121–130 of 193 posts
Same problem: other apps used it because it's such a generic concept. They (always) say that it's for protection… Riiiight! :|
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
For example one of the mini revolutions was Turbo Pascal from Borland offering the compiler for few bucks when compilers were more expensive, with patents all prices go high and that means few people or companies can spend money on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 i…
Me neither, but that just means that patents, as they are now, don't serve their intended purpose. It doesn't mean that there's nothing that could be done to remedy that situation.
That they are somehow needed to encourage innovation is a myth.
Maybe it's more accurate to say that they (are intended to) prevent situation that seriously discourage innovation. If I come up with a really ingenious algorithm to do a hellishly complicated thing X, it would be nice to have the legal protection for a certain period while I struggle to get it to the point where it starts making me money. Protection from what? Protection from someone else stealing the algorithm and implementing it faster and beating me to the money making stage.
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.
First of all, the assumption that a "typical software product" should rely on a patent is not necessarily true. The company to which I was referring is in the business of developing software for semiconductor manufacturers. Their products are definitely not "typical software products". That specific market is pretty much cut-throat: there aren't many companies developing for it and, consequently, the customer always has you by short hairs. Patents are just another tool in their toolbox for dealing with the competition.
Second, I don't understand why you automatically assume that the patent holder isn't one of those players who "spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%". I'm not defending patent trolls here. I'm defending the cases in which you want to protect that 1% that distinguishes you from the competition.
Third, even if the patent holder is a new player, how did you arrive at a conclusion that spending money on figuring out 99% of "standard requirements" somehow makes you have "an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table"? It sounds like a false sense of entitlement.
Maybe somebody needs to move this issue to someplace more visible. I'd like to introduce the concept of Movie Patents. I'd register a patent for the plot device of having the bad guy be the main character's best friend, with additional clauses for being his boss, advisor, or partner. I wouldn't ever make any movies. I'd just sit back and collect royalties from everybody who used my idea. The reason behind this is tha…
That is actually a very insightful way to look at it. Furthermore, You can have the same story, but the value of the movie is not in the plot itself. The value is on how well it is executed. Acting, dialogs, photography, special effects, etc.
I like the idea of losing patents if you don't have a product in the market within a year or so.
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'…
I hope that avc, ycombinator, Andreessen Horowitz and a lot of known VC and business angels introduce a new simple rule on their agreement: To get funded, a company must not try to obtain software patent, and if they do have software patent(s), they will publicly say they will not try to license them and will not sue for infringement of one of their patent. Beside clearing up the landscape, it will send a clear messa…
I like the idea of losing patents if you don't have a product in the market within a year or so.
But it seems easy to fake. Can you just put a product, or do you need a number of users or income?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if your competitor came up with the same algorithm (or very similar) and performs as well both in time and space complexity... and all of this on their own, without actually taking a peek at your code. In that case would you go after them and sue them?
I imagine we would, simply because we can; we're a commercial entity after all. Personally (and I'm not representing my company here) I don't think that's a good thing; if they could prove that they independently reached the same results without using any of our research or work (or we couldn't prove the contrary), they should be protected. That's not the case though at the moment unfortunately.