3 ms·

I know how patents work and I'm listed as inventor on some. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.

by Peaker 12y ago

I know how patents work and I'm listed as inventor on some. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html Is the reason why I claim most software patents are nonsense.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
I am also listed on some. But I have actually prosecuted a couple, and I find most tech communities to be entirely clueless about patents. Posting that Spolsky article shows that no, you don't really understand how patents work. Spolsky has some rudimentary understanding, and I really appreciate what askpatents is trying to do, but he misunderstood that patent as well. When that article was posted on HN the top comment pointed out that the patent application was talking about something else. Indeed, following up on the application, I see that it has been granted with only slightly narrower claims: https://www.google.com/patents/US8933971 https://www.google.com/patents/US8933971 You may think you know what your patents cover, but have you actually read the claims? If you do, you'll find the claims are about as narrow as the invention is trivial, so narrow that nothing will likely infringe it. If that's what you meant by "nonsense", then I'd agree. But the fact remains that the vast, vast majority of programmers never do anything worth filing even those kinds of patents.
- Peaker 12y ago
  I know what the patents filed on my behalf entail. I know the claims. I collaborated on their "invention". The fact it was granted a patent is not very note-worthy. It is not representative of anything useful. It doesn't represent deep thought, a lot of research, or anything of extraordinary value. It's a stupid game corporate has to play.
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    >The fact it was granted a patent is not very note-worthy. It is not representative of anything useful. It doesn't represent deep thought, a lot of research, or anything of extraordinary value. 1. Having read a ton of patents across multiple fields, that could be said of most patents ever (not just software patents). Most patents come out of engineering work, not high-level R&D. 2. That is still a huge step above what most engineers do their whole careers. Think of the average software developer - what percentage do anything approaching "real" engineering as opposed to churning out CRUD apps and web UIs dictated by business needs?

by Peaker 12y ago

throwawaykf05 12y ago

I am also listed on some. But I have actually prosecuted a couple, and I find most tech communities to be entirely clueless about patents. Posting that Spolsky article shows that no, you don't really understand how patents work. Spolsky has some rudimentary understanding, and I really appreciate what askpatents is trying to do, but he misunderstood that patent as well. When that article was posted on HN the top comment pointed out that the patent application was talking about something else. Indeed, following up on the application, I see that it has been granted with only slightly narrower claims: https://www.google.com/patents/US8933971 https://www.google.com/patents/US8933971 You may think you know what your patents cover, but have you actually read the claims? If you do, you'll find the claims are about as narrow as the invention is trivial, so narrow that nothing will likely infringe it. If that's what you meant by "nonsense", then I'd agree. But the fact remains that the vast, vast majority of programmers never do anything worth filing even those kinds of patents.

Peaker 12y ago
I know what the patents filed on my behalf entail. I know the claims. I collaborated on their "invention". The fact it was granted a patent is not very note-worthy. It is not representative of anything useful. It doesn't represent deep thought, a lot of research, or anything of extraordinary value. It's a stupid game corporate has to play.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  >The fact it was granted a patent is not very note-worthy. It is not representative of anything useful. It doesn't represent deep thought, a lot of research, or anything of extraordinary value. 1. Having read a ton of patents across multiple fields, that could be said of most patents ever (not just software patents). Most patents come out of engineering work, not high-level R&D. 2. That is still a huge step above what most engineers do their whole careers. Think of the average software developer - what percentage do anything approaching "real" engineering as opposed to churning out CRUD apps and web UIs dictated by business needs?