Enough Is Enough • Hacker News Board

Re: Enough Is Enough

#151

Post by joeburke » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 8:07 PM UTC

This article is much more about the evilness of patent trolls than about software patents.

My thoughts:

- Prevent the existence of trolls (for example by mandating that only patents that are central to your own business can be enforced).

- Raise the bar for the acceptability of software patents.

- Reduce the lifetime of software patents to something more in line with the software industry (a few years maybe).

But by all means, preserve software patents, they do have some value if used as they were designed for (protect companies that invest into R&D).

Re: Enough Is Enough

#152

Post by LiveTheDream » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 8:16 PM UTC

Would there be any value in a large collection of prior art software, designs, "look and feels", etc? The idea being that since we feel that many software patents are trivial, why not actually implement the ideas and thus provide a line of defense against silly, trivial patents.

Very novel, complex software that might be worth a patent would be very unlikely to turn up in such a collection because of the effort required. Ideally, this would help create an ecosystem where patent-worthy software is awarded a patent, and trivial software is not (because of prior art).

This is an idea I've thought about for a long time. One could argue that much of this idea might already be implemented by websites like sourceforge, github, etc. A focus on explicitly being prior art would probably help, however, justifying the need for a separate archive of ideas.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#153

Post by kleiba » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 8:17 PM UTC

Patenting software is like patenting music.

Oh god, please don't give them ideas...

Re: Enough Is Enough

#154

Post by zhyder » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 8:26 PM UTC

We need a generic fix for the patent system, not something specific to software. I think the only way to do this is to change the process of suing for patent infringement. The patent holder must determine how much investment was made to develop the specific patent [1], and this number should be the upper bound on how much the patent holder can sue for [2].

This would effectively cover the pharmaceutical case where hundreds of millions are invested, as well as the worst software case where only a few thousand are invested.

[1] - This number would need to pass simple smell tests: the sum of these investment amounts across a patent portfolio can't exceed the total expenses in the company's books for R&D, etc. [2] - If a patent holder sues multiple companies at once, each infringing company would owe only a fraction of the total.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#155

Post by MaysonL » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 8:26 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #93

DrJokepu wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cop…

The trouble is that it's a lot easier to copy an algorithm without in any way violating copyright than it is to copy it without violating a patent on it.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#156

Post by anamax » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 8:56 PM UTC

Vivtek wrote: post #88

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…

While this has no bearing on the law, I've always thought that works of software that represent an actual effort of development comparable to physical invention should enjoy the benefit of patents. This is precisely what the patent system was designed to do - protect large research investments. The abuse of the system for things that really don't require research and development is at issue here. I think proposals to…

> I've always thought that works of software that represent an actual effort of development comparable to physical invention should enjoy the benefit of patents.

There is no "effort" requirement for patents on physical inventions. There's also no "it was done by experts" requirement.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#157

Post by mindcrime » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 9:15 PM UTC

citadrianne wrote: post #83

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 it's hard to predict what abolishing patents would do to innovation. For example, there are no patents in fashion, which actually ends up putting pressure on creators to be superinnovative to stay ahead of the copycats. Ref: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang///id/866

My personal opinion - for what that's worth - is that this kind of scenario comes pretty close to representing what would happen if there were no patents in software (or any other field for that matter). Innovation would still happen, and would probably happen even faster than it does now, because of the "arms race" effect. Simply put, a firm would be forced to innovate constantly, quickly and fiercely, to stay in front of its competitors.

Combined with the fact that I am appalled by the idea of use of government force to block someone from using an invention - that they may have arrived at independently - just because someone else patented it first; and my belief that there are too many smart people in the world for any really useful idea to stay undiscovered long, I advocate for simply abolishing the entire patent system.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#158

Post by billswift » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 9:27 PM UTC

zhyder wrote: post #154

We need a generic fix for the patent system, not something specific to software. I think the only way to do this is to change the process of suing for patent infringement. The patent holder must determine how much investment was made to develop the specific patent [1], and this number should be the upper bound on how much the patent holder can sue for [2]. This would effectively cover the pharmaceutical case where hu…

There have been a lot of discussion about problems with patents (especially "patent thickets") in drug development also, see Derek Lowe's posts http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/patents_and_ip/ and especially http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/01/20/freedom_to_o...

Re: Enough Is Enough

#159

Post by uiri » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 9:57 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 don't understand how you would be handing it over to your competitors:

1) if it is proprietary software, just add a clause which forbids reverse engineering. If it really is as complex as you describe however, I doubt reverse engineering it would be an option.

2) if it is open source software, I don't see the big deal. Even if they get the algorithm your software can still stay steps ahead of theirs.

So what advantage would a patent even give you in this case?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#160

Post by brettnak » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 9:57 PM UTC

seats wrote: post #141

jpadvo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 looke…

What I frequently wonder is why an overwhelmed and understaffed organization can approve so many patents. If I were in their position, my default would be to deny almost everything. Are they being told that approving patents is in the best interest of America? Is this a case of patriotism-gone-bad?