Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by cookiecaper » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 3:35 AM UTC

gphil wrote: post #95

brlewis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Software is different because it's considered a creative work and therefore falls under the veil of copyright. Copyrights protect each implementation individually, and this is ample protection.

Patents generally cover a whole _invention_, not an implementation, and each implementation requires a license from the patent holder. So, in the case of the web browser, had Mosaic or Netscape patented this concept every competitor would be forced to obtain a license from the patent holder and open-source or free browsers would be impossible. Patents in the case of software therefore have a chilling effect and prevent significant competition for a long time.

Pharmaceuticals only get patented by publicly divulging their significant modes of operation; a software patent outlines only vague processes, like the i4i patent that's brought this whole thing up.

Software is also merely a high-level implementation of an algorithm. Algorithms are non-patentable and all math is discovered, not invented; this has been settled earlier, and is the reason that algorithms alone are not awarded patent protection. Software is no different.

In software, the implementation details are significant enough that patent protection is not only undesirable but in fact crippling to the industry as a whole. Take a look at some software patents; in fact, take a look at i4i's patent specifically. It's applicable to basically that edits XML documents, whether it be a word processor, an IDE, or anything else. These things are way too vague and they encroach on prior and future art in a hugely negative way.

See http://w2.eff.org/patent for a list of some rather absurd software patents granted by the USPTO; even if we ignored everything else and assumed that software patents were OK for things that deserved them, the people in charge of patents don't have anywhere near the kind of knowledge necessary to make intelligent decisions.

Those are my reasons for opposing software patents. It makes development a complete minefield, and only the big guys can afford to wade through that. I just have to hope that I don't do anything too successful until the patent laws are revoked or until I make enough money not to care.

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

#102

Post by cookiecaper » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 3:45 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #62

cookiecaper wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's bad, because the patent wouldn't read "Google's PageRank". It would read "A system that ranks cataloged pages by their relevance to a certain search term", which would mean every other search engine would have to license Google's tech. Copyright already covers specific implementations. That's as far as it needs to go in software.

Well, not really. They'd only have to license it from Google if they implemented their search engine in a manner covered by Google's hypothetical patent. Of course, apparently Google feels they have more to gain by keeping their algorithm secret than by patenting it.

Well, look at some software patents. The kind of scope and specificity in "a system that ranks cataloged pages..." is about par for the course.

Look at the patent that caused the injunction against Word ( http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ ); it's rather vague and basically includes anything that uses or modifies XML to create a product for end-user consumption.

The enforcement depends on the judge and the parties to the suit, but it's got a really, really broad potential scope. It's not unique; most software patents are that way. You think that's a good thing?

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

#103

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 3:46 AM UTC

seldo wrote: post #73

voidpointer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The software companies themselves often argue that they don' really want software patents. However, the fact that other can file patents puts them into a position where they need to file patents themselves for protection. It's just a stupid arms race. Now and then, a patent troll with noting to lose shows up and shakes up the picture. You could call it a sort of IP terrorism :-)

I think using the phrase "IP terrorist" rather than "patent troll" would make it much easier to sell to congress why these patents are a bad idea.

But you _know_ "IP Terrorist" will be associated with filesharers, and not trolls.

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

#104

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 3:47 AM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #79

voidpointer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The software companies themselves often argue that they don' really want software patents. However, the fact that other can file patents puts them into a position where they need to file patents themselves for protection. It's just a stupid arms race. Now and then, a patent troll with noting to lose shows up and shakes up the picture. You could call it a sort of IP terrorism :-)

IIRC i4i is not a patent troll. It's a company with real products, users and - and that prevents it from being called a patent troll - probably licenses the patents from others. I am all in for banning obvious or bad patents, as well as shortening their duration, but, perhaps, the i4i patents may be really original or innovative. Microsoft is known for talking partnership, maybe acquisition, learning all they can and…

I mean, they're not a troll in the way that they're developing their product, but they're a troll in the way that their patent is for a way of editing custom XML. Really?

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

#105

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 3:50 AM UTC

dstorrs wrote: post #94

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…

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 w…

Actaully, I wish I could find the link, but there was a study that showed in 2007 that of all the novel chemicals, most were out of university research, and not big pharma. They tend to spend an inordinate amount of money on marketing, which is ludicrous. I mean, if you need medication, the last thing you should be doing is basing it on ads. Your doctor doesn't need asked about latisse or whatever.

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

#106

Post by cookiecaper » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 3:50 AM UTC

wheels wrote: post #30

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…

> show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description. MP3.

I think that competent programmers with relevant training could develop good compression techniques for things like audio and video. In fact, that happens somewhat often.

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

#107

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 3:51 AM UTC

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…

Others have already commented on your question, but you'll find me being against all patents in general. If they were serving their intended purpose, maybe, but they don't benefit the little guy, only the big guy.

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

#108

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 3:53 AM UTC

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?

As I said above, I'm against all IP.

And PageRank is a trade secret, not IP. There's a reason that Coke hasn't gotten a patent on their forumla, no?

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

#109

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 3:55 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #63

ghshephard wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As of right now there is very little in the way of evidence that patents in anyway contribute to encouraging people to produce." There are untold exception to this - It's important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Drug Patents, in particular, are incredibly important. Large Pharmaceuticals spent decades and billions of dollars on developing, trialing, and getting their new drugs approved. Why on earth w…

Somewhat hypothetical, but: how difficult is it to reverse-engineer a drug's exact composition with only the final product (the pill/vaccine/etc. itself)? If it's difficult enough to be economically infeasible, then patent protection here could be replaced by simply keeping the drug a secret. Of course, that kills the generics market, and I suspect it's not such a difficult problem to RE a drug, but... just curious.

It actually takes India about 6 months to reverse engineer a drug. It's not that hard.

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

#110

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 4:08 AM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #60

dantheman wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What right? Copyrights & Patents are not natural in a free market; they're government creations. Remember patents and copyright only exist to encourage people to produce, not because you're entitled to profit from it. As of right now there is very little in the way of evidence that patents in anyway contribute to encouraging people to produce. Most small companies don't even bother patenting ideas because they don't…

"As of right now there is very little in the way of evidence that patents in anyway contribute to encouraging people to produce." There are untold exception to this - It's important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Drug Patents, in particular, are incredibly important. Large Pharmaceuticals spent decades and billions of dollars on developing, trialing, and getting their new drugs approved. Why on earth w…

They spend even more money on advertising.

Check it out, I just looked up Pfizer's 10k for fun: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials...

If you check out their data from 2006-2008, they spend about 16% of revenue on R&D. They spend about the same on marketing, though in 2007 they spent 23%, which drags the amount up a bit. But...

They spend 30% on SI&A, which stands for "Selling, Information, and Administrative" purposes. This includes "Direct selling expenses are expenses that can be directly linked to the sale of a specific unit such as credit, warranty and advertising expenses. Indirect selling expenses are expenses which cannot be directly linked to the sale of a specific unit, but which are proportionally allocated to all units sold during a certain period, such as telephone, interest and postal charges. General and administrative expenses include salaries of non-sales personnel, rent, heat and lights."

So, you can't _really_ be sure of what they're spending on selling, because it's mixed in with non-sales personell... but bottom line is, they don't spend that much on R&D, not compared with what they're making, anyway.

And they wouldn't have an incentive, but I'd argue that they _shouldn't_. Something as important as drugs should really be one of the legitimate functions of government. If I ran things, I'd be throwing out patents, but turning up NSF funding.