31–40 of 134 posts
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." -- John Carmack
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." -- John Carmack
That's one possible narrative. Another would be: The idea that I can be presented with a problem, hire a dozen experts and spend millions of dollars coming up with a solution to the problem, and have someone come along and just copy the solution and use it in their own product to compete with me is horrifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure some engineers like patents. It makes them feel important, it's something to show to their bosses (and parents) and keep a score for promotion purposes. Managers also like patents to schmooze their bosses. "See, I did a patent, that's like, very important" Meanwhile the lawyers say "yeah, sure" while collecting heavy fees. And 90% of R&D is on the finished products (incl. code/blueprints) not on the "inventi…
I don't think that's an accurate statement of how patents function in these industries. Patents provide a framework for companies to transact in technology while protecting their R&D investment. It enables companies like MIPS and ARM to specialize in producing designs without having to develop finished products, and it allows companies to invest in open standards like LTE or WiMAX without having some Chinese manufact…
It isn't hard to create an "ARM compatible" processor, but you can certainly not sell it as this without infringing a trademark (and copyright on the instruction set, etc).
With WiMax and similars, again it's not only patents, but also trademarks that are only licensed to companies that pay the fee and usually have to pass a compliance test as well.
Sure, patents are present but they're only part of the story.
Also, patents are not the only way to protect an invention, the two other common methods are secrecy and publishing it (which prevents anyone else from getting a patent on it)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one possible narrative. Another would be: The idea that I can be presented with a problem, hire a dozen experts and spend millions of dollars coming up with a solution to the problem, and have someone come along and just copy the solution and use it in their own product to compete with me is horrifying.
Yes, if the solution takes "dozen experts and millions of dollars", it should be possibly patentable. But if the solution is reproducible by an average or good programmer leading by logical steps , then it shouldn't be patentable at all.
Therefore anything more complicated than fizzbuzz passes the nonobviousness test and is patentable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one possible narrative. Another would be: The idea that I can be presented with a problem, hire a dozen experts and spend millions of dollars coming up with a solution to the problem, and have someone come along and just copy the solution and use it in their own product to compete with me is horrifying.
While we're demanding that the government give us artificial rents, why not just pay it directly to remove our competition, and skip all the bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one possible narrative. Another would be: The idea that I can be presented with a problem, hire a dozen experts and spend millions of dollars coming up with a solution to the problem, and have someone come along and just copy the solution and use it in their own product to compete with me is horrifying.
Yes, if the solution takes "dozen experts and millions of dollars", it should be possibly patentable. But if the solution is reproducible by an average or good programmer leading by logical steps , then it shouldn't be patentable at all.
There are (at least) three valid perspectives on the patent situation within the software community but part of the reason so little constructive progress is made is that many people with strong opinions will often flat-out deny or reject the validity of the other perspectives because it is outside their experience. Three perspectives of which most people ignore one or more: - Computer technology is over-run with fri…
It takes time and paying people so they can focus on solving hard problems for real innovation to happen. And its sad when it then has to become proprietary so that the operation can protect having any ROI
sharing is caring, and if that means you can have some revenue still, great!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give me an example of how this would happen? If google spent millions solving a problem how would I copy the solution and integrate it into my product, considering I will never see google's codebase? Genuinely asking, a real world situation would be cool. It seems like this would happen most when ex-employees try to compete with the large company.
For software-as-a-service, trade secrets are easily kept. Not so much if google published a desktop version of their fancy product. And no, making saas the only viable platform is not a good outcome. (then we wouldn't have to worry about trusting the user, but we would have to worry about trusting the provider.)
We may have lost some of Shakespeare's plays because he had to be so secretive with his work, since he had no other legal protection from people just copying the stuff and putting on their own plays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if the solution takes "dozen experts and millions of dollars", it should be possibly patentable. But if the solution is reproducible by an average or good programmer leading by logical steps , then it shouldn't be patentable at all.
The fallacy of this suggestion is in deciding where to draw the line.
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." -- John Carmack
That's one possible narrative. Another would be: The idea that I can be presented with a problem, hire a dozen experts and spend millions of dollars coming up with a solution to the problem, and have someone come along and just copy the solution and use it in their own product to compete with me is horrifying.