3 ms·

> So, here is a concrete case of patents discouraging innovation It seems to be just the opposite, though: the patent system is telling you "You are copying so

> So, here is a concrete case of patents discouraging innovation It seems to be just the opposite, though: the patent system is telling you "You are copying something that exists, instead you should innovate and create something new". So why don't you innovate instead of copying something that already exists?

shmerl 12y ago
What the patent system should say in theory is very different from how the patent system is used by patent abusers. Which directly indicates that the patent system itself requires a reform, since otherwise it would have prevented such abuse to begin with. If something is obvious, it should have been unpatentable. If the patent system says that it is patentable - the patent system is broken.
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
  You are changing the subject, patent trolls are a totally different matter. Here, we have an example of a company that is knowingly copying something that exists instead of coming up with their own solution to the problem, so I'm claiming that in this particular example, software patents are encouraging innovation. The company in question is simply choosing the easy way out of copying instead of innovating.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > You are changing the subject, patent trolls are a totally different matter. Patent abuser can even produce something useful. But if the patent is bad (obvious, abstract, claims a function, etc.) then such producing entity can ban all kind of competition which should exist because that thing should not be patentable in the first place. Because of that, term "troll" can be extended to any abuser. Not necessarily NPE. Even PE one. Copying is a natural thing in many cases. Preventing copying by patenting abstract ideas is crooked and should not be allowed. Not to mention cases, when some things were developed independently (so obviously not copied), but still are banned by patents.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Also, the glaziers in your town will profit if I drive down your street throwing bricks through windows. That doesn't mean that any economic value is being created, of course.
  - stephen_g 12y ago
    > Here, we have an example of a company that is knowingly copying something that exists No we aren't. Not sure how you got that idea. The patents in question are for small and obvious methods that is required for the larger product. What you are saying is sort of like saying that somebody who invented the motor car is just copying something that already exists if someone else had a patent for the ball bearing. Innovation requires building on things that already exist. It would be delusional to think anything is completely original and thought of from scratch.
  - netcan 12y ago
    Every piece of software is copying hundreds of little "somethings that exist". The registration form uses a captcha to prevent bot registrations? The user is emailed with a link with a secret code that when clicked, verifies they control that email address. The IP address used to make the web requests are recorded (using a computer) and are later used to infer the users physical location from it. A webpage includes a map with a dot in places where users registered. The size of the dot depends on the number of users. Which of the above is an invention that already exists for which we need to invent our own solution to?
retrogradeorbit 12y ago
Just because there is a patent, doesn't mean that it exists, or even can exist. It's just some document someone paid the patent office a bunch of money to stamp. Some patents are even impossible. Look up the patents on perpetual motion machines for example.
- axman6 12y ago
  In most countries those aren't valid because they aren't a Manner of Manufacture. If it's a physical impossibility, it's not allowable.
Ideka 12y ago
Their product is presumably not photo tagging or recording GPS data. These are just components they need for their actual product to work. When you talk about "innovating" here you are actually saying "finding way of achieving something that's different enough from the most convenient way (because someone has already thought of that)". That's no innovation at all; all that would do would be stopping them from launching their product until they figure out a way around the problem. By blocking entrepreneur's paths, patents prevent them from releasing their possibly innovative products, thus preventing innovation.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> So why don't you innovate instead of copying something that already exists? The fact is that the two are not only not mutually exclusive, they're interdependent. Nothing is ever 100% entirely new. Every innovation builds on what came before. The problem is not that people won't innovate. People are innovating. The problem is that someone has invented a new traction control system which they can't sell because someone else was granted a patent on the wheel. In 2011. And your solution is for the actual innovator to reinvent the wheel.

shmerl 12y ago

What the patent system should say in theory is very different from how the patent system is used by patent abusers. Which directly indicates that the patent system itself requires a reform, since otherwise it would have prevented such abuse to begin with. If something is obvious, it should have been unpatentable. If the patent system says that it is patentable - the patent system is broken.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
You are changing the subject, patent trolls are a totally different matter. Here, we have an example of a company that is knowingly copying something that exists instead of coming up with their own solution to the problem, so I'm claiming that in this particular example, software patents are encouraging innovation. The company in question is simply choosing the easy way out of copying instead of innovating.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > You are changing the subject, patent trolls are a totally different matter. Patent abuser can even produce something useful. But if the patent is bad (obvious, abstract, claims a function, etc.) then such producing entity can ban all kind of competition which should exist because that thing should not be patentable in the first place. Because of that, term "troll" can be extended to any abuser. Not necessarily NPE. Even PE one. Copying is a natural thing in many cases. Preventing copying by patenting abstract ideas is crooked and should not be allowed. Not to mention cases, when some things were developed independently (so obviously not copied), but still are banned by patents.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Also, the glaziers in your town will profit if I drive down your street throwing bricks through windows. That doesn't mean that any economic value is being created, of course.
- stephen_g 12y ago
  > Here, we have an example of a company that is knowingly copying something that exists No we aren't. Not sure how you got that idea. The patents in question are for small and obvious methods that is required for the larger product. What you are saying is sort of like saying that somebody who invented the motor car is just copying something that already exists if someone else had a patent for the ball bearing. Innovation requires building on things that already exist. It would be delusional to think anything is completely original and thought of from scratch.
- netcan 12y ago
  Every piece of software is copying hundreds of little "somethings that exist". The registration form uses a captcha to prevent bot registrations? The user is emailed with a link with a secret code that when clicked, verifies they control that email address. The IP address used to make the web requests are recorded (using a computer) and are later used to infer the users physical location from it. A webpage includes a map with a dot in places where users registered. The size of the dot depends on the number of users. Which of the above is an invention that already exists for which we need to invent our own solution to?

retrogradeorbit 12y ago

Just because there is a patent, doesn't mean that it exists, or even can exist. It's just some document someone paid the patent office a bunch of money to stamp. Some patents are even impossible. Look up the patents on perpetual motion machines for example.

axman6 12y ago
In most countries those aren't valid because they aren't a Manner of Manufacture. If it's a physical impossibility, it's not allowable.

Ideka 12y ago

Their product is presumably not photo tagging or recording GPS data. These are just components they need for their actual product to work. When you talk about "innovating" here you are actually saying "finding way of achieving something that's different enough from the most convenient way (because someone has already thought of that)". That's no innovation at all; all that would do would be stopping them from launching their product until they figure out a way around the problem. By blocking entrepreneur's paths, patents prevent them from releasing their possibly innovative products, thus preventing innovation.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> So why don't you innovate instead of copying something that already exists? The fact is that the two are not only not mutually exclusive, they're interdependent. Nothing is ever 100% entirely new. Every innovation builds on what came before. The problem is not that people won't innovate. People are innovating. The problem is that someone has invented a new traction control system which they can't sell because someone else was granted a patent on the wheel. In 2011. And your solution is for the actual innovator to reinvent the wheel.