2 ms·

Have you ever actually read a software patent? I have yet to find one which is educational... I'm not saying that the spirit of this holds true here, or in eve

by andreyf 17y ago

Have you ever actually read a software patent? I have yet to find one which is educational... I'm not saying that the spirit of this holds true here, or in every patent case. I'm saying that responding "ugh! patents suuuck!" is too simplistic of a world view. Patents on software are basically patents on math How, exactly, is that, in a way that patents on anything else aren't "basically math"? More importantly, do you think Nokia would ever have spent $60B on R&D if they got no patent rights for it? I'm all for copyright protection on software How is that even remotely, marginally related?

ynniv 17y ago
I'm not saying that the spirit of this holds true here, or in every patent case. When people say "patents" on Hacker News, you should assume that they mean software patents. Maybe business method patents on rare occasion. How, exactly, is that, in a way that patents on anything else aren't "basically math"? A sewing machine is not "basically math". A stapler that doesn't use staples is not "basically math". But more importantly, "a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention." (Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 199 (1939)). More importantly, do you think Nokia would ever have spent $60B on R&D if they got no patent rights for it? Yes, of course they would, thats the business they are in. They made $76.22B revenue in 2008. How is that even remotely, marginally related? The tools of our industry are already sufficiently protected to encourage investment, research, and development. Mechanisms are easy to invent are often invented independently, and patents interfere with this.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Now you're just plain confusing things... a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention The mathematical expression of a scientific truth is not just math, it's an observation of our reality. Algorithms ("just math") can be implemented in hardware or software, and can operate on paper or bits. Those are patentable. Yes, of course they would [have spent $60B on R&D if they got no patent rights for it], thats the business they are in. They made $76.22B revenue in 2008. Would they still have made $76.22B if their competitors could use their discoveries freely? This is silly. I'm not sure what you're arguing against - I'm claiming that there is a good reason for patents, both hardware and software (same reason - to encourage innovation) that shouldn't be ignored when talking about patents. You're saying you agree for hardware patents, but not software patents, but have yet to explain the difference between the two, aside from calling one of them "just math".

by andreyf 17y ago

ynniv 17y ago

I'm not saying that the spirit of this holds true here, or in every patent case. When people say "patents" on Hacker News, you should assume that they mean software patents. Maybe business method patents on rare occasion. How, exactly, is that, in a way that patents on anything else aren't "basically math"? A sewing machine is not "basically math". A stapler that doesn't use staples is not "basically math". But more importantly, "a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention." (Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 199 (1939)). More importantly, do you think Nokia would ever have spent $60B on R&D if they got no patent rights for it? Yes, of course they would, thats the business they are in. They made $76.22B revenue in 2008. How is that even remotely, marginally related? The tools of our industry are already sufficiently protected to encourage investment, research, and development. Mechanisms are easy to invent are often invented independently, and patents interfere with this.

andreyf 17y ago
Now you're just plain confusing things... a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention The mathematical expression of a scientific truth is not just math, it's an observation of our reality. Algorithms ("just math") can be implemented in hardware or software, and can operate on paper or bits. Those are patentable. Yes, of course they would [have spent $60B on R&D if they got no patent rights for it], thats the business they are in. They made $76.22B revenue in 2008. Would they still have made $76.22B if their competitors could use their discoveries freely? This is silly. I'm not sure what you're arguing against - I'm claiming that there is a good reason for patents, both hardware and software (same reason - to encourage innovation) that shouldn't be ignored when talking about patents. You're saying you agree for hardware patents, but not software patents, but have yet to explain the difference between the two, aside from calling one of them "just math".