Enough Is Enough • Hacker News Board

Re: Enough Is Enough

#141

Post by seats » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 5:58 PM UTC

jpadvo wrote: post #127

noonespecial wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately those of you who really deserve patents will not be able to make them rise above the noise of this lunacy. We're eventually going to have to go with "no software patents at all" to fix this. As a society, we just haven't outgrown the greedy thuggery that could allow us to respect each others work without gaming the system into tragedy of the commons territory. A classic case of "see, this is why we can'…

I don't think that is inevitable. There is not an inherent reason why the Patent Office needs to award trivial patents. If they tighten up (or apply) their standards, the problem would be tremendously reduced.

The USPTO is overwhelmed and understaffed, so I can understand why they have poor QC on patents, particularly when they require technical knowledge to determine triviality.

What I don't get though is why it seems to be such a challenge to prove the invalidity of these crap patents in court. The google loss to bedrock (the linux kernel troll) is a high profile example of this. Maybe the standards that need to be looked at are around litigation and if enough crap is thrown out, all the incentive is gone and all of the sudden the USPTO application volume goes way down.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#142

Post by seats » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 6:02 PM UTC

I appreciate this thread and I think that the movie plot patent is a fantastic analogy so great topic starter submission.

I have to say though that I am disappointed by the blog post. Based on the title and the topic I kind of expected something, anything as a suggestion, instead of just a rant and a loose plan to spam every elected official you meet.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#143

Post by SoftwareMaven » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 6:35 PM UTC

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…

Coca-cola has managed to deal with this for a hundred years. Google has managed it for 10 years. These things are called trade secrets. You protect them through NDAs, being intelligent with who has access to the information, and not open-sourcing the code.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#144

Post by SoftwareMaven » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 6:38 PM UTC

As much as a wonder if there is a point, it can't hurt to write your elected officials and tell them, in reasonable, cogent terms, why software patents cause problems and how they should be fixed.

You can find and write them here: http://capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/officials/

Re: Enough Is Enough

#145

Post by russell » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 6:47 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #97

"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 abl…

There has never been copyright for design. Copyright for source code and for binaries works quite well for protecting software from wholesale copying, piracy notwithstanding. Software ideas are a dime a dozen. The real protection comes from the difficulty of the implementation, the pace of change, and the first mover advantage.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#146

Post by timedoctor » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 6:57 PM UTC

The only real solution for these companies is to incorporate offshore (or to have no money). This could be a significant long term issue for US companies, and makes me more hesitant about incorporating in the US where I am vulnerable to patent trolls.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#147

Post by georgemcbay » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 7:01 PM UTC

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'm OK with the idea of software patents in theory just like I'm OK with the idea of the death penalty for extreme crimes in theory. Because we live in an imperfect world made up of imperfect people, I don't support either in practice.

Perfect software patent system > no software patent system > broke software patent system, but I believe the perfect system is impossible, so I'd rather see the software patent system dismantled completely than exist in a broken state.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#148

Post by WiseWeasel » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 7:01 PM UTC

bhousel wrote: post #51

laujen wrote: post #50

An idea I will throw out there: I always wondered why anyone should be able to hold onto an idea (patent it) if they don't use it. I can't help but wonder if the best way to fix the patent system isn't to overhaul it -- which would be nearly impossible to do due to entrenched interests -- but instead invalidate all patents if they aren't used within a certain time period by the rights holder. In other words, use it o…

Wouldn't suing someone count as 'using it'?

No. 'Using it' would mean distributing a product that directly makes use of the patented technology.

In practice, however, this will simply force patent trolls to jump through a few more hoops and find the least expensive way to distribute the product in some form in order to defeat the intent of the law while following its letter.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#149

Post by fauigerzigerk » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 7:09 PM UTC

qq66 wrote: post #138

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cop…

What about this is unique to software patents? I don't understand the "destroy software patents" crusade. "Destroy all patents" makes sense, and "improve all patents" makes sense, but why are software patents any different than device or chemical patents?

My main point is not limited to software patents, it's just more striking in this area because the drawbacks of patents are so clearly demonstrated every day. And contrary to other disciplines, copyright covers a lot of ground when it comes to software.

But to understand what might make software special you have to look no further than the things that are currently not patentable and never have been, like mathematical approaches and business processes.

So, for instance, if you invent some data mining approach based on graph theory and you write your formulas on a piece of paper or into your matlab or R worksheet you cannot patent it. If you express the same ideas in a couple of C functions you can patent it.

Another example. Say you are the first to have the idea of selling coke and sandwiches at gas stations. You cannot patent it. But if you are the first to have the idea of selling avatars from within some computer game, you can patent it. Why is that?

The differentiation between patentable and non patentable types of approaches and ideas is not something that was invented by software patent crusaders. It's right there in the law already.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#150

Post by jellicle » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 7:25 PM UTC

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…

Except that you could already use and profit from the algorithm indefinitely without any patents in place whatsoever, simply by keeping the algorithm secret.