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

Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

blogmaverick.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 144 posts

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#41

Post by shawndrost »

ender7 wrote: post #4

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…

> Actually, I would be happy with just one patent.

I nominate RSA, which is kind of the foundation of modern commerce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4405829

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#42

Post by robryan »

sage_joch wrote: post #17
ender7 wrote: post #4

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…

A more realistic first step might be "no new software patents". Otherwise it could be a pretty fierce fight with existing stakeholders, who would view abolition similarly to a nullification of a stock portfolio.

I don't think the big tech companies would mind the nullification, would get a lot more objection from patent trolls and small companies that happen to hold a few key patents.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#43

Post by Cushman »

shawndrost wrote: post #41
ender7 wrote: post #4

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do? A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified. B). ??? Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone? Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovatio…

> Actually, I would be happy with just one patent. I nominate RSA, which is kind of the foundation of modern commerce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4405829

Was the patent really necessary, though? Wiki even mentions that it was only patentable in the US because of prior art, and likely would have been unpatentable if all extant prior art were known.

If anything, this seems like an example that argues the insufficiency of patents. If you invent something as important as RSA, you should be rewarded with a kingdom— and the information should be freely available to everyone. I'm not sure our compromise is doing the trick.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#45

Post by clark-kent »

justinsb wrote: post #13
maeon3 wrote: post #10

While we are patenting every line of every software program ever written, we should also patent colors, smells, tastes, sounds, sensations, thoughts, individual words, photographs, individual syllables, and visual/body language gestures. How come lines of code fall under the category of 'invention', But English sayings, phrases and quotes do not?

"English sayings, phrases and quotes" would come under copyright law instead of patent law, but can still enjoy IP protection.

This is interesting because software is a composition in a computer language. So the OP has an interesting point there. Code and algorithms shouldn't be awarded patents just like you can't patent a musical composition.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#46

Post by arockwell »

protomyth wrote: post #5

At this point I would be fine with starting with the baby set of killing any patent that implements a business process. It would be a good start, simple to explain, and kill off a goodly chunk of the trolls.

Bussiness processes are already unpatentable.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#47

Post by salemh »

pbh wrote: post #9

According to Wikipedia, Mark Cuban has $2.5 billion. If he thinks the patents are bogus (which I totally believe), why not fight a high profile, precedent setting case? If he thinks the law is broken, why not lobby for patent reform? Or a loser-pays system?

Sam Wyly did something similar, set $100,000 per annum for a law firm to slowly destroy Ma Bell. http://www.charlesandsamwyly.com/sam-wyly-highway-computers.... More about it in his book (which is outstanding for any business read). http://www.1000dollarsandanidea.com/

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#48

Post by capnrefsmmat »

clark-kent wrote: post #45
justinsb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"English sayings, phrases and quotes" would come under copyright law instead of patent law, but can still enjoy IP protection.

This is interesting because software is a composition in a computer language. So the OP has an interesting point there. Code and algorithms shouldn't be awarded patents just like you can't patent a musical composition.

Software itself isn't patentable -- software licenses work on the basis of the copyright on the source code, not a patent. Software patents generally describe algorithms rather than their specific implementations, just like ordinary patents describe a method of solving a problem.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#49

Post by saulrh »

Cushman wrote: post #35
jonmc12 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, we should be free to invent. Option B should be that if an inventor can show a clean history of evolving an idea, it should be allowed to freely enter the market. Ideas evolve over time, and the originate from something. Perhaps if inventors were willing to register their invention documents through a set of steps mapping to something like the Technology Readiness Level ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technolo…

I love the idea of a "show your work" patent system, but could it possibly work in real life? Does anyone do anything like this currently?

Scientists do something similar, in that they have to log absolutely everything they do and publish the important parts. Biologists and psychologists are even more on the hook, since they have to demonstrate compliance with experimental ethics regulations. It's a bureaucratic hassle, but it works pretty well.

Re: Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

#50

Post by DaniFong »

Cushman wrote: post #35
jonmc12 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, we should be free to invent. Option B should be that if an inventor can show a clean history of evolving an idea, it should be allowed to freely enter the market. Ideas evolve over time, and the originate from something. Perhaps if inventors were willing to register their invention documents through a set of steps mapping to something like the Technology Readiness Level ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technolo…

I love the idea of a "show your work" patent system, but could it possibly work in real life? Does anyone do anything like this currently?

While you're right that there are some practical issues with this sort of system, one should also recognize that the patent system doesn't current scale well either. You have to check the claims against every publication in existence. Since this isn't possible, this ultimately has to be fought out in court -- yet a granted patent still carries with it a presumption that the patent rights should be upheld.

One could, however, have a system where if two separate teams file patents before either are published, they should not have to license it.

Post reply on HN