The Patent, Used as a Sword
nytimes.com
The Patent, Used as a Sword
1–10 of 76 posts
Re: The Patent, Used as a Sword
#2I understand that allowing patents for algorithms is bad for innovation. What I don't understand is that people say that and then in the same breath claim that allowing patents for chemical formulas is good for innovation. In both cases, the patent holder gets a monopoly and everyone else is stuck with them as their supplier. I feel a terrible cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile these two positions.
Re: The Patent, Used as a Sword
#3I understand that allowing patents for algorithms is bad for innovation. What I don't understand is that people say that and then in the same breath claim that allowing patents for chemical formulas is good for innovation. In both cases, the patent holder gets a monopoly and everyone else is stuck with them as their supplier. I feel a terrible cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile these two positions.
Innovation is a function of incentives and reuse of prior innovation. Patents can raise financial incentives, but obstruct the use of existing ideas.
It shouldn't surprise us that some industries are more concerned with one piece than the other. It's quite pragmatic to argue that patents should vary by technology sector.
Re: The Patent, Used as a Sword
#4So, if a person wants to start a company, how can he make sure it's not breaking any patent that could cost him money and a legal mess later?, I suppose a few hours of investigation previous starting up is not enough...
Re: The Patent, Used as a Sword
#5I understand that allowing patents for algorithms is bad for innovation. What I don't understand is that people say that and then in the same breath claim that allowing patents for chemical formulas is good for innovation. In both cases, the patent holder gets a monopoly and everyone else is stuck with them as their supplier. I feel a terrible cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile these two positions.
Developing an algorithm doesn't generally cost hundreds of millions. Developing a drug and taking it all the way through clinical trials easily can. I think patents make sense for some sectors. Software just isn't one of them.
Re: The Patent, Used as a Sword
#6So, if a person wants to start a company, how can he make sure it's not breaking any patent that could cost him money and a legal mess later?, I suppose a few hours of investigation previous starting up is not enough...
I understand it to generally be simply not possible. Any product is going to be infringing on dozens of patents held by any of the big companies in the field.
Re: The Patent, Used as a Sword
#7I understand that allowing patents for algorithms is bad for innovation. What I don't understand is that people say that and then in the same breath claim that allowing patents for chemical formulas is good for innovation. In both cases, the patent holder gets a monopoly and everyone else is stuck with them as their supplier. I feel a terrible cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile these two positions.
I think the problem is that software / algorithm patents have broader implications and abuses than patents for chemical formulas. They are also being granted for topics that many would consider obvious to those active in the field. The issue isn't protecting valid and specific invention from copying, it's the ease with which software / algorithm patents can be used to sue / bully others with legitimate (not copied) creative inventions. I think the ephemeral nature of software makes it inevitable that a patent eventually gets approved by an examiner if resubmitted enough times. A bogus chemical patent is probably easier to prove bogus.
Re: The Patent, Used as a Sword
#8I understand that allowing patents for algorithms is bad for innovation. What I don't understand is that people say that and then in the same breath claim that allowing patents for chemical formulas is good for innovation. In both cases, the patent holder gets a monopoly and everyone else is stuck with them as their supplier. I feel a terrible cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile these two positions.
Developing an algorithm doesn't generally cost hundreds of millions. Developing a drug and taking it all the way through clinical trials easily can. I think patents make sense for some sectors. Software just isn't one of them.
I think cost is just part of it.
There is also the fact that for lots of things, software are being part of an ecosystem where people come to the same solutions naturally.
Think about the "swipe to unlock", when the only thing you have to interact is a touch screen, it's not like there is lots of different possibilities.
At that point patents become harmfull because it blocks other people from making progress and having competition in a given ecosystem.
Drugs just don't have the same collision of solutions problem.
Re: The Patent, Used as a Sword
#9It strikes me that there's an extreme lack of accountability back towards the patent office. In this article you have patent examiners saying "sure we get it wrong all the time", with no real recognition of the disastrous real world consequences of that for the companies who then later become victims of patent litigation (or even conversely, companies who went ahead and invested their future based on their patents being valid and now when it is overturned, have their business destroyed by competitors).
Imagine if, when a patent is overturned as part of a patent infringement case, the defendant could claim all costs and damages they had suffered due to the faulty patent from the patent office? How fast would the system change?
Re: The Patent, Used as a Sword
#10I understand that allowing patents for algorithms is bad for innovation. What I don't understand is that people say that and then in the same breath claim that allowing patents for chemical formulas is good for innovation. In both cases, the patent holder gets a monopoly and everyone else is stuck with them as their supplier. I feel a terrible cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile these two positions.
I wouldn't blame any legislator for thinking that the issue of software patents wasn't a real problem if the debates about were constantly lost to discussing its implications for drugs.
Software patents are a problem, specifically my problem because I'm in that field.