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

111–120 of 319 posts

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#111

Post by rlpb »

jcromartie wrote: post #101
rlpb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixing your problem would only need the current system to be modified such that independent invention is not infringing. One way, for example, is to make it permissible for independent invention to be considered evidence that the patent is obvious to those skilled in the art and thus not patentable. A patent already granted would be repealed under these circumstances. Would you still be in favour of abolishment, and…

How would you prove an "independent" invention was really developed independently of the patent? You can't prove that someone didn't read something.

The "first to invent" system already in US patent law already faces the same issue, so if it can be done there it then can be done here.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#112

Post by plexav »

How many of the respondents have a deep understanding of patent law, and it's application to algorithms and more specifically computer software? Rather than provide substantive input, most of the responses to this query illustrate 1) the shallow nature of most people's understanding of the issues, and 2) a corresponding willingness to highlight such a lack of understanding. Taken from the perspective of a process, one can almost always describe software as a process that effects some change on a physical object, or objects. For example, exposure to novel features (the one's you might think to patent) change the neural functioning of a user which takes it out of the realm of "software" and into that of a physical process. You're feeling sleepy....very sleepy...

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#113

Post by Zak »

PakG1 wrote: post #29
Zak wrote: post #2

In principle, they could give a lone programmer or small company that invents something awesome the edge needed to break in to a market dominated by large companies. I consider this to be desirable. In practice, they're used by large companies to prevent lone programmers or small companies from breaking in to the markets they dominate. I do not consider this to be desirable. They're more trouble than they're worth.

The biggest problem here is the transaction costs. If the costs to get and enforce patents were much much lower (time, money, opportunity cost), then patents would be really good. Only the large corporations have enough cash to enforce patents successfully.

I'm not sure that's the case. I think if patents were cheaper to get and enforce, people would patent more trivial things and sue each other far more often. Look at copyright enforcement as practices by the RIAA and Righthaven.

What really needs to be cheaper and easier is getting invalid patents overturned.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#114

Post by abrahamsen »

Please everybody, don't go reddit with the comment voting.

It is clear what the majority opinion here is, but I see well formulated comments supporting the minority opinion being voted down. If you think their arguments are wrong, don't vote them down. Instead, vote up the comments that explains why they are wrong.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#115

Post by simpleTruth »

jcromartie wrote: post #101
rlpb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixing your problem would only need the current system to be modified such that independent invention is not infringing. One way, for example, is to make it permissible for independent invention to be considered evidence that the patent is obvious to those skilled in the art and thus not patentable. A patent already granted would be repealed under these circumstances. Would you still be in favour of abolishment, and…

How would you prove an "independent" invention was really developed independently of the patent? You can't prove that someone didn't read something.

IMO a reasonable test is: If a patent can be used to sue one company it may be patentable. If it can be used to sue 100 companies working on separate products it's probably obvious.

Basically, you can't prove 1 person did not read it. But, you can be positive 100 people did not read it. Now clearly this depends on the number of people working on the problem. So, while 100 is excessive in most fields, somewhere around 3-10 is probably a good lower bound.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#116

Post by Locke1689 »

shasta wrote: post #96
notJim wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument against trade secrets is that they hurt innovation by impeding the flow of information. Patents allow a company to publish their innovations without fear of someone coming along and simply stealing it. By allowing inventors to publish their information with little competitive disadvantage, we enable other inventors to build on their predecessors efforts.

The better argument for software is that secrecy doesn't work.

Complexity does -- SaaS is very hard to reverse engineer.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#119

Post by Locke1689 »

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…

Software is a mathematical equation. Math isn't patentable.

Edit: Since people aren't convinced of my postulate that all algorithms are mathematical equations, here's a proof sketch:

All programs can be rewritten to be expressed in Haskell. All Haskell functions can be expressed as equations in the typed lambda calculus. The lambda calculus and its variants are all subsets of mathematical equations. Therefore, all programs can be expressed as mathematical equations.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#120

Post by kenjackson »

jobeirne wrote: post #107
kenjackson wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> In fact the way patents should work is that the patent officer spends a week trying to solve said problem themselves. Does that really sound at all scalable (or even reasonable) to you? I imagine that many of the proposals that move through the patent office are highly contextual and may be simple ideas wrapped up in daunting language. It seems reasonable that it would take far more than a week to even get your arm…

> In fact the way patents should work is that the patent officer spends a week trying to solve said problem themselves. Does that really sound at all scalable (or even reasonable) to you?

I imagine that many of the proposals that move through the patent office are highly contextual and may be simple ideas wrapped up in daunting language. It seems reasonable that it would take far more than a week to even get your arms around some of the problems themselves, let alone the solutions.

Then spend more than a week on it. I didn't use a week as "cap", but rather a starting point. If it takes a month, sure then spend a month. You'll get no arguments from me. Especially since patents regularly take 5+ years to get approved.

Post reply on HN