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

The Supreme Court Should Invalidate Software Patents

blogs.forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 119 posts

Re: The Supreme Court Should Invalidate Software Patents

#21

Post by masklinn »

niels_olson wrote: post #6

Why does it have to be the supreme court? Why can't the industry tell Congress "This sucks, fix it", the way the military did with Don't ask, don't tell? VCs just aren't as good at that whole "leadership" thing as much as generals I guess? (yes, I'm trying to goad someone to action.)

> Why can't the industry tell Congress "This sucks, fix it"

Because the part of the industry which has money and congressional ear either protected (by a huge patent portfolio) or in the game of using their patent portfolio aggressively.

> the way the military did with Don't ask, don't tell?

1. the military is a major reason why DADT was introduced in the first place

2. apart from Mullen (who mostly punted the responsibility to congress), the military (active, retired officers really don't count) did not do anything until well into BO's term, even though repealing DADT was one of BO's campaign issues

the military and DADT really is not a good example of "this sucks, fix it".

Re: The Supreme Court Should Invalidate Software Patents

#26

Post by monochromatic »

kenthorvath wrote: post #12
tsotha wrote: post #3

Software patents are a policy issue, not a constitutional question. This needs to get fixed in Congress.

I'm not so sure this isn't a constitutional question. In Article I, section 8, the U.S. Constitution: 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. Note that Congress is only given this power in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts. If one c…

Man, that argument is an uphill battle though.

Re: The Supreme Court Should Invalidate Software Patents

#27

Post by chc »

dantheman wrote: post #9
tsotha wrote: post #3

Software patents are a policy issue, not a constitutional question. This needs to get fixed in Congress.

You are not allowed to patent math; software is math; hence software is not patentable.

As much as I'd like it to be true, I can't help but find this line of reasoning a bit specious. As Simon Peyton-Jones is fond of pointing out with regards to Haskell's functional purity, a program that is just pure math won't do anything except make your computer heat up. Math doesn't write files, it doesn't draw on a screen, it doesn't send packets across a network.

Am I wrong somewhere in there?

Re: The Supreme Court Should Invalidate Software Patents

#28

Post by jdp23 »

euroclydon wrote: post #15

The SCOTUS ruled against the patentability of an algorithm which codified a certain hedging strategy in the Bilski case in 2010. This was believed to reinforce the invalidity of many software patents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski

As the article discussed, Bilski was decided on very narrow grounds; and it relates to business model patents, not software patents.

Re: The Supreme Court Should Invalidate Software Patents

#29

Post by almightygod »

nostromo wrote: post #11

Of all the supreme court decisions, I wouldn't expect this to be drawn mostly on partisan lines. Yet the author makes a good case that the liberal judges would invalidate the patents and conservative judges (with Scalia an open question) would not. Why are conservative judges more likely to support software patents?

future prediction: the right will claim that it would hurt small businesses, as far from opposite this statement is. What they mean to say is it would hurt the profitable businesses that have lobbyists and fund their campaigns

Re: The Supreme Court Should Invalidate Software Patents

#30

Post by orangecat »

kenthorvath wrote: post #12
tsotha wrote: post #3

Software patents are a policy issue, not a constitutional question. This needs to get fixed in Congress.

I'm not so sure this isn't a constitutional question. In Article I, section 8, the U.S. Constitution: 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. Note that Congress is only given this power in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts. If one c…

Unfortunately, Eldred v. Ashcroft indicates otherwise. There wasn't even a pretense that retroactively extending copyright length would promote the progress of anything, but the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can do pretty much anything other than making terms literally infinite.
Post reply on HN