Enough Is Enough • Hacker News Board

Re: Enough Is Enough

#91

Post by MatthewPhillips » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:02 PM UTC

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.

That's right, they believe they are doing the world a favor by "financing innovation".

Re: Enough Is Enough

#92

Post by edanm » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:03 PM UTC

atakan_gurkan wrote: post #56

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others independently developing a similar algorithm?

That situation is an unfortunate side effect. The point of patents is that the inventor requires an incentive (a limited term monopoly in case of patents) to make their methods publicly known. The protection is against the copiers, but since an independent developer is indistinguishable from a copier, they get excluded from using the idea as well. I always thought that this is precisely why the patentable ideas are n…

You're right.

But even non-trivial ideas tend to occur to several people at once, which is a part of the problem.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#93

Post by fauigerzigerk » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:07 PM UTC

DrJokepu wrote: post #63

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47

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…

I was asking this question because protection against others independently developing a similar algorithm is what the patent system provides, and that's why many people, including myself, are opposed to it.

I wasn't assuming that you personally or even your employer actually wanted that kind of protection. So my rather rhetorical question was intended to highlight that discrepancy.

You want to prevent others from copying your work but what you do by patenting it is more than that. You prevent others from making or benefiting from their own original invention. Of course, as long as software patents exist, you don't have much choice.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#94

Post by scott_s » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:11 PM UTC

statictype wrote: post #27

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.

I think it does matter, because it means certain behavior is more likely.

Companies that create patents are more likely to invest their time, money and effort into actually making things that will eventually be sold (in whatever fashion). This activity adds value to the economy. While it is possible for such companies to aggressively pursue their patents in the way that Lodsys has, they don't need to do it to survive, and I hope that the people who work there would rather spend time on more productive things. That's not a guarantee, of course.

Companies that merely collect patents, and exist solely to collect and profit off of the patents themselves, do not add value to the economy. They are parasites. Because they have no other way of generating revenue, we can expect them to behave in the way that Lodsys has.

If it was possible to design the IP laws so that patent trolling was not profitable, then I think that would be a good thing. I'm not sure if it's possible - but I think it's worthwhile to recognize that there is a relevant difference.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#95

Post by reitzensteinm » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:12 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #87

reitzensteinm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a pretty messed up system if there were never any cases where patents were justified. Yours sounds like an edge case. The real question is what's best for the industry as a whole?

Rather than being an edge case, I think that what DrJokepu described is the intended case. But the system has been gamed.

You're right, that was a poor choice of words.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#96

Post by statictype » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:16 PM UTC

kluikens wrote: post #73

statictype wrote: post #27

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.

I see your point, but there's a significance that shouldn't be entirely overlooked. 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…

Again, playing devil's advocate, Lodsys is contributing to the economy by rewarding the original patent owners for their innovation.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#97

Post by ChuckMcM » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:22 PM UTC

"I believe that software patents should not exist. They are a tax on innovation. And software is closer to media than it is to hardware. Patenting software is like patenting music."

This is what I fear. I worry this idea will take hold and we'll get copyright protection for software 'design' instead of patent protection, and then that happens, the Lodsys crap will have a lifetime of 85 years not 20.

We need to be able to protect someone's innovation so that they aren't screwed over by some larger competitor taking their idea and running with it. That need is real and continues to exist, we need patents.

Let's argue for the real problem here, we also need a better system for dumping things that should not have been patented in the first place because they fail the 'novel' test. We need jurists that understand the technology they are being asked to evaluate, and we need to require at least three people 'skilled in the art' to sit in on juries in patent hearings. I might even go so far as to create special patent juries for these cases. We need a better way of reviewing a patent and validating it against the state of the art.

What we don't need is to convince policy makers that software is like 'music.' And we don't need people believing that we don't need any protection for people's work should they choose to take advantage of those protections.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#98

Post by tlrobinson » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:33 PM UTC

In a previous discussion someone suggested forming a reverse patent troll organization that accepted donations of patents from open source developers and whoever, and used them to counter sue patents trolls. The obvious problems are it's expensive to file for patents and lawsuits, and it doesn't protect against "pure" trolls.

Another idea: a simple community that accepts and publishes every random software idea anyone ever comes up with in order to establish prior art.

Perhaps include mechanisms to discover patent applications linked to relevant keywords, etc.

What would it take to prove the date of submissibon to the system? Is there some type of digital notary that we could send a daily batch of documents?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#99

Post by GrandMasterBirt » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:36 PM UTC

tlrobinson wrote: post #98

In a previous discussion someone suggested forming a reverse patent troll organization that accepted donations of patents from open source developers and whoever, and used them to counter sue patents trolls. The obvious problems are it's expensive to file for patents and lawsuits, and it doesn't protect against "pure" trolls. Another idea: a simple community that accepts and publishes every random software idea anyon…

Simpler: Mathematical formulas can't be patented.

Haskel is a lambda calculus implementation. Therefore implementing ANYTHING in haskel will mean that it is just a mathematical formula (have a program to transform it so we can put it to court) and therefore as long as anything is implemented in haskel at least once it proves that that something is just a unpatentable mathematical formula.

If the laws won't change to accommodate us, we should pull out the guns (metaphorical).

Re: Enough Is Enough

#100

Post by iqster » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 3:39 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #79

iqster wrote: post #37

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…

Within ten years of such a guild's creation, it would be in support of patent law and probably lobbying for it to be strengthened. By creating such a guild, you create guild leadership, and leadership of guilds(/unions) tend to prefer stability and larger organizations over a rich array of smaller companies that make it much harder to exert control.

Heh ... I'm just reading Hackers and Painters ... I think it said some of the greatest programmers subscribe to Libertarianism, and gives good reasons why. Touche!