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

Software patents are the problem not the answer

unionsquareventures.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#11

Post by hga »

fnid2 wrote: post #9
hga wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the point here is that no one can build a software system of any complexity without infringing on many patents. Tracking that and even paying RAND fees without the need for negotiation makes this impossible , not just difficult or impractical. And it kills open source software, which doesn't have a model to pay license fees. Plus there are so many not formally documented ideas that the Patent Office regularly iss…

The legal system, unfortunately, is where patents are disputed. If there is prior art, the patent will be thrown out.

Unless of course it's litigated in a jurisdiction like the Rocket Docket AKA the Eastern District of Texas, in which case the plaintiff generally wins. And it's very expensive to litigate this, to defend yourself you'd have to retain one or more very expensive expert witnesses. While I like the idea of putting money in the pockets of MIT professors, this is not the best way ^_^.

Anyway, we're still talking about adding so much friction to the writing of software that it would utterly change the field and curtail most development, especially in small firms ... well, I suppose a healthy underground would develop. But there wouldn't be much for YC to do.

No thanks.

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#12

Post by ismarc »

hga wrote: post #5
fnid2 wrote: post #3

I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers? For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which pr…

" For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. " NO! Outside of the lower end of the embedded realm, computer systems are fantastically more complicated than anything physical we've every tried to construct, and they contain so many ideas that could be subject to patent in the current regime that you analogy fails.

You're mistaken. Every algorithm used in software can be created as a specific integrated circuit. Software is a means of controlling a general processor that performs sets of operations based on instructions it receives. No matter what level of programming you are doing (from interpreted web dev down to assembly) it gets translated and passed to the processor the same way. The problem isn't that it's too difficult to be specific enough in the patents due to the complexity. The problem is that there isn't a REQUIREMENT to be that specific in software patents.

My personal opinion is that if the patents required a pseudocode implementation using a common-standard language to represent the components and operations, it would be much easier to determine patentability, would prevent generic, wide-sweeping software patents and require the investment of actual invention rather than just an investment of dreaming to be patented. Physical device patents are required to be specific enough that it can be used to create the device using only the patent and references in the patent. The same should be applied to software patents, with the translation from the pseudocode components to whatever language or platform be the same as physically constructing the components of a machine.

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#13

Post by fnid2 »

hga wrote: post #11
fnid2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal system, unfortunately, is where patents are disputed. If there is prior art, the patent will be thrown out.

Unless of course it's litigated in a jurisdiction like the Rocket Docket AKA the Eastern District of Texas, in which case the plaintiff generally wins. And it's very expensive to litigate this, to defend yourself you'd have to retain one or more very expensive expert witnesses. While I like the idea of putting money in the pockets of MIT professors, this is not the best way ^_^. Anyway, we're still talking about addi…

Okay, I agree for sure that the system is messed up. But my real question is, "Is the solution deleting software patents?"

Maybe the solution is holding software patents to the same rigors as mechanical patents. Why the distinction? That's what I don't understand. And still don't.

Why are they treated differently? By everyone. Even outside the courts.

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#14

Post by hga »

ismarc wrote: post #12
hga wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. " NO! Outside of the lower end of the embedded realm, computer systems are fantastically more complicated than anything physical we've every tried to construct, and they contain so many ideas that could be subject to patent in the current regime that you analogy fails.

You're mistaken. Every algorithm used in software can be created as a specific integrated circuit. Software is a means of controlling a general processor that performs sets of operations based on instructions it receives. No matter what level of programming you are doing (from interpreted web dev down to assembly) it gets translated and passed to the processor the same way. The problem isn't that it's too difficult t…

I think we're talking past each other in that I'm focusing on the macro level of an entire system with N (where N is large) algorithms whereas you're focusing on the concept of an individual one.

My thesis is that even if I grant you a sane patent regime the macro level scales so fast and big that that changes the game and makes the concept impossible in practice.

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#15

Post by fnid2 »

roc wrote: post #8
fnid2 wrote: post #3

I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers? For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which pr…

The common complaints about software patents rely on mistakes and shortcomings of the book-keeping: obvious inventions sneaking through, prior art missed, terms too long, etc. But the real difference (and problem, imo) can be found in the claims. A patent for a physical invention lays out, in its claims, precisely how an invention works. A lever-arm here, a catch there. Infringement on that patent can only happen if…

The solution then, it appears, would be to hold software patents to the same standard. Put the code in there. Patent the source code. Forget the legal stuff. If you use unpatented closed source patents, be clear about which product it is and which version you are using. Hold corporations responsible for using version control on their software and everything falls into place.

For loops are like gears. While loops are like emptying water tanks. Booleans are switches Storage containers are variables.

All that stuff is represented in the source code. As a software engineer, my defense is my repository. I wrote all that code, look. I didn't take it from someone or copy someone's idea or try to infringe anything. I was trying to make the world better and people liked it so they bought it and I can feed my family. :)

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#16

Post by hga »

fnid2 wrote: post #13
hga wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless of course it's litigated in a jurisdiction like the Rocket Docket AKA the Eastern District of Texas, in which case the plaintiff generally wins. And it's very expensive to litigate this, to defend yourself you'd have to retain one or more very expensive expert witnesses. While I like the idea of putting money in the pockets of MIT professors, this is not the best way ^_^. Anyway, we're still talking about addi…

Okay, I agree for sure that the system is messed up. But my real question is, "Is the solution deleting software patents?" Maybe the solution is holding software patents to the same rigors as mechanical patents. Why the distinction? That's what I don't understand. And still don't. Why are they treated differently? By everyone. Even outside the courts.

1. Originally, the biggest issue was "you can't patent math", i.e. where do you draw the line between discovering a rule of the universe vs. an "invention". Square roots are not an invention per se. A method for finding them...???

2. Scale: just how many are used in any one system makes "deleting software patents" a good and probably the best outcome. Especially since there was no lack of health in the software industry before they were allowed, and there's no evidence I'm aware of that they now help it and plenty that they don't.

It also seems to break down, mostly due to scale, when you insert patent trolls into the game. In the physical world there's a lot of cross licencing, where one patent, revealed to the world by the very act of patenting it, often results in an improvement, whereby the two companies cross license.

Let's take a step back: the idea of patents is that for their absolute monopoly of limited duration you reveal your secret sauce instead of keeping it indefinitely hidden behind trade secret law. I fail to see how the publication of software patents helps the field in this way. Even if they weren't obscurely written, there are again just too many of them (too many ideas).

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#17

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

roc wrote: post #8
fnid2 wrote: post #3

I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers? For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which pr…

The common complaints about software patents rely on mistakes and shortcomings of the book-keeping: obvious inventions sneaking through, prior art missed, terms too long, etc. But the real difference (and problem, imo) can be found in the claims. A patent for a physical invention lays out, in its claims, precisely how an invention works. A lever-arm here, a catch there. Infringement on that patent can only happen if…

A patent for a physical invention lays out, in its claims, precisely how an invention works. A lever-arm here, a catch there

Only if it was written by a really crappy lawyer! The company I work for spent months coming up with a design for a mechanism and ended up with something pretty suboptimal in order to avoid all the existing patent claims. A good patent attorney will state the claims as generally as possible. e.g., don't call out a "10-24 screw," instead call out a "fixed or removable fastener" or "a means of locating the rotating element" etc. You may be confused because many patents show drawings, but those drawings are only examples to illustrate the concept, not necessarily actual claims

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#18

Post by char »

I couldn't agree more. Patents are a complete waste of time.

It is ridiculous to me that people can actually patent an idea, as if they are the only ones in the world who thought of it. (You're never the only one in the world who thought of your idea, even if you think you are.) A patent is not going to prevent someone else from executing the same idea in a better way. Meanwhile, all it does is slow down innovation and drain money and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#19

Post by fnid2 »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #17
roc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The common complaints about software patents rely on mistakes and shortcomings of the book-keeping: obvious inventions sneaking through, prior art missed, terms too long, etc. But the real difference (and problem, imo) can be found in the claims. A patent for a physical invention lays out, in its claims, precisely how an invention works. A lever-arm here, a catch there. Infringement on that patent can only happen if…

A patent for a physical invention lays out, in its claims, precisely how an invention works. A lever-arm here, a catch there Only if it was written by a really crappy lawyer! The company I work for spent months coming up with a design for a mechanism and ended up with something pretty suboptimal in order to avoid all the existing patent claims. A good patent attorney will state the claims as generally as possible. e.…

Sounds like innovation to join a market, rather than innovation to create a market. Why not just patent an improvement on an existing product?

That's one good thing about open source software. Improvements can just be tacked on. You don't have to go invent something totally new. That is one thing that separates software and machines.

It's hard to tack a more efficient engine onto a 5 year old tractor.

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#20

Post by kiba »

"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty." - Boldrin and Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...

I highly recommend that everyone should read this book, if only to elevate the average level of sophistication in HN debates about intellectual property.

Post reply on HN