3 ms·

What's your evidence that it's perfect? For example, a startup with hardly any funding comes up with a very innovative idea to tackle a problem, they start wor

What's your evidence that it's perfect? For example, a startup with hardly any funding comes up with a very innovative idea to tackle a problem, they start working on it with very little funding. Facebook grabs the idea, implements it in a month, exposes it to a billion users and the startup just dies. What's the incentive for the next innovators to create a startup in such conditions? "What's the point of trying to create something novel since Facebook or Apple will just copy us and crush us". Not exactly a perfect system now, is it?

rfrey 12y ago
It's unlikely the hypothetical startup would be protected from that sad outcome by the current system.
shmerl 12y ago
> Facebook grabs the idea, implements it in a month, exposes it to a billion users and the startup just dies. That makes an assumption that software patents should be used for preventing others from "grabbing the idea". That's invalid. You can protect your software with copyright, or for example make it open and ensure contributions from derivative works with copyleft. But to be competitive one doesn't need software patents which cause all kind of crooked damage.
noonespecial 12y ago
Even if the startup had the patent, it is unlikely they would have the millions it would take to enforce it against Facebook. Far more likely the opposite. Facebook collects hundreds of patents and uses rotten lawyer tricks to avoid ever competing with startups bringing real innovation.
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
  > Even if the startup had the patent, it is unlikely they would have the millions it would take to enforce it against Facebook They wouldn't have to, it's much cheaper and faster for Facebook to just acquire them. Make no mistakes: whenever you read in the news that Big Company just acquired Small Company, a lot of this is justified by the patents that Small Company filed. It is much faster and cheaper for Big Company to acquire that company, its patents, its team and its products than spending years in court suing them.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > a lot of this is justified by the patents that Small Company filed. That's bunk. It can happen that companies are acquired for patents. But the above was the case when it's acquired for technology. That's a very different thing.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > It is much faster and cheaper for Big Company to acquire that company, its patents, its team and its products than spending years in court suing them. Which is why software patents are so useless! Big Company needs a team and code, and it gets the product to market faster to buy the team who has already written and tested the code than to pay a new team the same money to write it again. Meanwhile the patent is useless because the cost of ligating a patent claim is an inconvenience for Big Company but a mortal danger for the startup.
  - noonespecial 12y ago
    Yes, it usually goes something like "take our excellent acquisition offer of be sued to bankruptcy for this fine collection of patents you've infringed". (Decent offer / 10)

rfrey 12y ago

It's unlikely the hypothetical startup would be protected from that sad outcome by the current system.

shmerl 12y ago

> Facebook grabs the idea, implements it in a month, exposes it to a billion users and the startup just dies. That makes an assumption that software patents should be used for preventing others from "grabbing the idea". That's invalid. You can protect your software with copyright, or for example make it open and ensure contributions from derivative works with copyleft. But to be competitive one doesn't need software patents which cause all kind of crooked damage.

noonespecial 12y ago

Even if the startup had the patent, it is unlikely they would have the millions it would take to enforce it against Facebook. Far more likely the opposite. Facebook collects hundreds of patents and uses rotten lawyer tricks to avoid ever competing with startups bringing real innovation.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
> Even if the startup had the patent, it is unlikely they would have the millions it would take to enforce it against Facebook They wouldn't have to, it's much cheaper and faster for Facebook to just acquire them. Make no mistakes: whenever you read in the news that Big Company just acquired Small Company, a lot of this is justified by the patents that Small Company filed. It is much faster and cheaper for Big Company to acquire that company, its patents, its team and its products than spending years in court suing them.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > a lot of this is justified by the patents that Small Company filed. That's bunk. It can happen that companies are acquired for patents. But the above was the case when it's acquired for technology. That's a very different thing.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > It is much faster and cheaper for Big Company to acquire that company, its patents, its team and its products than spending years in court suing them. Which is why software patents are so useless! Big Company needs a team and code, and it gets the product to market faster to buy the team who has already written and tested the code than to pay a new team the same money to write it again. Meanwhile the patent is useless because the cost of ligating a patent claim is an inconvenience for Big Company but a mortal danger for the startup.
- noonespecial 12y ago
  Yes, it usually goes something like "take our excellent acquisition offer of be sued to bankruptcy for this fine collection of patents you've infringed". (Decent offer / 10)