3 ms·

> If software patents had been commonplace in 1980, I would not have been able to create such a system, nor would I probably have ever thought of doing it, nor

by jokoon 12y ago

> If software patents had been commonplace in 1980, I would not have been able to create such a system, nor would I probably have ever thought of doing it, nor can I imagine anyone else doing so. I don't understand this. How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic. I totally agree that software patents are abusive and most of the time not useful to society, but why say it would prevent people from inventing stuff ? Even if someone steals your invention, if it's a real breakthrough it will be used, don't you think ?

Retric 12y ago
They don't prevent the initial idea but they do make implementing it pointless. For a current example A lot of educational software ideas fall into this due to Blackbards mass of patients and litigation happy stance. Anyway, Blackboard has little I incentive to buld a better product or bother trying to buy out competitors thus killing off a lot of innovation.
iwwr 12y ago
>How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic. It would mean he would need a license for every building block of an algorithm. It would have meant early (and vital) algorithm research bogged down by lawyers and lawsuits. You can't release a free implementation without a license and so the free software ecosystem may not have appeared at all (and we wouldn't even realize what we lost). Lastly, Knuth is a mathematician and he could have chosen any number of specialties; early lawyerization of algorithm research may have denied us all his input in the field. Current software giants benefited greatly from free ideas and copied mercilessly off each other. Even now the tendency is to have broad and inclusive cross-licensing, leaving mostly young companies in the firing line. The things that never get built probably dwarf any measurable damage caused by patent litigation.
- jokoon 12y ago
  yeah so it's more a business practice problem than anything else... also I don't understand why patent trolls are not patenting gzip, sorting algorithms or any other kind of technology. I think the patent office use experts to approve a patent, so why are there such stupid patents ? Can't they just void them ?
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> I don't understand this. How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic. Standing on the shoulders of giants. Imagine everything software-related that AT&T or IBM did in the 1960s was patented. There could have been no Xerox PARC. There could have been no Free Software Foundation. There could have been no Apple or Microsoft. There could have been no Compaq or any other PC clones. All of the contributions these organizations made to the state of the art and all of the benefits of competition they brought could have not existed. It would be hard to think about computers formatting text if there were no computers that supported a GUI or fonts and configuring your operating system to allow the computer owner to access the frame buffer required a $20,000 site visit from the IBM service technician.
Natsu 12y ago
> I don't understand this. How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic. He would have rejected it as impractical as one could not release free software, as he did, given the constraints if the more fundamental algorithms had been patented. Imagine if every sort of sorting was patented, for example.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  Or even if just quicksort and mergesort were patented.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
"I don't understand this. How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic." Do you see all the fuss around 3D printers today? Everybody could think about 3D printers 5 years ago, but no body could sell supplies because 3D printers patents had not expired. This meant it was extremely difficult for anyone to make a 3D printer, compared with today when I could go to a web page, pay 400 dollars(instead of 40.000) and own one.

by jokoon 12y ago

Retric 12y ago

They don't prevent the initial idea but they do make implementing it pointless. For a current example A lot of educational software ideas fall into this due to Blackbards mass of patients and litigation happy stance. Anyway, Blackboard has little I incentive to buld a better product or bother trying to buy out competitors thus killing off a lot of innovation.

iwwr 12y ago

>How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic. It would mean he would need a license for every building block of an algorithm. It would have meant early (and vital) algorithm research bogged down by lawyers and lawsuits. You can't release a free implementation without a license and so the free software ecosystem may not have appeared at all (and we wouldn't even realize what we lost). Lastly, Knuth is a mathematician and he could have chosen any number of specialties; early lawyerization of algorithm research may have denied us all his input in the field. Current software giants benefited greatly from free ideas and copied mercilessly off each other. Even now the tendency is to have broad and inclusive cross-licensing, leaving mostly young companies in the firing line. The things that never get built probably dwarf any measurable damage caused by patent litigation.

jokoon 12y ago
yeah so it's more a business practice problem than anything else... also I don't understand why patent trolls are not patenting gzip, sorting algorithms or any other kind of technology. I think the patent office use experts to approve a patent, so why are there such stupid patents ? Can't they just void them ?

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> I don't understand this. How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic. Standing on the shoulders of giants. Imagine everything software-related that AT&T or IBM did in the 1960s was patented. There could have been no Xerox PARC. There could have been no Free Software Foundation. There could have been no Apple or Microsoft. There could have been no Compaq or any other PC clones. All of the contributions these organizations made to the state of the art and all of the benefits of competition they brought could have not existed. It would be hard to think about computers formatting text if there were no computers that supported a GUI or fonts and configuring your operating system to allow the computer owner to access the frame buffer required a $20,000 site visit from the IBM service technician.

Natsu 12y ago

> I don't understand this. How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic. He would have rejected it as impractical as one could not release free software, as he did, given the constraints if the more fundamental algorithms had been patented. Imagine if every sort of sorting was patented, for example.

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
Or even if just quicksort and mergesort were patented.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

"I don't understand this. How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic." Do you see all the fuss around 3D printers today? Everybody could think about 3D printers 5 years ago, but no body could sell supplies because 3D printers patents had not expired. This meant it was extremely difficult for anyone to make a 3D printer, compared with today when I could go to a web page, pay 400 dollars(instead of 40.000) and own one.