Poll: Do you support software patents? • Hacker News Board

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#231

Post by coffeeaddicted » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:10 PM UTC

danssig wrote: post #38

I see huge problems with the current system but in the current capitalistic world we live in there has to be a way to protect money/time spent on researching things. If the results of 10 years of research can be stolen as soon as they're announced no one is going to pay for research anymore.

You can still be the first to bring a product to market and you have the people who will have the best knowledge because they developed it. Also don't underestimate the willingness of people to _want_ to research. And lets not forget that companies in Europe do not have software patents (yeah, some gray area still exists...) and still do research, so we already know the software world won't break down without software patents.

And while your arguments are still valid to a certain extend - it has to be evaluated against the costs of the patent system and the benefits you'll get from erasing the patent system. For example right now every startup-up is in danger of running into patent troubles unless they start pair-coding with a lawyer. People avoid looking at patents because they are scared of treble damages and people avoid coding optimal solutions trying to work around patents. Companies can block each other and managers and investors are in a constant state of risk that their coders will violate patents (mostly without even knowing it). Patents are no longer used to boost innovation, but they are used primarly as a weapon.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#232

Post by MBlume » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:14 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #212

quanticle wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to understand, though, that legalese isn't English. It may look like English, and even work like English in ways, but its not English. Saying that legalese and English ought to be equivalent because they share words and syntax is like saying C++ and Java ought to be equivalent because they share keywords and syntax.

This is presently true, but shouldn't it be possible to define a legalese that can be parsed as English as well?

Yes, but the fact that it's impossible is considered a feature, not a bug, by those who use it -- it keeps the bastards employed.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#233

Post by cperciva » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:14 PM UTC

seanp2k wrote: post #207

cperciva wrote: post #7

I see no reason why an invention should be unpatentable simply because it involves software. That said, it's obvious that the current system is broken; there are many patents which do not seem to do anything new, and simultaneously the cost of applying for patents deters the group for whom they are most important -- small innovators who are unable to commercialize their inventions. The system needs to be fixed, not t…

>"I see no reason why an invention should be unpatentable simply because it involves software." Are you a software developer? Do you understand that often times, there is only a few logical ways of doing something?

Often the important part of an invention isn't figuring out how solve a problem; it's figuring out what the problem is in the first place.

Yes, I'm quite aware that some problems only have a few feasible solutions.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#234

Post by bostonpete » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:16 PM UTC

Locke1689 wrote: post #182

bostonpete wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The capability of modelling a physical system with math does not mean that physical systems are math. It's the modeling of physical systems that its patented, not the physical object itself. Those patents usually protect the inventor from people creating any number of variations on their exact design because it's the approach to solving a particular problem that is being patented. I think there are a lot of people…

Physical devices (even models thereof) are applications of physics equations, not physics equations themselves. These have been ruled time and again as being patentable. Algorithms are mathematical equations. They cannot be patented.

Software = math, math can't be patented, therefore software can't be patented.

I know the mantra. I just don't buy it. Math provides the building blocks used to produce creative (and sometimes very innovative) solutions to problems in the form of software. Material properties and laws of physics similarly provide the building blocks used to produce creative solutions to problems in the form of physical devices or mechanisms.

Just because the basic building blocks used to formulate an innovation aren't patentable, it doesn't necessarily follow that the innovation itself shouldn't be patentable if it's truly innovative and worth protecting (which most software patents certainly aren't, but some undoubtedly are).

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#235

Post by FrojoS » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:18 PM UTC

I find the results surprising. More than 500 points for software patents in some form? On HN? I'm not saying, that arguments for software patents are all wrong. And I'm excited about the discussion.

But again, I'm surprised...

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#236

Post by coffeeaddicted » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:20 PM UTC

dhume wrote: post #185

bane wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that hope is that it ignores how innovation happens. There is no reclusive mad scientist working in some dank basement on the next-best-great-thing. That's childish. Innovation happens through collaboration. You take someone else's work and you build upon it. Bit by bit, people build the next-best-thing. That's a very interesting point(s). Again, arguing from a devil's advocate POV. People who are ge…

1) Patents shouldn't be transferable -- this eliminates patent trolls 6) If you don't use the patent in a business use-case, you lose it. A bit like Trademark. Suppose somebody invents a device but lacks the facilities to mass-produce them (building by hand is probably too expensive to make for a viable product). Rule (1) bars the inventor from selling the patent to somebody who has these facilities, so it appears ne…

That's correct for patents in general - but I don't really think it's valid for software. Software is a lot more like book writing than like manufacturing. You can generally just do it once you manage to finance yourself for a while. Once you have really thought through all the details you are usually finished with the work.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#237

Post by nwmt » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:24 PM UTC

FrojoS wrote: post #235

I find the results surprising. More than 500 points for software patents in some form? On HN? I'm not saying, that arguments for software patents are all wrong. And I'm excited about the discussion. But again, I'm surprised...

It's worth noting that at the moment nearly 2400 people flat out want all software patents abolished.

Plus, lumping the other options in together isn't necessarily fair. Revoking existing software patents would have some pretty severe effects on legitimate companies and their shareholders. And the "other changes" is extremely vague - one could assume that other changes includes placing the onus on the company applying for the patent to prove its uniqueness, which would increase the cost to receive a patent and decrease the likelihood of abuse.

All in all, 19 votes at the moment support the current system. Less than 1%. And to be fair, roughly 15% believe better software patents would be OK.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#238

Post by mseebach » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:31 PM UTC

Locke1689 wrote: post #119

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

I'm fairly sceptical towards software patents but I'd argue that the math argument is a red herring. Software is clearly not math in the sense that the people who wrote that word into the law understands math. And as someone else pointed out: If this argument gets any traction, and if the powers that be want patentable software, they're going to clarify the language, not get into semantics over what people who couldn't in their wildest dreams imagine computers might have thought. It just a law and laws change all the time.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#239

Post by blackhole » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:32 PM UTC

An effective business model does not require patents, because by the time someone copies your idea well enough to be a threat, you've already come up with a better way to do it. Trying to make a business out of inventing one thing has never worked - you stay in business by inventing things faster than your competitors.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#240

Post by FrojoS » Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:40 PM UTC

I find the results surprising. More than 500 points for software patents in some form? On HN? I'm not saying, that arguments for software patents are all wrong. And I'm excited about the discussion.

But again, I'm surprised...