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

Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 126 posts

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

#51

Post by BerislavLopac »

philwelch wrote: post #45
cloudkj wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that, rather than banning software patents outright, the process by which these patents are approved should be put under high scrutiny and changed. For a lot of large companies, the approach really is similar to throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. Having gone through the process recently, I'm amazed at how easy it is for an engineer to conceive an idea, pitch it to a few paralegals…

Software is (uniquely?) protected two ways--the source code and object code are both protected by copyright, and the algorithms may be protected by patent. One form of protection should be sufficient. Arguably, software is also protected by trade secret, either because it's difficult to decompile object code into anything meaningful or because it's hosted and run on a server that no one else is allowed to see.

And the idea of patenting an algorithm is ridiculous. Algorithms are mathematical formulae, i.e. a representation of natural laws. Making them patentable is as pointless as patenting e=mc^2, or Planck constant. For the same reason gene patents are pointless and outright dangerous.

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

#52

Post by SapphireSun »

Vivtek wrote: post #17
NathanKP wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time legitimate software patents can help to protect small software studios and startups. It is a double edged sword.

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.

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

#53

Post by billybob »

dantheman wrote: post #49
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?

What right? Copyrights & Patents are not natural in a free market; they're government creations. Remember patents and copyright only exist to encourage people to produce, not because you're entitled to profit from it. As of right now there is very little in the way of evidence that patents in anyway contribute to encouraging people to produce. Most small companies don't even bother patenting ideas because they don't…

This is a VERY important point: copyright (and other IP) exists to benefit the PUBLIC by promoting the creation of new works. Granting temporary monopolies is a means to that end.

From the Constitution: "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."

So: some people may create software, incentivized partly by the prospect of patenting it.

Other people will be unable to create or sell software, because of those same patents.

The question is, which factor is larger? If software patents are decreasing the amount of good software being produced for the public benefit, then the public no longer has a reason to grant them.

Has that point been reached? Many say yes. And the same logic may apply to other areas of IP.

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

#54

Post by jacquesm »

cloudkj wrote: post #41
steveklabnik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

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?

It would in all likelihood simply be called what it is, a citation based ranking algorithm applied to web pages.

The implementation of that algorithm would be googles trade secret but you or anybody else would be free to come up with their own implementation.

Technically speaking google has patented a number with this (the number required to program a universal Turing machine to exhibit the behavior the algorithm describes).

I don't think they should be able to do that.

The fact that microsoft is now prohibited from selling their flagship software means that some people might wake up to the downside, the one that smaller parties have been aware of for a much longer time.

Of course this will most likely simply end with MS buying up the party that sues or some cross license deal but the better outcome would be a total abolishing of software patents.

They're a plague and a brake on progress.

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

#55

Post by chaostheory »

cloudkj wrote: post #41
steveklabnik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

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?

"But I do believe there needs to be some level of legal rights protection"

It's called copyright. Before software patent wars we had software copyright fights

The way things are going we might as well put cooking recipes under patent protection

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

#56

Post by billybob »

BerislavLopac wrote: post #51
philwelch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software is (uniquely?) protected two ways--the source code and object code are both protected by copyright, and the algorithms may be protected by patent. One form of protection should be sufficient. Arguably, software is also protected by trade secret, either because it's difficult to decompile object code into anything meaningful or because it's hosted and run on a server that no one else is allowed to see.

And the idea of patenting an algorithm is ridiculous. Algorithms are mathematical formulae, i.e. a representation of natural laws. Making them patentable is as pointless as patenting e=mc^2, or Planck constant. For the same reason gene patents are pointless and outright dangerous.

Algorithms are not mathematical formulae. Those are inherent in the universe.

Code is nearly as arbitrary as a novel. It expresses an idea in specific terms. There are lots of ways to write the same program, and lots of possible programs to write. There is only one correct way to write e=mc^2.

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

#57

Post by jacquesm »

NathanKP wrote: post #43
josefresco wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's still a one-sided sword. The side that crushes real innovation (and brings on crap suits like this) is sharp as hell, the one the 'protects' small startups is pretty blunt.

I have to agree. I'm just saying that there is the potential for it to help as well as harm.

The potential is less important than the actual effects though.

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

#58

Post by philwelch »

BerislavLopac wrote: post #51
philwelch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software is (uniquely?) protected two ways--the source code and object code are both protected by copyright, and the algorithms may be protected by patent. One form of protection should be sufficient. Arguably, software is also protected by trade secret, either because it's difficult to decompile object code into anything meaningful or because it's hosted and run on a server that no one else is allowed to see.

And the idea of patenting an algorithm is ridiculous. Algorithms are mathematical formulae, i.e. a representation of natural laws. Making them patentable is as pointless as patenting e=mc^2, or Planck constant. For the same reason gene patents are pointless and outright dangerous.

1. Algorithms are a representation of logic, not natural laws--something like quicksort is just a priori math, sensible regardless of what your natural laws are.

2. It's merely an application or representation of natural laws to design a steam engine or something too.

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

#60

Post by ghshephard »

dantheman wrote: post #49
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?

What right? Copyrights & Patents are not natural in a free market; they're government creations. Remember patents and copyright only exist to encourage people to produce, not because you're entitled to profit from it. As of right now there is very little in the way of evidence that patents in anyway contribute to encouraging people to produce. Most small companies don't even bother patenting ideas because they don't…

"As of right now there is very little in the way of evidence that patents in anyway contribute to encouraging people to produce."

There are untold exception to this - It's important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Drug Patents, in particular, are incredibly important. Large Pharmaceuticals spent decades and billions of dollars on developing, trialing, and getting their new drugs approved. Why on earth would they have any incentive to do that if, once it was approved, they didn't have a temporary monopoly on it?

Remember - Patents are good for only a short period of time, under twenty years in most countries, and after that it's a free for all - anyone can use the process's and systems that were shared and documented.

With all that said - 90% of the software patents really are nothing more than crap - usually consisting of an engineer having an idea that most of their "skilled and educated in the arts" peers could have come up with in less than a week's worth of work and discussion. Public-Key cryptography class patents are few and far between.

Post reply on HN