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

Enough Is Enough

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 193 posts

Re: Enough Is Enough

#101

Post by noonespecial »

DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

Unfortunately those of you who really deserve patents will not be able to make them rise above the noise of this lunacy. We're eventually going to have to go with "no software patents at all" to fix this. As a society, we just haven't outgrown the greedy thuggery that could allow us to respect each others work without gaming the system into tragedy of the commons territory.

A classic case of "see, this is why we can't have nice things".

Re: Enough Is Enough

#102

Post by arethuza »

mluiten wrote: post #70
masklinn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But copyright is not about mere similarity: if two people reach the same plot device completely independently (or from a common source) there is no copyright infringement case. Whereas the same thing in the world of patents is a patent infringement case.

Additionally, to own copyright, you would actually have to _create_ a product/movie/etc. How any patent holder can sue without actually creating or using their own patent is beyond me.

What makes you think ownership of copyright isn't transferable?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#103

Post by mbesto »

DrJokepu wrote: post #63
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others independently developing a similar algorithm?

Your question assumes two things that I haven't said, implied and are simply untrue. I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a lack of clarity on my part. First, it assumes that we want to be protected against "others independently developing a similar algorithm". Second, it assumes that I "believe that my company deserves to be protected" from such other people. We're not concerned about oth…

To that same token...

Let's say company A and company B create the exact same alogorithim in the exact same time. Company A markets it much better and effectively "wins" the market. Should their success be determined by purely R&D alone? Since this is a rather unrealistic (albeit becoming more and more realistic) situation. Imagine a slightly more realistic scenario. Company A starts R&D day 1 and finishes day 100. Company B starts R&D day 50 and finishes day 125. But Company B has better management, marketing, etc. and (again) effectively wins the market.

Who gets precedence?

> We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work.

So why don't you just keep it secret? Is this ultimately the question?

Re: Enough Is Enough

#104

Post by fauigerzigerk »

bostonpete wrote: post #57
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others independently developing a similar algorithm?

This argument can be made against patents in general. If people want to argue that all patents are bad, that's fine, but most people draw a tenuous distinction between software patents and other kinds of patents. I agree with DrJokepu -- the real problem (assuming that you're not opposed to all patents) is that patents are being given for ideas that are moderately to extremely obvious.

The question I have is whether or not it is the intention of the patent system to protect against someone else independently developing the same thing. If that is indeed the intention, then I am opposed to all patents because I don't want this kind of protection to exist in any shape or form.

I'm not a lawyer or historian, but I suspect that protecting against independent invention may not have been the main goal of those who created the patents system. I suspect that this kind of protection may just be a side effect of assuming that it is generally impossible to tell whether or not an invention was arrived at independently and that it is generally impossible to keep the inner workings of an invention secret.

These assumptions are not true in the same way for software as for, say, the typewriter or a particular kind of elevator or even a chemical substance. That's why it may make sense to think about software patents seperately.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#105

Post by drostan »

Does it really promote innovation to advantage 2nd movers? Sure it is possible to add to the software and improve it, but often, the innovation is simply execution, buzz, sales and other non-trivial business things. How can there be a reward for the equally important talents of having the vision for new solutions and ability to create them if there is no patent or licensing protection?

Also, it scares me a bit when someone as influential as Fred takes this to his blog - read by so many startups. VCs make money from execution and have an (or another) incentive to suggest that patents are not an acceptable tool for startups.

I agree with the need for patent reform, actually, but a) I'm not sure eliminating software patents is the answer and b) would encourage each startup to make their own decision on how to use the current laws to give them every advantage they can get.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#106

Post by sp332 »

wslh wrote: post #29
cop359 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

according to wiki, Dijkstra's algorithm was published in 1959. If he had a patent on it for 15 years and made enough money to cover his troubles, then I don't really see it as a bad thing. Now a days, you might say that 15 years is too long and maybe that's true, but sometimes it takes people a very long time to monetize their ideas (due to technical problems, bad business partners, time needed to develop connections…

But my argument is: if not only Dijkstra but a huge part of the comp sci community would have decided to patent their inventions it will be impossible to move forward in the field. Only the legal costs of "swimming" on this system will be prohibitive for the developers community.

More likely, institutions would license the patents and the field would move still move forward, just with more friction.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#107

Post by Joeri »

CodeMage wrote: post #74
DrJokepu wrote: post #13

I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…

Threshold is one problem. Duration is another. Here's a little story to illustrate why patent trolling is so evil. I used to work at a software company that has an incentive program for developers that come up with patentable ideas, e.g. algorithms. You get a token prize when "your" patent gets submitted -- a pencil or something like that, I don't remember anymore. Then, if "your" patent gets accepted by USPTO, you g…

I've never heard a case where the do-or-do-not decision regarding a software project hinged on patents. That they are somehow needed to encourage innovation is a myth.

Besides, they're unfair. A typical software product might have perhaps 1% patented matter, and 99% copied from the "standard requirements" of the market segment it's in. The competitors spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%, so if you use a quid pro quo measure then they have an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#108

Post by nicholasjbs »

arethuza wrote: post #102
mluiten wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally, to own copyright, you would actually have to _create_ a product/movie/etc. How any patent holder can sue without actually creating or using their own patent is beyond me.

What makes you think ownership of copyright isn't transferable?

Copyrights are indeed transferable. In fact, many of the most well-known free software projects rely on this fact (e.g., should they want to relicense, or to make it easier to defend copyright ownership in court by having a single legal entity behind it).

mluiten might be referring to the fact that copyright only applies to "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression." (See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html)

That is, copyrights don't cover ideas, but creative works in some fixed form (e.g., a painting or a piece of software).

Re: Enough Is Enough

#109

Post by Joeri »

scott_s wrote: post #94
statictype wrote: post #27

Mostly agree, except: Second, Lodsys didn't even "invent" the idea. They purchased the patent and are now using it like a cluster bomb on the entire mobile app developer community. The fact that Lodsys bought the patent and didn't invent the idea themselves seems entirely irrelevant to this dilemma. Unless you also think that if you acquire someone else's software, you don't have the right to sell it.

I think it does matter, because it means certain behavior is more likely. Companies that create patents are more likely to invest their time, money and effort into actually making things that will eventually be sold (in whatever fashion). This activity adds value to the economy. While it is possible for such companies to aggressively pursue their patents in the way that Lodsys has, they don't need to do it to survive…

Patent trolls do add some value to the economy. The value they add is in the purchasing of the patent, leaving the original patent holder with a pile of cash they can use to build another product.

Then again, they take way more value out of the market, so it ends up being a negative.

Re: Enough Is Enough

#110

Post by [deleted] »

unfasten wrote: post #55
imtyler wrote: post #38

I think America's patent & copyright laws are in need of a serious rethinking in the digital age, but what are we the people doing about it? I would love to get involved (or donate) but I'm not aware of any credible groups or projects making strides to help bring about such a change. Any noteworthy efforts out there that I should know about?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( http://www.eff.org/issues/patents ) is working at it. They're starting off with getting the most ridiculous patents reexamined by the patent office in their Patent Busting project http://w2.eff.org/patent/ . They've succeeded in having a number of patents reexamined and some narrowed or invalidated. They also lobby for patent reform. They're exactly the credible group you're looki…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN