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

Creating Shazam in Java (2010)

royvanrijn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Creating Shazam in Java (2010)

#31

Post by HPsquared »

_fat_santa wrote: post #30
zmmmmm wrote: post #18

> The Shazam patent holders lawyers are sending me emails to stop me from releasing the code and removing this blogpost The fact that the justification for the patent system is to ensure knowledge about inventions is disseminated and yet it generates the above situation where they are literally threatening to sue him for disseminating the knowledge of how it works, tells you a lot about how badly the patent system is…

IMO software patents should be entirely abolished. If you look at patents from before computers entered the picture, a patent covered the idea + implementation. Someone could create a better bucket design and patent that design, what one could not do is patent the idea of "a container that holds liquid". But that seems to be exactly what has happened with software patents. With software, the idea is very much divorce…

It means that, instead of incremental improvements on an idea, these can now be limited to 20 years per step.

Re: Creating Shazam in Java (2010)

#32

Post by HPsquared »

Closi wrote: post #23
zmmmmm wrote: post #18

> The Shazam patent holders lawyers are sending me emails to stop me from releasing the code and removing this blogpost The fact that the justification for the patent system is to ensure knowledge about inventions is disseminated and yet it generates the above situation where they are literally threatening to sue him for disseminating the knowledge of how it works, tells you a lot about how badly the patent system is…

The justification of the patent system is to protect the original creator / innovator from being copied so they can better commercialise their invention (legal protection which can be practically enforced better than a trade secret, which can be replicated). Since when is the idea of a patent to disseminate knowledge of how something works? This seems to be patents working as-intended (ie Shazam wouldn’t want an open…

The etymology is from "letters patent", i.e. a public description of how the invention works. The social contract here is that the inventor gives up the details to the public, in exchange for temporary exclusive use rights granted by the public.

Re: Creating Shazam in Java (2010)

#33

Post by mh- »

Sakos wrote: post #25
Closi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The justification of the patent system is to protect the original creator / innovator from being copied so they can better commercialise their invention (legal protection which can be practically enforced better than a trade secret, which can be replicated). Since when is the idea of a patent to disseminate knowledge of how something works? This seems to be patents working as-intended (ie Shazam wouldn’t want an open…

Why do people comment on things like patents when they don't know anything about them?

That phenomenon isn't limited to patents. That just happens to be an area you're knowledgeable enough in to recognize obvious falsehoods. Imagine the other topics you (we) read on this site that we aren't savvy in.

Re: Creating Shazam in Java (2010)

#34

Post by Closi »

CHY872 wrote: post #24
Closi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The justification of the patent system is to protect the original creator / innovator from being copied so they can better commercialise their invention (legal protection which can be practically enforced better than a trade secret, which can be replicated). Since when is the idea of a patent to disseminate knowledge of how something works? This seems to be patents working as-intended (ie Shazam wouldn’t want an open…

The purpose of a patent is to encourage global innovation by granting exclusive rights for commercialising technology for a limited time in response to sharing how it works. Roughly, if you invent PageRank and keep it internal to your search company, you can exploit that idea but if someone else comes up with it they can exploit it too. If you invent PageRank and patent it, the whole world knows how it works but can’…

The idea of disclosure though isn’t to teach others how to replicate your technology - it’s to provide enough information about your technology so that you lay a claim to it.

Without disclosure it would be impossible for others to know if they are infringing a patent - but the purpose of disclosure isn’t to teach others how to innovate on the back of your patent.

Re: Creating Shazam in Java (2010)

#35

Post by Closi »

Sakos wrote: post #25
Closi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The justification of the patent system is to protect the original creator / innovator from being copied so they can better commercialise their invention (legal protection which can be practically enforced better than a trade secret, which can be replicated). Since when is the idea of a patent to disseminate knowledge of how something works? This seems to be patents working as-intended (ie Shazam wouldn’t want an open…

Why do people comment on things like patents when they don't know anything about them?

I know how a patent works - I just mean the purpose isn’t to teach others how it works for the benefit of others, disclosure is the mechanism to protect others from implementing it.

Re: Creating Shazam in Java (2010)

#37

Post by zmmmmm »

HPsquared wrote: post #31
_fat_santa wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO software patents should be entirely abolished. If you look at patents from before computers entered the picture, a patent covered the idea + implementation. Someone could create a better bucket design and patent that design, what one could not do is patent the idea of "a container that holds liquid". But that seems to be exactly what has happened with software patents. With software, the idea is very much divorce…

It means that, instead of incremental improvements on an idea, these can now be limited to 20 years per step.

Which is an excellent point because it may have been reasonable when the patent system was created and for hard objects because there were natural limits on how fast innovation could happen.

But software is literally only limited by our minds. Slowing down innovation to a 20 year cycle is devastating to the pace at which it can happen.

Re: Creating Shazam in Java (2010)

#38

Post by Sakos »

mh- wrote: post #33
Sakos wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people comment on things like patents when they don't know anything about them?

That phenomenon isn't limited to patents. That just happens to be an area you're knowledgeable enough in to recognize obvious falsehoods. Imagine the other topics you (we) read on this site that we aren't savvy in.

I generally don't comment on things if I haven't informed myself about it. I'm here for takes by experts, not people who are making guesses based on ignorance disguised as informed opinion.
Post reply on HN