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

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#21

Post by ismarc »

hga wrote: post #14
ismarc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have our common ground in that the current system is broken. My example of a single algorithm was based on the premise that for any algorithm, others can(are) incorporated into it (the algorithm can become synonymous with a cog, which would itself be patentable as well). Therefore, by my viewpoint, the macro level is identical to the micro level. The level of detail in patent applications for physical devices are mindnumbing. A key method of overcoming this problem is by using references to other patents. In this way, you could hold patents X, Y and Z and apply for a third patent A that combined the patents into a macro system without having to detail X, Y and Z all over again. My opinions on how to fix it are based on a blank slate system, all software patents should be of this level of detail, etc. rather than a just "going forward they should be". With that level of detail in a patent, resolving unintentional infringement is trivial while still providing the same output by simply referring to the patent and adjusting your implementation accordingly. This also means that prior art is easier to assess. The difficult part would be obviousness, but given the proper staff and training can be dealt with.

EDIT: Reading your recent response to another commenter below, I don't want to give off the impression that I think any current software patents should be maintained. I think they should be all completely removed (or required to be resubmitted fitting new requirements that include specific details on implementation). My ideas are in the "dream world" where the rigor was applied since the first software patent was applied for.

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#22

Post by fnid2 »

hga wrote: post #16
fnid2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 indus…

1. It's all math. You can't patent english either, but patents are english -- at least in the united states.

2. There are so many because it is easier to write code than it is to cut iron. That doesn't mean the value of the invention isn't worth just as much to the world and the inventor. Maybe more. We should see an exponentially increasing quality of life due to the exponentially increasing ease with which it is getting to innovate.

People can build a CNC in their garage with parts from the lumber store and a couple websites. That was unheard of 20 years ago. We have lasers in our junk that can start fires. Think of the leap fire gave us!

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#23

Post by chrisbennet »

I think people lose sight of just what patents are for; they are to encourage innovation.

From the US Consitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

Software patents as currently practiced do not serve this purpose. Imagine if you were a writer and the words you commonly used for you craft were "owned" by others? This is the situation now for software developers.

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#24

Post by absconditus »

fnid2 wrote: post #15
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…

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…

Source code is already covered by copyright law. Why must it be covered by patent law as well?

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#25

Post by dan_the_welder »

It has been said that what the current patents issue creates is a landscape where you can only be the one winner or among the many losers.

If there was a different solution, then there could be many small players filling different niches. This would be a win since there would be many opportunities to create a business and contribute to the economy.

Look at ISPs, if all you have is Comcast then you have a parallel to the current patents winner take all situation with all the problems that creates.

I really think the larger issue is that if people can't create businesses that fill out the economic landscape then those people are not able to work to their potential and that is a huge unintended drag on growth.

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#26

Post by mattiss »

char wrote: post #18

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 a…

You do realize that without patents large companies have FAR less incentive to buyout novel startups right?

Re: Software patents are the problem not the answer

#28

Post by roc »

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.…

You're arguing one simplified example while having ignored the thrust of the argument.

Yes, applications on physical inventions try to broaden their claims as much as possible. But there is still a substantial and quantitative difference between the domain covered by "fixed or removable fastener" and "a network" or "a process".

Post reply on HN