Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#91

Post by brlewis »

gphil wrote: post #89
steveklabnik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

I'm not so sure that patents on software are any more or less "silly" than patents on real (physical) devices. What is it about software patents that makes them inherently different from patents in general? Obviously, there are arguments for and against the patent system as a whole, but are there any that apply only to software patents? I know there's a rich tradition of objecting to patents on software, but it alway…

You (and PG in one of his essays) think this way because you're looking at the end product. But patents aren't about the end product, they're about the human process that leads to that product and its incentives. People come up with algorithms and other mathematical constructs without the need for special government incentives.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#92

Post by brlewis »

krakensden wrote: post #34
Vivtek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're far more often used as bludgeons to drain the defense coffers of small software studios and startups. By the time a patent is granted, that startup has moved on to something better - show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description. Not the patented mechanism (that's generally obvious and we all know it), just what the invention is supposed to…

RSA. But you're still correct.

Here's my hypothesis: The less obvious a software "invention" is, the more closely it resembles patenting pure mathematics. Unfortunately, a severe shortage of non-obvious software patents makes this hypothesis difficult to test.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#93

Post by greendestiny »

cloudkj wrote: post #41
steveklabnik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for openness and transparency. But I do believe there needs to be some level of legal rights protection, and that it's a pretty fundamental pillar of our capitalist system. Out of curiosity, what do you (and others) think of a patent for something like Google's PageRank?

I'm not sure how PageRank always get brought up as the quintessential fair patent. Google most certainly didn't invent the eigenvector of stochastic matrices (and if they did it wouldn't be patentable). The part of PageRank that's patentable seems mostly to be using hyperlinks as an input into known techniques. I don't think its obvious, but I don't think its a clear cut example of something that should be patentable either.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#94

Post by dstorrs »

gphil wrote: post #89
steveklabnik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

I'm not so sure that patents on software are any more or less "silly" than patents on real (physical) devices. What is it about software patents that makes them inherently different from patents in general? Obviously, there are arguments for and against the patent system as a whole, but are there any that apply only to software patents? I know there's a rich tradition of objecting to patents on software, but it alway…

The public cost of a patent is the monopoly it provides. The public benefit is that the invention is eventually released into the public domain.

Take the pharmaceutical companies as an example of where patents are perhaps worthwhile:

- It costs a lot of money to produce a new drug; high cost == high risk == unattractive field for investment. Patents lower the risk because the pharmaceutical companies know that they will be able to recoup their investment if they actually produce something useful.

- Likewise, it costs a lot of time to do the research and produce something that works. The 20-year timescale (http://law.jrank.org/pages/9086/Patents-Patent-Duration.html) of the patent is approximately in line with the effort expended.

- It is comparatively easy to tell if a drug works.

- After the patent expires, the drug is probably still useful...e.g. aspirin hasn't stopped being a good painkiller just because it's a commodity.

Compare this to software patents. None of the points match up:

- Production costs are zero == low risk == attractive field for investment.

- Production time is almost zero. You can submit software patents literally as fast as you can write them up.

- Most software patents are completely intangible and have very fuzzy edges. If you're a patent examiner in 1980, how do you verify that this "web browser" idea will in fact work?

- After 20 years, the patent is likely to be worthless. As a trivial example: yes, people still use GIF but JPEG and PNG are far more common.

All of these things encourage the system we have now--"throw it against the wall", patent trolling, etc--instead of what patents were Constitutionally intended to be: an incentive to grow the arts, sciences, and economy.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#95

Post by gphil »

brlewis wrote: post #91
gphil wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure that patents on software are any more or less "silly" than patents on real (physical) devices. What is it about software patents that makes them inherently different from patents in general? Obviously, there are arguments for and against the patent system as a whole, but are there any that apply only to software patents? I know there's a rich tradition of objecting to patents on software, but it alway…

You (and PG in one of his essays) think this way because you're looking at the end product. But patents aren't about the end product, they're about the human process that leads to that product and its incentives. People come up with algorithms and other mathematical constructs without the need for special government incentives.

It may be true that people come up with algorithms and mathematical constructs without patents as an incentive, but I still don't see how the same incentives (patents) are necessary for people to build novel material goods if they are not necessary for people to build novel software goods.

What I'm left wondering is, what is it specifically (for people who hold that some patents are OK, while software patents are not) that makes software different?

Edit: I just saw dstorrs comment, and I think what he seems to be implying is that patents on software are not comparable to other industries because of the relatively lower barrier to entry, and the relatively higher cost of enforcement. I think that this is a good argument for holding software patents to different standards (i.e. shorter statute lengths and more specificity in the application) than pharmaceuticals, etc. but I still don't see how patents are entirely misguided in the case of software.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#96

Post by andreyf »

dpatru wrote: post #84
cookiecaper wrote: post #6

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. --Abraham Lincoln

Except this doesn't apply here in the least. Microsoft has a lot more to gain from strict patent enforcement than it has to lose. This is hardly a good reason for Microsoft to give up all of the effort they've put into their software patent portfolio.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#97

Post by 10ren »

Oral argument for the Bilski appeal was heard last month - perhaps something will come of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski

Personally, I think patent law needs a massive overhaul; but I also think that the lone inventor should be protected - or why would anyone bother doing deep useful work? We would then only get the deep work (of academics) and the user-driven hill-climbing (of open source/big corporations).

I guess startups like Appjet (etherpad) are an exception... but, according to their early webpage, they had a software patent. Which Google may have wanted when it acquired them. I expect that Dropbox, which also has some cool proprietary technology, also sought to patent it, given pg's position http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

While a startup can protect itself by growing and innovating fast, I have a soft spot for the deep technical innovator. I appreciate those incremental hill-climbing innovations; the cool stuff in the labs that never actually becomes usable; and the clever identification of markets and exploitation thereof. But the revolutionary stuff is what I love.

I'm always surprised that so many developers, who I would think are creative types, don't think deep innovation deserves the encouragement and reward of protection.

Note that Xerox PARC was funded by patents (on xerography); and Bell Labs' origin can be traced to a patent (on telephony).

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#99

Post by Jach »

cookiecaper wrote: post #6

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

I tend to agree, but I'm also concerned that the more often patents are held up in court, the harder it's going to be to get rid of them.

I remain hopeful though that Congress will get lobbied to legislate an end to patents, and the Supreme Court is facing some very interesting cases and seem in favor of the Open crowd.

Post reply on HN