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

91–92 of 92 posts

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

#91

Post by wnight »

tptacek wrote: post #85
shasta wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would also be the notion behind a system of awards for copyable works, so I'm not sure what your point is.

No, the award system that's being discussed leaves applicants with no certainty that they'll actually be compensated for disclosing. That's not the case with the patent system; subject to modifications, competent patent applicants are virtually certain to get a patent 7 years after applying.

Yes, in the current system if you inject enough money you're virtually certain to receive a patent. Otherwise you wouldn't play again...

But, there's no guarantee of reward. Far from it, you've only got a letter of marque, not the ship or crew to profit from it with.

In a reward system it'd be totally different. No applications, no licenses, just instant wide disclosure. If you don't tell people they can't use it and you won't get rewarded.

And you could just document and teach someone else's invention and get rewards that way, in proportion to the value of the accessibility you added.

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

#92

Post by petegrif »

reissbaker wrote: post #62
petegrif wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that be nice. Now consider the case of a pharmaceutical company that has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug and get it past FDA. If there is no IP protection would you as the CEO of this company spend that kind of money on innovating when the resultant drug could be copied a week after it appears on the shelves? In this case you would be competing on product alright - exactly the…

Pharmaceutical and other physical patents make sense and appear to work. But arguing that software companies won't innovate without patents ignores the fact that software companies did innovate without patents, for years. And software patents obviously haven't been working: see Microsoft's patent on "if not", among other things.

You are absolutely correct. There are differences between the two industries. The two key ones would seem to be that (a) the investment required in time and money to create the software and its likely lifetime value are low compared with a drug, and (b) the ease of difficulty with which the software may be copied can vary a great deal. Compiled source code is harder to reengineer than a drug. Server side code that is held as a trade secret, such as google's search algorithms, is hard to recreate. So in these cases it is quite true that there has been innotation (ignoring the fact google did have some IP protection). But there are cases I can think of where it would be downright foolish for a software company, particularly a small one, to invest substantially without protection. The key characteristic is that the code cannot be held secret and can be readily read and thereby copied. The key point is that it really isn't very helpful to generalize to broadly about the software industry.
Post reply on HN