71–80 of 193 posts
Whatever you do, don't count on Reddit and Hacker News to do it for you, that's just slacktivism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others independently developing a similar algorithm?
This argument can be made against patents in general. If people want to argue that all patents are bad, that's fine, but most people draw a tenuous distinction between software patents and other kinds of patents. I agree with DrJokepu -- the real problem (assuming that you're not opposed to all patents) is that patents are being given for ideas that are moderately to extremely obvious.
What we need is some counter-balancing force that ensures patent license prices remain reasonable. Normally that's done by the threat of substitution or inventing-around, which doesn't work when USPTO screws up and allows claiming the whole problem space. The price especially needs to be reasonable for non-profit use, which is a software-specific issue made possible because our unit costs are also basically zero. It would also help if they tested patent claims for obviousness by giving someone the problem statement and seeing if they produce a solution off the cuff covered by the same claims.
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.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is Lodsys not just a collector of intellectual property? There's something to say about the difference between a corporation buying intellectual property rights related to its business and a corporation seeking only to sponge off others labor, profits and wit, contributing neither economic activity nor social involvement.
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 used to work at a software company that has an incentive program for developers that come up with patentable ideas, e.g. algorithms. You get a token prize when "your" patent gets submitted -- a pencil or something like that, I don't remember anymore. Then, if "your" patent gets accepted by USPTO, you get a more substantial prize, along the lines of a week at some comfy resort. A lot of my co-workers asked the same question: "Yeah, okay, that's nice, but there's a good chance that the company is going to make shitloads of money off a successful patent. A week at some resort doesn't really compare to that. Why don't you guys offer something that does?"
The guy who was explaining the incentive program responded: "Because you patent an idea and that's worth exactly nothing until you implement that idea in a product and sell that product to customers. You had the idea, but it's the company that has the means to implement it and market it and sell it." When you think about it, it's reasonable. Not precisely fair, but then again, things rarely are.
The point of this story is that software patents, just like all patents, are there to give the inventor a chance to implement the invention and make money from it, as a reward for the inventor's genius and hard work that went into coming up with an invention. That's obviously a good thing, because it gives you an incentive to invent something without having to fear that someone will simply steal your invention and make money off it.
Like every regulation with good intentions, it gets abused. What you said about trivial patents is just one way it gets abused. But another thing that makes it easy to abuse software patents is the duration of the patent. Twenty years is a hell of a long time in software. It practically invites patent trolling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others independently developing a similar algorithm?
Your question assumes two things that I haven't said, implied and are simply untrue. I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a lack of clarity on my part. First, it assumes that we want to be protected against "others independently developing a similar algorithm". Second, it assumes that I "believe that my company deserves to be protected" from such other people. We're not concerned about oth…
These are merely two perspectives from which we can view the same phenomenon.
Unfortunately software patents are useless for this purpose: they don't fulfil the function of making ideas public. Who, in this day and age, refers to a patent for the details of an algorithm?
I would argue that open-source software, in many ways, succeeds where software patents fail.
That doesn't imply that I think that every bit of programming deserves the protection of a patent. But if someone invents a new algorithm, then why doesn't that deserve a patent?
I'm just fed up with the stupidity of the status quo. As a number of posts have pointed out, the lawyers, Patent Office, etc. generally don't see this as a problem. People like us who actually want to create new things ... we're the ones who are the losers. This is another instance where it would have been beneficial if all software professionals belonged to a Guild or union. If we were organized, at least there is s…
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 tha…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/04/movie_plotline_paten... http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20051103183218... (this article's link to the published application is no longer accurate)
the ... proponent's website has its own legal reasoning: http://www.plotpatents.com/about_us.htm
USPTO publication numbers for a few of their applications 20050272013 20050282140 20050255437 20050244804
You can find those on google's patent search or the USPTO's Public Pair service: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
And beyond just being... questionable as a type of invention, the applications seem eager to see just how broad such claims might be:
1. A process of relaying a story having a timeline and a unique plot involving characters, comprising: indicating that a first character experiences dj vu to mask an actual event.