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

Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

muktware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#51

Post by beernutz »

cgarvey wrote: post #38
ubasu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are just parts of the same (long) interview.

No there's a definite creep factor going on with this site. The article page has his image as the background of the website and in the logo...::shudder::

If you check the rest of the site, you might notice that it is a very Linux centric blog. Nothing wrong with that. Also I don't see his image in a logo anywhere on the home page. Only on the Linus interview pages. Seems reasonable to customize sections of a site.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#52

Post by alok-g »

nogden wrote: post #23
alok-g wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are about ideas and inventions which must be "novel", "useful" and "non-obvious". A smart mix of things that already exist would not be patentable unless it is "inventive", "novel", useful" and "non-obvious". If it is all of these, it should be patentable whether it is software or hardware. (Note however that laws of physics, mathematical formulas, etc. are not patentable.) What's broken is not the concept of…

It would seem that one of the main arguments against software patents that is thrown around is that "software is mathematics". As a software engineer currently knee deep in learning Haskell, I believe that this argument carries plenty of weight. However, when judging software patents, we shouldn't overlook the reason for which patents themselves were originally invented. I think the best description of a patent that…

Let's look at this a bit more precisely.

True that mathematical formulas and laws of physics are not patentable. However, a specific use of either to solve a specific problem is patentable provided the three constraints (non-obviousness, usefulness and novelty) are satisfied.

Software is not mathematics -- A computer science algorithm could arguably be, but "software" is not. Software is a specific implementation using that mathematics that sits onto your CD or hard-disk where "mathematics" cannot sit (sure copyrightable representations of that mathematics do). And software gets appropriately subject to copyright laws.

Applying software to solve a specific problem is no different than applying hardware or mathematics to solve a specific problem. If those patent-ability constraints are satisfied, there is nothing wrong with software patents "in principle". Fixing the practice is another thing.

Second refutation I have comes from my personal experience. No, most of the software developers are not mathematicians. Often far from that in practice. Many don't even understand computer science (including myself partly). We can still however make software inventions that satisfy the three constraints.

I know this topic remains debatable. And at least a part of the reason is that the issues are often not correctly understood by people and the law-makers. Add to that the pace at which laws are adjusted to changing practices in the industry.

Edit: Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#53

Post by beernutz »

tptacek wrote: post #47
tintin wrote: post #13

Everything we create and think of is based on experiences (sight, smell, feelings....). Therefore it's very strange to have patents. A patent is just a smart mix of things that already exist. Software is always mixing existing things using existing tools. So it's very difficult to have a 'smartness' value for a software patent. Fortunately Harrison Gray Dyar and Samuel Morse don't have all rights for binary code...

The purpose of a patent isn't to grant ownership over mixes of things that already exist. The purpose of a patent is to incentivize full disclosure of novel ideas, ideas that otherwise would be locked up as trade secrets, by trading disclosure for time-limited monopolies over those ideas. The patent system isn't a prize we give to people for innovating. It's one of the ways we pay people to document and publish their…

Have you LOOKED at the patent system as it exists today? It does not even REMOTELY look like what you described.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#54

Post by simcop2387 »

petegrif wrote: post #48

"... and that's the reason you have to have a patent lawyer because the language makes no sense. In US it’s technically English but it’s not really English. It’s like using English words but there are different meanings to them. There is a whole different set of rules about what things mean when they do a patent application." Well guess what - that is not unusual when everyday words migrate into a technical area and…

While I certainly agree that it can seem naive, when it comes to law it is taken to such an extreme that it's almost to the point that definition of "is" isn't "is" anymore.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#55

Post by tptacek »

beernutz wrote: post #53
tptacek wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of a patent isn't to grant ownership over mixes of things that already exist. The purpose of a patent is to incentivize full disclosure of novel ideas, ideas that otherwise would be locked up as trade secrets, by trading disclosure for time-limited monopolies over those ideas. The patent system isn't a prize we give to people for innovating. It's one of the ways we pay people to document and publish their…

Have you LOOKED at the patent system as it exists today? It does not even REMOTELY look like what you described.

I have no idea how to respond to this comment. It doesn't contain any new information, and the question is extremely broad.

"Yes", I guess. And, "I don't entirely agree or disagree with you".

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#56

Post by cgarvey »

beernutz wrote: post #51
cgarvey wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there's a definite creep factor going on with this site. The article page has his image as the background of the website and in the logo...::shudder::

If you check the rest of the site, you might notice that it is a very Linux centric blog. Nothing wrong with that. Also I don't see his image in a logo anywhere on the home page. Only on the Linus interview pages. Seems reasonable to customize sections of a site.

I know his picture isn't in the logo on the homepage...thats why I said "article page". I also never said it was wrong to have Linux-centric blog.

If I were Linus and I saw a blog with my picture as the background of the website, all along the sidebar, and sitting above the blog logo, I'm sorry but I'd be creeped out.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#57

Post by wnight »

tptacek wrote: post #47
tintin wrote: post #13

Everything we create and think of is based on experiences (sight, smell, feelings....). Therefore it's very strange to have patents. A patent is just a smart mix of things that already exist. Software is always mixing existing things using existing tools. So it's very difficult to have a 'smartness' value for a software patent. Fortunately Harrison Gray Dyar and Samuel Morse don't have all rights for binary code...

The purpose of a patent isn't to grant ownership over mixes of things that already exist. The purpose of a patent is to incentivize full disclosure of novel ideas, ideas that otherwise would be locked up as trade secrets, by trading disclosure for time-limited monopolies over those ideas. The patent system isn't a prize we give to people for innovating. It's one of the ways we pay people to document and publish their…

What novel ideas did the One-Click patent cover? Seriously.

I think we're overpaying. And we're not paying the actual creative types. And we're not paying for what's really useful, just what receives the paperwork and has enough lawyers to attack based on it.

If we really wanted to do this right we'd have a big vote for the people who made things (even textbooks, etc, like Knuth) that made the biggest difference in their industry. Then we'd take the money not being wasted on patents and give it to these people as part of a Technical Excellence Award. They'd also trickle some upwards to their resources and mentors, as disclosed before you voted.

It's still got some holes in it but it's a better system because there are no limits on industry. No government employee is breaking open boxes of smart-phones and denying the right to sell them because they use some exclusive new innovation. That's just more proof that whoever invented that deserves more votes.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#58

Post by tptacek »

wnight wrote: post #57
tptacek wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of a patent isn't to grant ownership over mixes of things that already exist. The purpose of a patent is to incentivize full disclosure of novel ideas, ideas that otherwise would be locked up as trade secrets, by trading disclosure for time-limited monopolies over those ideas. The patent system isn't a prize we give to people for innovating. It's one of the ways we pay people to document and publish their…

What novel ideas did the One-Click patent cover? Seriously. I think we're overpaying. And we're not paying the actual creative types. And we're not paying for what's really useful, just what receives the paperwork and has enough lawyers to attack based on it. If we really wanted to do this right we'd have a big vote for the people who made things (even textbooks, etc, like Knuth) that made the biggest difference in t…

You're describing a patent system that functions as an achievement award. But that's not the purpose of a patent. Knuth already published his best work without the incentive of a patent. The extra award would not get him to publish a new volume of TAOCP any faster.

Think of it this way: to function as intended, the patent system has to make it economically less attractive to closely hold inventions as trade secrets. Your idea, however laudable it is, doesn't do that.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#59

Post by dupe123 »

cgarvey wrote: post #56
beernutz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you check the rest of the site, you might notice that it is a very Linux centric blog. Nothing wrong with that. Also I don't see his image in a logo anywhere on the home page. Only on the Linus interview pages. Seems reasonable to customize sections of a site.

I know his picture isn't in the logo on the homepage...thats why I said "article page". I also never said it was wrong to have Linux-centric blog. If I were Linus and I saw a blog with my picture as the background of the website, all along the sidebar, and sitting above the blog logo, I'm sorry but I'd be creeped out.

I think he is just the background for articles related to that interview. Although I do agree it is a little weird just how many times his face shows just throughout the site.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Software and Process Patents Don't Make Sense

#60

Post by alok-g »

nogden wrote: post #23
alok-g wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are about ideas and inventions which must be "novel", "useful" and "non-obvious". A smart mix of things that already exist would not be patentable unless it is "inventive", "novel", useful" and "non-obvious". If it is all of these, it should be patentable whether it is software or hardware. (Note however that laws of physics, mathematical formulas, etc. are not patentable.) What's broken is not the concept of…

It would seem that one of the main arguments against software patents that is thrown around is that "software is mathematics". As a software engineer currently knee deep in learning Haskell, I believe that this argument carries plenty of weight. However, when judging software patents, we shouldn't overlook the reason for which patents themselves were originally invented. I think the best description of a patent that…

>> the disclosure part of the agreement is not satisfied

Again, a software patent is not about the software. It is about that technical description of the concept. That concept is what carries the invention (while the software itself carries a copyright). Written language is indeed full of ambiguity and uncertainty but the language of patent claims is not (some separate comments in this thread talk about this). When deemed necessary, source code is included in a patent application. Flow-charts are also often included. But all of that is out -- the core part of a patent are the claims, written in a well-defined unambiguous language that defines the concept of invention as clearly as possible and it does not need diagrams and source code.

Edit: Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Post reply on HN