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

Poll: Do you support software patents?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 319 posts

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#81

Post by dodo53 »

monochromatic wrote: post #66
nh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it is a intellectual property question. My point was that if you violate a trademark even though you independently came up with it, the same would apply for patents.

Well, true... up to a point. But the motivations behind patent law are so different from those behind trademark law that I'm not sure it's a relevant comparison.

And one of the tests in trademark law is if a reasonable person would be confused between the original and the imposter. So you only have to have 'reasonable' knowledge of other brands in your industry.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#82

Post by kenjackson »

albedoa wrote: post #23
mrcharles wrote: post #16

I can't stand the idea that I might be at my computer, working with code, and develop something independently which later causes me to get sued. Abolish all software patents. edited to add "software".

This John Carmack quote is relevant and shares your sentiments: "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack

In theory that shouldn't be patentable. What John Carmack is describing is something that is obvious to a craftsperson in the field.

OTOH it does still preclude John from being presented with a problem and then doing someone quite ingenious to do a great solution that seems actually quite "novel", to learn that someone else did it years before.

But for patents, if you follow logical steps from a given problem then you shouldn't be granted a patent.

In fact the way patents should work is that the patent officer spends a week trying to solve said problem themselves. And only after that attempt, read the actual patent. If they're struck with, "Ahh... yes, good idea, wouldn't have thought of it mysefl" then its potentially patentable. But if the patent officer says, "Yeah, that was my second attempt." or "that's largely derivative of my general line of logic in my other attempts" then it shoudln't be patentable.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#84

Post by [deleted] »

notJim wrote: post #69
mrcharles wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to all, I specifically meant software patents. Hardware patents are different as they often rely on physical creation of objects and a non-trivial investment in materials/development. Conversely a software idea can be thought up in a few minutes and implemented in the same. In app purchases isn't exactly a clever idea or something that was revelatory. It was simple software evolution.

You're saying all software ideas can be thought of and implemented in a few minutes? That is both absurd, and an insult to the innovation that happens in software. You have 10 minutes, give me an implementation of something that improves upon H.264 by 30%.

[deleted]

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#85

Post by jerf »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #80
jerf wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing a critical difference. Patents are supposed to be "unobvious". A normal person just working in their shop should not just accidentally stumble across a patented thing, because by definition the patented thing should not be obvious to one skilled in the art. Programmers on the other hand can indeed pop open an editor, spend a few minutes with Ruby on Rails implementing "a standard business procedure, bu…

the patented thing should not be obvious to one skilled in the art It's a big world and there are a lot of smart people in it. History is full of examples of multiple people independently inventing/discovering the same thing.

And those things aren't supposed to be patentable. How you get from "not supposed to be patentable" to "does not exist" is beyond me.

May I also observe it isn't me making a normative claim that such things that are easily re-constructed by anyone should not be patented. It is descriptive, right in the legal definition of patent; it should be not obvious to one skilled in the art. Again, the very fact such a clause is necessary is evidence that there is a set of things obvious to one skilled in the art that exists, or why bring it up?

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#86

Post by barrkel »

notJim wrote: post #69
mrcharles wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to all, I specifically meant software patents. Hardware patents are different as they often rely on physical creation of objects and a non-trivial investment in materials/development. Conversely a software idea can be thought up in a few minutes and implemented in the same. In app purchases isn't exactly a clever idea or something that was revelatory. It was simple software evolution.

You're saying all software ideas can be thought of and implemented in a few minutes? That is both absurd, and an insult to the innovation that happens in software. You have 10 minutes, give me an implementation of something that improves upon H.264 by 30%.

That's not how it works. If you're familiar with the area, you might come up with an idea that improves it by 3%. If you have 9 of those ideas, you might get a 30% improvement. Where the ideas come from is serendipity combined with fertile ground.

It might be by analogy, a technique from a different domain, from similarity with something you did with lego blocks when you were 9 years old, from a mishearing when discussing something with a fellow developer, from ignorance of the known techniques in a particular area and trying to solve it from first principles, etc. You do need some familiarity and experience in the domain in order to recognize the utility of the novel technique. It might happen once to you, but it's unlikely to happen 9 times.

More importantly, it's also probably going to occur to someone else, sooner or later. New discoveries tend to be repeated, that's a common theme in the history of scientific and mathematical development. By advocating patents for these things, you suggest the mere chance of coming first means you get a government-granted right to extort from other people.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#87

Post by generators »

(1) Patents should be analyzed for level of difficulty in coming up with solution. If I had a website like amazon, more than 50% chances that I would have come up with single click idea. But since I didn't had problem, I could not have solution. so such patent should be allow only "acknowledge" status <- that means, a software that is using such patent must "acknowledge" the original creator somewhere , but it can use the patent freely. (2) if patent is used, it is liable for max 5000$ ( for e.g. ) charge. or (3) 500 Million $ charge. It all depend and subjective. current system is go and no go. patents should analyze for level of ingenuity too.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#88

Post by dspillett »

jcromartie wrote: post #40
albedoa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This John Carmack quote is relevant and shares your sentiments: "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack

Except it's even worse than that: usually patent trolls haven't even written the code to solve the problem. Working code is not required to be granted a patent.

And they could file for the patent after you have done the work. You then have the hassle and expense of proving that your work came first and even then such cases often don't go the way they should.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#89

Post by mrcharles »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #71
mrcharles wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to all, I specifically meant software patents. Hardware patents are different as they often rely on physical creation of objects and a non-trivial investment in materials/development. Conversely a software idea can be thought up in a few minutes and implemented in the same. In app purchases isn't exactly a clever idea or something that was revelatory. It was simple software evolution.

No, there is no difference. If you're going to claim that they're different because one may require a "non-trivial investment (1)" then you have to specify that hardware patents that only require a trivial investment are similarly invalid. The bottom line is that patents are patents. It's inconsistent to be against one type and not another. I understand why patents exist, but I also agree with the Carmack statement a…

It takes significantly less effort to create a piece of hardware from scratch if you have a reference design to crib from.

However, if I independently develop a piece of software or an algorithm, there is a very strong chance that it took me the exact same amount of time and effort as the person who originally solved it.

In the former case, it makes sense to enforce a patent, as copying their design directly eases my ability to go to market with something.

In the latter case, it doesn't make sense, as I now have to pay someone else, despite having done the work.

Note that I see copyright, intellectual property, and patents as completely different things. If I'm using someone else's code/libs, then obviously, I feel it is worth the ability to enforce. However, that already exists without the patent system.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#90

Post by coffeeaddicted »

jcromartie wrote: post #40
albedoa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This John Carmack quote is relevant and shares your sentiments: "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack

Except it's even worse than that: usually patent trolls haven't even written the code to solve the problem. Working code is not required to be granted a patent.

And not only you might accidentally break patents - you might not even be able to figure out if you break patents at all without paying a lawyer to translate the patent specifications. Maybe it's just because I'm no native english speaker, but I often don't get patent texts. Coding around patents is like walking blindfolded through a minefield.
Post reply on HN