Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word • Hacker News Board

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#121

Post by billybob » Wed, Dec 23, 2009, 4:53 PM UTC

dstorrs wrote: post #94

gphil wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure that patents on software are any more or less "silly" than patents on real (physical) devices. What is it about software patents that makes them inherently different from patents in general? Obviously, there are arguments for and against the patent system as a whole, but are there any that apply only to software patents? I know there's a rich tradition of objecting to patents on software, but it alway…

The public cost of a patent is the monopoly it provides. The public benefit is that the invention is eventually released into the public domain. Take the pharmaceutical companies as an example of where patents are perhaps worthwhile: - It costs a lot of money to produce a new drug; high cost == high risk == unattractive field for investment. Patents lower the risk because the pharmaceutical companies know that they w…

All excellent points. I would add one more:

In the case of drugs, the patent can be chemically specific. It's easy to tell whether another drug infringes.

Software patents are sufficiently vague that it's hard to tell what they cover. Which has a chilling effect on people making software. How do you know whether you'll be sued?

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#122

Post by Vivtek » Thu, Dec 24, 2009, 4:32 AM UTC

SapphireSun wrote: post #52

Vivtek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're far more often used as bludgeons to drain the defense coffers of small software studios and startups. By the time a patent is granted, that startup has moved on to something better - show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description. Not the patented mechanism (that's generally obvious and we all know it), just what the invention is supposed to…

Isn't the point not that other people can implement it, but that they didn't come up with it? Not that there isn't serious abuse of the system, but it's supposed to protect innovation, and ease of implementation can be innovation.

No. This is a common misconception. The patent system is there to give a temporary monopoly on an implementation in return for allowing it to be public domain later - and disclosing the knowledge now, not later, so that additional innovation can proceed. The only problem is that the term of the monopoly is selected to support mechanical engineering growth rates of the 19th century, and we're stupidly trying to apply it to entire industries that rise and disappear more quickly than that.

Read some patents from other fields - they typically protect and disclose stuff that really took some work to figure out. That's the point. One-click ordering, though? That's just plain bullshit. Anybody could implement that.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#123

Post by gnaritas » Thu, Dec 24, 2009, 4:39 AM UTC

krakensden wrote: post #112

brlewis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my hypothesis: The less obvious a software "invention" is, the more closely it resembles patenting pure mathematics. Unfortunately, a severe shortage of non-obvious software patents makes this hypothesis difficult to test.

of course, patenting mathematics isn't allowed :)

Nor should patents on programs be, since they're all just math anyway; mostly sloppy not well thought out math, but math none the less.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#124

Post by jrockway » Thu, Dec 24, 2009, 11:10 AM UTC

assemble wrote: post #118

jrockway wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's such a big issue, why not implement it yourself? Then you and a whole whack of other people can switch from XP to Ubuntu!

Have you considered that maybe they aren't a programmer and don't have the technical knowledge to add a feature like that? This kind of attitude is one of the things that drives people away from Linux and the open-source movement in general. Personally: every time I use OO, I'm reminded of how much better Word is--in interface (the ribbon is GREAT), features (everything you could ever need), compatibility (you can sa…

This kind of attitude is one of the things that drives people away from Linux and the open-source movement in general.

Sorry, but it's just the reality. Very few people write Free Software out of pure altruism. They write it because they have a problem they need to solve. Often there is personal gain in sharing this solution with the world (reputation, free bugfixes, etc.), so people do. This is the open source / free software movement in a nutshell.

If this attitude drives you away from getting something for free, then I guess that's too bad. The community only benefits marginally from consumers; it benefits from producers. If you are never willing to produce, the community can probably live without you.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#125

Post by assemble » Thu, Dec 24, 2009, 10:37 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #124

assemble wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that maybe they aren't a programmer and don't have the technical knowledge to add a feature like that? This kind of attitude is one of the things that drives people away from Linux and the open-source movement in general. Personally: every time I use OO, I'm reminded of how much better Word is--in interface (the ribbon is GREAT), features (everything you could ever need), compatibility (you can sa…

This kind of attitude is one of the things that drives people away from Linux and the open-source movement in general. Sorry, but it's just the reality. Very few people write Free Software out of pure altruism. They write it because they have a problem they need to solve. Often there is personal gain in sharing this solution with the world (reputation, free bugfixes, etc.), so people do. This is the open source / fre…

Somebody has to consume your product or there is no reason to build it. If OO wants to compete with a high-quality commercial product, they should act like it. I use Windows and Office because they are superior products, with enough of a quality increase that I'm willing to pay for it. I really doubt people would mind shelling out their hard earned cash for Desktop Linux or OO if they were viable alternatives, but as it stands: they aren't.

I'm fine with being a producer in a few of the fields I care about (I work on one of the few remaining Perl BBSes), when I'm not busy getting paid to write software. I don't want to have to help write my OS, my Office software, my text editor(s), my web browser, my music player, etc. I just want these things to work in (at least) a predictable fashion.

Anyway, I really do think that the open source community needs to lose the attitude if they ever want to gain traction in the wider non-programmer community.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#126

Post by jazzdev » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 9:53 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #108

cloudkj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for openness and transparency. But I do believe there needs to be some level of legal rights protection, and that it's a pretty fundamental pillar of our capitalist system. Out of curiosity, what do you (and others) think of a patent for something like Google's PageRank?

As I said above, I'm against all IP. And PageRank is a trade secret, not IP. There's a reason that Coke hasn't gotten a patent on their forumla, no?

The formula for Coke is a recipe and recipes aren't copyrightable (in the USA) unless "accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions".

See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#recipe