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

241–250 of 319 posts

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#241

Post by anigbrowl »

burgerbrain wrote: post #229
anigbrowl wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I articulated my reasoning in the following sentence. You assume that the people in the position to make decisions are competent. Not at all; there's a large volume of patent litigation, and it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the decision makers are competent to evaluate such elementary arguments. Your argument requires universal in competence by litigators and/or decision-makers.

"Your argument requires universal incompetence by litigators and/or decision-makers." Incompetent and or comprimised. Yes.

So basically you think the entire patent system is a giant conspiracy?

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#242

Post by notJim »

drblast wrote: post #205
notJim wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this approach to governance. How can we ever hope to run a competent democracy when the citizens of that democracy assume that government can't be improved?

On what do you base the assumption that it is possible for us, or anyone, to run a competent democracy? There's no historical precedent for it; in fact quite the opposite. Theoretically, it's possible, but in theory communism would work if everyone just did their best to make it work. Reality is different.

Well there are degrees of dysfunction. Compare, for example, the healthcare system of Western European countries to that of the US. I realize this is a charged issue where people have different ideas of how it should work, but for a certain set of goals (maximum coverage, minimum cost), Europe generally does much better than the US. Other things (diversity, productivity, entrepreneurship, I would argue) are done better in the US.

There are obvious and simple ways the patent system could be improved. For example, drug patents already are treated specially, in that they expire quickly--perhaps a similar system could be applied to software patents. Or, exemptions could be made for implementations of patented software that exist for reasons of interoperability or compatibility. Another option would be to enshrine into law the promises companies make not to sue. (As in, the company is not allowed to renege on their covenant not to sue--this is actually probably not really possible from a legal standpoint, but I'm not an expert.)

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#243

Post by johngalt »

The closer you get to the ideal situation with software IP law the closer you get to copyright style and the further away you get from patents. Software patents could work. It would just mean applying them more sparingly. You can patent the specific crank you've created, but not the whole idea of rotation.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#244

Post by rdl »

I am against patents in general, and especially against software patents. I wasted a lot of time from ~1990 to ~2000 with RSA alternatives, and then there was the whole Chaum and Brands patent mess which was another bottleneck for anonymous cryptographic token electronic cash (think bitcoin but anonymous, and even better).

I am really kind of sad that I'll be getting some for my new company; it's a waste of $100k, time, etc., but it is the prudent thing to do.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#245

Post by edanm »

mrcharles wrote: post #166
notJim wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I understand your argument. You said this: > a software idea can be thought up in a few minutes and implemented in the same. This is only true for trivial pieces of software. I agree with you that trivial pieces of software should not be patentable. But you're saying that no piece of software should be patentable, regardless of how complex or innovative it is, and there I strongly disagree.

There's too much room for error, if you let there be a line between what is and isn't patentable with respect to software. Better to leave it open and let the cards fall where they may. Software patents actively restrict technological development.

Why is it better to leave it open?

You both agree that there is major variation in how much "effort" goes into producing patentable work. Your problem is you want a very clear-cut definition specifying what is patentable, and since effort is hard to measure, you'd rather just throw out all patents. You assume this would be better than the current situation (which, I think, takes the other extreme - most things are patentable).

But why do you think the way you suggest is better? Just because the current system sucks?

(Forgive me if I misrepresented your argument).

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#246

Post by chrisbennet »

plexav wrote: post #112

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, on…

I suspect most of us are software developers and we are well aware that the patent process does nothing for us but punish us for innovating.

Those who profit from the current system will try to justify it by saying that it protects us (the developers).

Poll 100 developers and I bet you won't find a single one that has benefitted from patent protection, at least not directly.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#247

Post by zmmmmm »

It is interesting that this poll does not mention the problem that I most care about: that the bar for "obviousness" seems to be way too low for software patents. It is so low that I actually worry in my every day work that I will accidentally violate patents simply by solving simple every day problems in obvious ways.

I would support some kind of software patents for truly novel inventions. However so many software patents that I see are almost insultingly obvious, even when you place them in context of their time.

So, yes to software patents if:

1. Shorter time period - 20 years was based on an industrial era time frame for physical manufacture and distribution

2. Much higher threshold for obviousness. Companies should have to declare problems they are applying for patents for publicly and fund a bounty for members of the public or any challenging organization to win by submitting solutions. Only when third parties fail to suggest the methods in the claims should something become patentable.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#250

Post by _delirium »

quanticle wrote: post #192
chris_j wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a native English speaker and I don't generally understand patent texts. In fact, I've filed quite a few patents and have always been amazed that I give something readable to a lawyer to write up and they turn it into something that I can't understand any more. The idea that a patent is the medium through which an author shares their invention with the world is rather perverse. So I agree; coding around patents is…

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.

For patents in particular, though, a big part of the justification is that they constitute a disclosure of the invention to other practitioners in the field. It's a quid pro quo: we grant you a limited term of protection, in return for you divulging the details.

As part of that arrangement, it seems like we ought to require that the disclosure be in English, not merely in a tongue that shares some English words and syntax.

Post reply on HN