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

Enough Is Enough

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 193 posts

Re: Enough Is Enough

#21

Post by wslh »

DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

I understand your viewpoint. My point is: what happens in the long term if people like Dijkstra patented their algorithms? I think we all have a stockpile of licenses to pay for almost any code, even a r"Hello World" (you are using a string, if it's unicode you need another patent!).

So, I think there are more winners and innovation "sacrificing" the software inventors side.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#22

Post by iamben »

Why not diminish the value of a patent once it's sold? That way you prevent companies like Lodsys buying and trolling, and if you put the money / time / resources into the development of something, you can reap the reward.

Just a thought, not the answer. But the system is totally ridiculous as it stands.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#23

Post by dstein »

DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

Is there any reason the algorithm couldn't remain a trade secret? And is there any possible scenario where the long term good that comes from this patent will outweigh the long term good that will come from untethered innovation?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#24

Post by lmarinho »

Stwerner wrote: post #15
sliverstorm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what kind of job satisfaction being a valueless leech off society brings?

You would be surprised. I met someone this weekend at a wedding who works at a law firm that specialises in software patent suits, and he really didn't understand or even care. Outside of this and similar communities, no one has any idea that software shouldn't be patentable, or even that there are issues with it in the first place.

Not to mention that the shady practices are obfuscated by properly sterilized language, as in many other organizations. One does not "threaten small developers with expensive lawsuits", one merely "extracts value from investments".

Re: Enough Is Enough

#26

Post by fiblye »

DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

I think the issue that most people have is that people who coincidentally develop an algorithm that serves the same functionality or operates in a similar way as your algorithm will be sued to hell, even though they'd never even heard of the work you'd done. A bigger issue is with people that patent every single idea they've ever had, never fully develop anything, then sue any person that's made a profit with a similar idea.

You have the right to keep your code confidential and protect it from theft, but people who are capable of making something similar with their own abilities shouldn't be punished.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#27

Post by statictype »

Mostly agree, except:

Second, Lodsys didn't even "invent" the idea. They purchased the patent and are now using it like a cluster bomb on the entire mobile app developer community.

The fact that Lodsys bought the patent and didn't invent the idea themselves seems entirely irrelevant to this dilemma. Unless you also think that if you acquire someone else's software, you don't have the right to sell it.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#28

Post by cop359 »

wslh wrote: post #21
DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

I understand your viewpoint. My point is: what happens in the long term if people like Dijkstra patented their algorithms? I think we all have a stockpile of licenses to pay for almost any code, even a r"Hello World" (you are using a string, if it's unicode you need another patent!). So, I think there are more winners and innovation "sacrificing" the software inventors side.

according to wiki, Dijkstra's algorithm was published in 1959. If he had a patent on it for 15 years and made enough money to cover his troubles, then I don't really see it as a bad thing. Now a days, you might say that 15 years is too long and maybe that's true, but sometimes it takes people a very long time to monetize their ideas (due to technical problems, bad business partners, time needed to develop connections in the business etc.)

Re: Enough Is Enough

#29

Post by wslh »

cop359 wrote: post #28
wslh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your viewpoint. My point is: what happens in the long term if people like Dijkstra patented their algorithms? I think we all have a stockpile of licenses to pay for almost any code, even a r"Hello World" (you are using a string, if it's unicode you need another patent!). So, I think there are more winners and innovation "sacrificing" the software inventors side.

according to wiki, Dijkstra's algorithm was published in 1959. If he had a patent on it for 15 years and made enough money to cover his troubles, then I don't really see it as a bad thing. Now a days, you might say that 15 years is too long and maybe that's true, but sometimes it takes people a very long time to monetize their ideas (due to technical problems, bad business partners, time needed to develop connections…

But my argument is: if not only Dijkstra but a huge part of the comp sci community would have decided to patent their inventions it will be impossible to move forward in the field. Only the legal costs of "swimming" on this system will be prohibitive for the developers community.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#30

Post by jasonkester »

Maybe somebody needs to move this issue to someplace more visible.

I'd like to introduce the concept of Movie Patents. I'd register a patent for the plot device of having the bad guy be the main character's best friend, with additional clauses for being his boss, advisor, or partner. I wouldn't ever make any movies. I'd just sit back and collect royalties from everybody who used my idea.

The reason behind this is that maybe then people who matter would actually notice how silly this concept is. It's so plainly obvious that it's a bad idea that regular people can finally understand what's going on. Eventually, people with the ability to make changes might actually find themselves forced to make changes.

Software, as big as it is, is just not that big. This issue can piss every single one of us off, and it won't make the NBC Nightly News. It can't piss off the people it needs to piss off in order to get it fixed, so chances are it will stay unfixed indefinitely.

Post reply on HN