provides useful functions which is in-line with how patents have been applied in other areas. Things get a little more complicated with 'process patents' as applied to software. It is hard to draw a fine line here and I don't claim to have any answers except looking at each case individually and deciding to apply it, sort of like the early definition of art vs porn: "I know it when I see it" (or something to that effect). Even if you were to grant a expansive protection for functional cases or business methods (implemented by the software), you will still have ridiculous ones like the 'Amazon one-click patent'. Regarding examples of 'success stories', I am not sure if these apply but the entire model of software business was driven on licenses during its critical growth period in the 1980s. One example is the core functionality of Excel which is probably one of the most successful software ever built: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US5272628 http://www.google.co.in/patents/US5272628 Even Google's core search ranking algorithm was patented: https://www.google.com/patents/US6285999 https://www.google.com/patents/US6285999 I should leave with this comment from PG: http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html "Frankly, it surprises me how small a role patents play in the software business. It's kind of ironic, considering all the dire things experts say about software patents stifling innovation, but when one looks closely at the software business, the most striking thing is how little patents seem to matter."

quink 12y ago

> A knee-jerk reaction to throw out the baby out with the bathwater by abolishing the whole patent system may not be the right solution here. To further that analogy, if that bathwater is a toxic brew with, at least in the software industry, a serious chilling effect on innovation and enterprise is that really a bathwater the baby should be in? If you can point out to me more success stories because of software patents than nightmare scenarios like the above and the X-Plane saga, then I might agree. But as it stands, the biggest success story, Uniloc, that's relevant to Australia, which is where I am, makes me just pissed off.

flipped_bit 12y ago
Sorry to get back too late for the response as I hadn't seen it earlier. I do agree that the patent system as it is applied to software (and possibly other areas too like biotechnology) needs to be reformed. I am not defending the status quo but just pointing out that people who argue for abolishing the whole system needs to first understand its historical role before taking a drastic action. At the risk of over-simplifying, there is a tussle between 'software as a collection of algorithms which in turn are defined as a special class of mathematics' which is not patentable, vs software as a 'product' that provides useful functions which is in-line with how patents have been applied in other areas. Things get a little more complicated with 'process patents' as applied to software. It is hard to draw a fine line here and I don't claim to have any answers except looking at each case individually and deciding to apply it, sort of like the early definition of art vs porn: "I know it when I see it" (or something to that effect). Even if you were to grant a expansive protection for functional cases or business methods (implemented by the software), you will still have ridiculous ones like the 'Amazon one-click patent'. Regarding examples of 'success stories', I am not sure if these apply but the entire model of software business was driven on licenses during its critical growth period in the 1980s. One example is the core functionality of Excel which is probably one of the most successful software ever built: http://www.google.co.in/patents/US5272628 http://www.google.co.in/patents/US5272628 Even Google's core search ranking algorithm was patented: https://www.google.com/patents/US6285999 https://www.google.com/patents/US6285999 I should leave with this comment from PG: http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html "Frankly, it surprises me how small a role patents play in the software business. It's kind of ironic, considering all the dire things experts say about software patents stifling innovation, but when one looks closely at the software business, the most striking thing is how little patents seem to matter."