Even experts get it wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#111

Post by hardwear » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 1:20 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #75

jowiar wrote: post #74

> In fact, you can break this law without even knowing that someone else thought of the idea first. This is the biggest flaw with the current patent system. The reality is if an invention falls into this category, it should not be patentable. Raising the barrier of "obviousness" to a level requiring an invention be transformative to the point that, within the term of the patent, the likelihood that anyone else indepe…

> within the term of the patent, the likelihood that anyone else independently invents the same thing is sufficiently small // The problem then is that there is little to no incentive for the applicant to share the idea. If it's something no one will come up with, then you can keep it secret and benefit from an indefinitely extended monopoly. The quid pro quo of patents is early information about new inventions in ex…

It seems odd that the patent system does not take into account whether an invention could be nearly as profitable as a trade secret or on the other hand, could not possibly be kept secret while used for profit.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#112

Post by Arelius » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 1:37 AM UTC

Dove wrote: post #72

chimi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people keep saying it isn't stealing. According to Merriam-Webster: Definition of STEAL transitive verb 1a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully and Definition of APPROPRIATE transitive verb 3 : to take or make use of without authority or right Why do opponents of IP rights keep saying it isn't stealing? There's nothing in the definiti…

I don't think the dictionary is a very useful authority, here. Dictionaries are reactionary -- they document what words we use. They don't create words. We do that. (Patent|Copyright|IP) infringement is an old issue, yes, and perhaps in the established context of one business copying and selling the work of another, it's a near neighbor to theft. But this world of free, crowd-sourced torrents . . . this is a new thin…

> I don't think the dictionary is a very useful authority, here. Dictionaries are reactionary -- they document what words we use. They don't create words. We do that.

That is a very insightful comment, perhaps obvious in this particular case, but people often argue semantics over dictionary definitions, which is often unrelated to the true issue at hand.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#113

Post by zaroth » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 2:58 AM UTC

verroq wrote: post #21

Notch knocking down a strawman frontpages on HN.

It does seems a bit ironic that we have a link to PG's original article on the front page, which talks about how to keep fluff pieces off the front page, at the same time as this piece from notch.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#114

Post by lutorm » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 3:17 AM UTC

radarsat1 wrote: post #71

ThePherocity wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I could get into a hundred reasons, but the primary one being that I personally don't recognize any concept which attempts to frame an idea as being property. It isn't property, I can't hold on to it, I can't touch it, and I can't steal it. You don't have any right to an idea over any other human. This is an abstract construct which attempts to create an artificial commodity where there isn't one. The consequen…

> It isn't property, I can't hold on to it, I can't touch it, and I can't steal it. You don't have any right to an idea over any other human. This is an abstract construct which attempts to create an artificial commodity where there isn't one. Apart from "holding on to it," what you say in the quote sentence is true for pretty much any property. In a strict sense, property is what you can defend. However, in order st…

I think we should be careful about the word property. In the case of copyrighted works, you do not own the work, you own the copyright to it. In the same way with patents, you don't own the patented idea, you own the patent. Both of these are abstract constructs that means society gives you certain rights, but do not extend ownership to the ideas. This is plainly obvious with regards to copyright since the fair use clause gives anyone right to make copies under certain circumstances.

Even in the case of land ownership, one could argue that what you own is much closer to a "license to use the land surface" since you can have surface rights without having the rights to mine or drill for oil on that land.

So your idea that property comes about because government says "what else is valuable for people that we can protect for them?" I think is incorrect. Property rights aren't some God-given right, we as citizens agree to handing out the rights to pieces of the commons to individuals because there is some net gain to everyone from this. All of those "rights" you describe are therefore subject to an evaluation of whether they serve society's purpose, and I think it's pretty clear that's a discussion that is very relevant to patents and copyrights.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#115

Post by monochromatic » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 3:31 AM UTC

DanWaterworth wrote: post #6

Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not. This is the problem I've always had with patents, but I've never been able to articulate it before.

Patent infringement isn't criminal. There are plenty of civil causes of action that don't require intent.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#116

Post by monochromatic » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 3:31 AM UTC

DanWaterworth wrote: post #6

Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not. This is the problem I've always had with patents, but I've never been able to articulate it before.

Patent infringement isn't criminal. There are plenty of civil causes of action that don't require intent.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#117

Post by monochromatic » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 3:32 AM UTC

> Most other crimes require intent, patent infringement does not.

Patent infringement isn't a crime. Most (although not all) crimes do require some level of intent. But patent infringement is like any number of other civil causes of action in not requiring intent.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#118

Post by shasta » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 4:52 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #101

shasta wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented Actually, that's exactly the purpose of patents. Patent legislation casts a wider net only because there's no effective way to assess the validity of someone's claim that "I invented this independently and was uninfluenced by your invention." You and notch are in the technically wrong column on this one. Compare to: "Life jackets are there to prevent…

Ignoring the "stealing" vs. "infringement" red herring, you're still misrepresenting patents. The motivation behind patents was to get inventors to reveal their inventions. Prior to patent law, inventors just kept everything a secret. This meant that inventions would get lost and had to be rediscovered later on. So in exchange for revealing their "secret sauce" to the state, inventors get a temporary monopoly on thei…

After researching this briefly, it seems that the earliest "patents" in England weren't awarded to systematically encourage anything in particular, but were merely monopoly grants given by the monarch for whatever reason (e.g. as reward for X, I'll give you a monopoly on Y for 20 years). The French apparently developed a system that treated inventions as property.

Regardless of the historical motivation for patents, the reason for the inclusion of patents and copyrights into the US constitution and law was clearly to encourage new invention, not just to get inventors to disclose what they would have invented anyway. The US constitution was crafted in the middle of the industrial revolution, as we moved away from master craftsmen to big industry where it's hard to keep secrets.

As for the idea that you could never, ever tell whether somebody invented the same thing independently from another

Of course you might occasionally be able to prove convincingly that you came to an invention independently, but in general you can't. What's your point? Why do you think the US adopted a first to invent rule rather than a first to file rule? If the goal is just to encourage disclosure, then we'd have the latter right? First one to tell us how it's done wins! But that's not the rule we have, and the reason is that primary purpose of patents is to encourage new invention.

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#119

Post by shasta » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 5:02 AM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #95

shasta wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents are there to stop people stealing a technology you invented Actually, that's exactly the purpose of patents. Patent legislation casts a wider net only because there's no effective way to assess the validity of someone's claim that "I invented this independently and was uninfluenced by your invention." You and notch are in the technically wrong column on this one. Compare to: "Life jackets are there to prevent…

Actually, that's exactly the purpose of patents. From the US constitution, section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; Note how it doesn't say anything about "intellectual property" or "theft" or "moral rights", or even third parties. I'm not in favor of abolition of copyright, p…

The word "steal" was in the original quote that Notch attributed to whoever that other guy was. This question of whether that word "steal" is used correctly is total non sequitur. The primary purpose of patents is to disallow use of an idea without permission (that's what "stealing" was intended to mean in the quote, whether you like that word or not) in order to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

Re: Even experts get it wrong

#120

Post by SilasX » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 6:19 AM UTC

radarsat1 wrote: post #71

ThePherocity wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I could get into a hundred reasons, but the primary one being that I personally don't recognize any concept which attempts to frame an idea as being property. It isn't property, I can't hold on to it, I can't touch it, and I can't steal it. You don't have any right to an idea over any other human. This is an abstract construct which attempts to create an artificial commodity where there isn't one. The consequen…

> It isn't property, I can't hold on to it, I can't touch it, and I can't steal it. You don't have any right to an idea over any other human. This is an abstract construct which attempts to create an artificial commodity where there isn't one. Apart from "holding on to it," what you say in the quote sentence is true for pretty much any property. In a strict sense, property is what you can defend. However, in order st…

Another example is stock ownership, i.e. partial, tradeable ownership of a venture. No, you can't hold it in your hands[1], but people understand that it's property in all the relevant senses and can be meaningfully said to be "stolen" (e.g., if the votes you make with your shares are ignored).

[1] The stock certificate doesn't count; that's a representation of the property, not the property itself.