One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind • Hacker News Board

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#21

Post by mmelin » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 6:50 PM UTC

fnid wrote: post #2

What is the difference between software as a tool and something mechanical as a tool? Mechanical devices, for which there are many patents, take a state of matter and change it to another state of matter. Why should you be able to patent a circuit board, but not a set of program code that does exactly the same transformation to a set of bits? Why are mechanical engineers able to patent their devices, but computer eng…

Most software patents I have seen patent the result, not the means to reach that result.

A normal patent is for a specific way to reach a result. I can patent my specific "illumination device" (light bulb), but I can't patent "illumination of a space" (lighting a room).

To bring up a well known softare example, Amazon has a patent on one-click shopping. There is no way to create another way to let customers buy things with a single click without infringing that patent, because the patent is for the result (order & payment of goods with one human-computer interaction) not the way it's implemented.

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#22

Post by doki_pen » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 7:20 PM UTC

fnid wrote: post #2

What is the difference between software as a tool and something mechanical as a tool? Mechanical devices, for which there are many patents, take a state of matter and change it to another state of matter. Why should you be able to patent a circuit board, but not a set of program code that does exactly the same transformation to a set of bits? Why are mechanical engineers able to patent their devices, but computer eng…

Are patents a right? If the artificial system is detrimental, then the rules need to change. It's not fair for citizens to be forced to give up their natural rights and not get anything in return. I know a lot of nerds love simple rules, but let's get real. The point is for us to get more tech produced. If it's not meeting that end, then it should be changed.

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#23

Post by stonemetal » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 7:21 PM UTC

akeefer wrote: post #20

fnid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problems you mention aren't unique to software. How many mechanical engineers look at a device and think it is obvious? Or they read a patent and think, "This is unreadable, unenlightening, obvious garbage?" Lots I'm sure. To answer your question. Mint.com patented their software. Yext.com has patents. Lots of startups patent their software and the algorithms that give their companies a competitive advantage. My…

I disagree . . . the fundamental differences are that 1) copyright already protects software, 2) any given software program could literally fall afoul of hundreds or thousands of patents, 3) the patents themselves do little to encourage innovation, and 4) that duplicating a software system is a far different process than copying someone's drug formula, such that patents are unnecessary. On balance, patents do more ha…

Yeah and copyright already protects mechanical drawings. If that were all we were trying to protect then no need for patents on anything.

You have effectively killed any sort of technical conversation if everyone must protect trade secrets. You have literally killed any advancement in software if everyone must have a the secret dies with me sort of attitude about every innovative step taken by every software developer out there.

The patent system needs to be reformed but if done away with will leave us with little more than Damascus steel.

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#24

Post by sp332 » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 7:37 PM UTC

doki_pen wrote: post #22

fnid wrote: post #2

What is the difference between software as a tool and something mechanical as a tool? Mechanical devices, for which there are many patents, take a state of matter and change it to another state of matter. Why should you be able to patent a circuit board, but not a set of program code that does exactly the same transformation to a set of bits? Why are mechanical engineers able to patent their devices, but computer eng…

Are patents a right? If the artificial system is detrimental, then the rules need to change. It's not fair for citizens to be forced to give up their natural rights and not get anything in return. I know a lot of nerds love simple rules, but let's get real. The point is for us to get more tech produced. If it's not meeting that end, then it should be changed.

Patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property are not natural rights. They are artificial. Even Thomas Jefferson, who fought pretty darn hard for natural rights, knew that IP was different. http://www.tostepharmd.net/soapbox/ideas.html

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#25

Post by kiba » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 7:42 PM UTC

fnid wrote: post #2

What is the difference between software as a tool and something mechanical as a tool? Mechanical devices, for which there are many patents, take a state of matter and change it to another state of matter. Why should you be able to patent a circuit board, but not a set of program code that does exactly the same transformation to a set of bits? Why are mechanical engineers able to patent their devices, but computer eng…

My answer: Software patents are invalid as much as hardware patents is invalid. They should be abolished.

From what I have read and learn so far, the patent system and copyright system are redundant. The free market already rewarded risk-takers in the form of first-mover advantage, among other things.

I could summarize you what I learned about the history of innovation.(The early American book publishing industry and their relationship with British authors, James Watt's true contribution to steam technology, the fashion industry, etc). But I think it is better for me to point you a book that have all of that and explain it better than I can.

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#26

Post by akeefer » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 8:23 PM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #23

akeefer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree . . . the fundamental differences are that 1) copyright already protects software, 2) any given software program could literally fall afoul of hundreds or thousands of patents, 3) the patents themselves do little to encourage innovation, and 4) that duplicating a software system is a far different process than copying someone's drug formula, such that patents are unnecessary. On balance, patents do more ha…

Yeah and copyright already protects mechanical drawings. If that were all we were trying to protect then no need for patents on anything. You have effectively killed any sort of technical conversation if everyone must protect trade secrets. You have literally killed any advancement in software if everyone must have a the secret dies with me sort of attitude about every innovative step taken by every software develope…

I'm just arguing against patents on software, not patents in general. Novels aren't protected by patents, yet people still manage to write books. Athletic training techniques aren't patentable, yet people still manage to innovate and share knowledge there. Recipes are only protected by trade secrets, yet people manage to innovate when it comes to food; people publish cookbooks, restaraunts come out with new dishes. Fashion designs are only protected by copyright, and yet fashion moves at a lightning pace. Mathematical and logical proofs aren't patentable, yet people still do mathematical research, and talk about it. And keep in mind that software patents weren't even recognized until the 1980's, and weren't widely granted until the mid-90's. The majority of the history of computing has advanced without patent protection.

I'm not sure why you'd think that software advancement would be hindered without patents, or that conversation would somehow die out. Patents for software are notoriously useless to read, and only an infinitesimal part of any system is patented anyway, and then generally only as a landmine against future competitors or to enforce mutually-assured destruction. The vast majority of an application's "secret sauce" is protected by trade secrets, not by patents, and copyright guards against the actual theft of resources. I don't think that patents in the software world really do much to open up what would otherwise be a trade secret, with the possible exception of things like compression algorithms. I think that's fundamentally different from how patents function in, say, the pharmaceutical industry, where patent protection does encourage sharing of information.

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#27

Post by akeefer » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 8:44 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #24

doki_pen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are patents a right? If the artificial system is detrimental, then the rules need to change. It's not fair for citizens to be forced to give up their natural rights and not get anything in return. I know a lot of nerds love simple rules, but let's get real. The point is for us to get more tech produced. If it's not meeting that end, then it should be changed.

Patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property are not natural rights. They are artificial. Even Thomas Jefferson, who fought pretty darn hard for natural rights, knew that IP was different. http://www.tostepharmd.net/soapbox/ideas.html

Interestingly (to me, at least), the foundation for IP law is different in the US versus the UK. In the US, they're not considered natural rights. The relevant clause of the Constitution is:

"The Congress shall have Power 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."

In other words, intellectual property rights are artificial constructs that Congress is allowed to grant in order to promote progress.

In the UK, however, the case law works differently, and IP law is more of an outgrowth of the theory of natural rights that a person naturally has a right to whatever it is that they've created, be it something physical or something intangible.

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#28

Post by HeyLaughingBoy » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 9:10 PM UTC

tsally wrote: post #3

fnid wrote: post #2

What is the difference between software as a tool and something mechanical as a tool? Mechanical devices, for which there are many patents, take a state of matter and change it to another state of matter. Why should you be able to patent a circuit board, but not a set of program code that does exactly the same transformation to a set of bits? Why are mechanical engineers able to patent their devices, but computer eng…

What if civil engineers could file a patent that looked like that following: A method and system for crossing a body of water via a constructed object. The customer starts on one side of the water and walks across the object to the other side. Your average software patent is roughly equivalent to a patent on the concept of a bridge. If there are useful software patents, they've been overshadowed by the large number o…

I don't know what the "average" software patent looks like, but as someone who has been through the process, I think the examiners are pretty thorough. Through over a year of communication back and forth we lost our most recent patent attempt because the examiner found enough cases of prior art that were similar enough to what we were doing to fail the "not obvious to person skilled in the art" test. And trust me, we tried to find differences, and they were always able to answer our rebuttals with specific examples.

I'm sure there are good examiners and bad ones. Perhaps this time we just got one who was very thorough, but having looked at a number of software patents in my field, I've yet to see anything that I could consider trivial.

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#29

Post by michaelneale » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 9:34 PM UTC

miloshh wrote: post #8

tsally wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if civil engineers could file a patent that looked like that following: A method and system for crossing a body of water via a constructed object. The customer starts on one side of the water and walks across the object to the other side. Your average software patent is roughly equivalent to a patent on the concept of a bridge. If there are useful software patents, they've been overshadowed by the large number o…

Are you sure that's the typical software patent? Some famous law-suits were about patents that are far less trivial than your bridge example. For example, Pixar holds a patent on Monte Carlo sampling, and has sued or threatened a number of companies that used any sort of randomization in their rendering algorithms. This despite the fact that Monte Carlo methods have been known and used for many decades before Pixar w…

That is most definitely like a typical software patent.

Re: One Small Leap for Open Source, One Giant Leap for Mankind

#30

Post by christopherolah » Fri, Oct 02, 2009, 9:46 PM UTC

fnid wrote: post #2

What is the difference between software as a tool and something mechanical as a tool? Mechanical devices, for which there are many patents, take a state of matter and change it to another state of matter. Why should you be able to patent a circuit board, but not a set of program code that does exactly the same transformation to a set of bits? Why are mechanical engineers able to patent their devices, but computer eng…

> To say software patents are invalid or software can't be patented really puts software programmers at a disadvantage relative to other fields of science and innovation. Why should pharmaceutical companies, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, and all other disciplines have the right to patent their inventions -- but not software engineers?

One thing to keep in mind is that, say, mechanical engineers works aren't covered by copyright. They need to apply, pay, and only get it for a short period of time. The advantage they get is that it's general...

Right now, software developers have both, which doesn't seem fair to me.

Besides, right now copyright is way stronger than patents... Though I don't think this should be the case (I'd like to have, say, 5-10 year copyright).