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

Poll: Do you support software patents?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 319 posts

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#291

Post by Locke1689 »

bostonpete wrote: post #234
Locke1689 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical devices (even models thereof) are applications of physics equations, not physics equations themselves. These have been ruled time and again as being patentable. Algorithms are mathematical equations. They cannot be patented.

Software = math, math can't be patented, therefore software can't be patented. I know the mantra. I just don't buy it. Math provides the building blocks used to produce creative (and sometimes very innovative) solutions to problems in the form of software. Material properties and laws of physics similarly provide the building blocks used to produce creative solutions to problems in the form of physical devices or mec…

Then perhaps the issue isn't that software isn't math, but that the statement "math can't be patented" was simply one made in ignorance and not reflective of the underlying spirit of the law?

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#292

Post by Locke1689 »

mseebach wrote: post #238
Locke1689 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software is a mathematical equation. Math isn't patentable. Edit: Since people aren't convinced of my postulate that all algorithms are mathematical equations, here's a proof sketch: All programs can be rewritten to be expressed in Haskell. All Haskell functions can be expressed as equations in the typed lambda calculus. The lambda calculus and its variants are all subsets of mathematical equations. Therefore, all pr…

I'm fairly sceptical towards software patents but I'd argue that the math argument is a red herring. Software is clearly not math in the sense that the people who wrote that word into the law understands math. And as someone else pointed out: If this argument gets any traction, and if the powers that be want patentable software, they're going to clarify the language, not get into semantics over what people who couldn…

A fair point. I concede that may be true.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#293

Post by Locke1689 »

billmcneale wrote: post #286

The US - has very strong support for software patents - is one of the most innovative countries in the world in the software area China - has no support for software patents whatsoever - has close to zero innovation in software Can someone explain this paradox?

I think you're reducing a hugely multivariate system to a univariate one.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#294

Post by nhaehnle »

jobeirne wrote: post #127
kenjackson wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact the way patents should work is that the patent officer spends a week trying to solve said problem themselves. Does that really sound at all scalable (or even reasonable) to you? I imagine that many of the proposals that move through the patent office are highly contextual and may be simple ideas wrapped up in daunting language. It seems reasonable that it would take far more than a week to even get your arm…

Either you're trolling, or you're unaware that there were close to 500,000 patent applications filed in 2009 alone[1]. Let's say you have 500 able critics; that puts us at 1,000 patents to review per officer per year. Let's assume any given officer can review an application within one week with reasonable efficacy; it'll take ~20 years to review one year's worth of applications (1000 / 50; I excluded two weeks for va…

The obvious rhetorical question here is: Who seriously believes that there have been 500,000 inventions worthy of being patented in 2009?

The sheer volume makes it clear that the vast majority of patent applications are for trivial stuff. The system is broken, it's that simple.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#295

Post by danssig »

coffeeaddicted wrote: post #231
danssig wrote: post #38

I see huge problems with the current system but in the current capitalistic world we live in there has to be a way to protect money/time spent on researching things. If the results of 10 years of research can be stolen as soon as they're announced no one is going to pay for research anymore.

You can still be the first to bring a product to market and you have the people who will have the best knowledge because they developed it. Also don't underestimate the willingness of people to _want_ to research. And lets not forget that companies in Europe do not have software patents (yeah, some gray area still exists...) and still do research, so we already know the software world won't break down without softwar…

I completely agree that the current system is broken. I just disagree that we should abolish the system entirely. Some very smart people saw this need and I don't think they were wholly wrong.

Personally, I think the problem with patents is the are of the "who did it first" variety when they should only be of the "no one would have come up with this without me" kind.

That is, if your "idea" involves scribbling something obvious down and sending off for a patent as soon as possible (e.g. this new in-App purchase patent is a good example) then it shouldn't be patentable. For me, I would see something patentable in how Apple did the iPad. Everyone was trying things in the tablet space for years but it wasn't until the iPad that we all finally got it.

I would also make patents shorter and non-renewable. Renewable patents are just a monopoly on ideas.

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#298

Post by gjm11 »

dspeyer wrote: post #275
jobeirne wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact the way patents should work is that the patent officer spends a week trying to solve said problem themselves. Does that really sound at all scalable (or even reasonable) to you? I imagine that many of the proposals that move through the patent office are highly contextual and may be simple ideas wrapped up in daunting language. It seems reasonable that it would take far more than a week to even get your arm…

A scalable proposal: When a suit is filed, an engineer is given the problem and told to build clean-room implementations. If he gets it in under a month, it's obvious and overturned. If he gets it in a day, it's extremely obvious and the plaintiff is fined three times the asking damages. If he gets it in under an hour, thirty times. This disincentivizes completely bogus patent claims, and should bring the total rate…

Unfortunately, this doesn't work if there's any possibility that the engineer has seen the patent (not terribly likely in itself) or been influenced by it indirectly (much more likely: maybe she's talked to a friend who read a web page on the subject, written by someone who had a friend at the company that produced the patent).

Once something is patented, the idea is out there for others to hear about (not just because they can read the patent; the original inventors can now talk about it, too). And ideas that get out into the wild tend to spread.

On the other hand, after all these years of having patents on obvious things granted, it might be no bad thing to try throwing out some genuinely inventive patents instead for a change :-).

(My own preference: either do away with software patents completely, or substantially shorten their term. [EDITED to add: the latter probably only makes sense if you can greatly reduce the latency between initial filing and granting. Which would be a good thing anyway, for all patents.])

Re: Poll: Do you support software patents?

#299

Post by AlexC04 »

nitrogen wrote: post #219
AlexC04 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your discussion of "Tribe Signalling" is interesting. It reminds me of all the stuff that Desmond Morris was talking about in "the Human Animal" (and more recently http://www.exactitudes.com/ ). By wearing certain clothes you're sending a signal to others about political POV, likes dislikes, interests etc... It helps you find other like minded individuals. Maybe you're right that being against software patents is gen…

Predictability of hackers' opposition to software patents doesn't render that opposition inconsequential or irrelevant (unlike a vampire fan's opinion of vampires).

[dead]
Post reply on HN