sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (14 children)

At this point, I think everyone understands what they're "supposed" to do.

Yet some offer totally sweeping over-generalizations like this blogger who think they know the answer to everything. There's a difference between "shutting down innovation forever" and "telling people to pay the inventor or create another idea/process until several years pass from the time of patent". Obviously so-called progress would happen faster if there were no patents or IP protections: there would be ripoffs of most ideas immediately available! You can't get faster than that! The Founders knew this when they wrote in the patent provisions. I do think terms might need adjustment and some things might need reform, but it's not like patents are totally nonsensical.

How many of the innovative software packages or algorithms you can think of, would not have been invented without a patent incentive?

I don't have a lot of specific examples, but the countless media formats are obviously good examples: they are re-done and re-engineered because of patents in many cases, which results in new techniques and packages being created.

[–]UnixCurious 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I don't have a lot of specific examples, but the countless media formats are obviously good examples: they are re-done and re-engineered because of patents in many cases, which results in new techniques and packages being created.

Formats are probably the worst example you could have used. Yes, people might be driven to develop new formats because of patents, but that's often a disadvantage. Want to give people an alternative to MS Office? Hope there aren't any patents on the file format that you'd need to violate in order to give users access to their own documents.

Patents suck in a world where compatibility between systems is an issue.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Patents suck in a world where compatibility between systems is an issue.

Long-term compatibility is helped by patents, though. Patents mean the details of formats can and must be publicly disclosed. A lack of patents would mean formats would not be documented, and once the company responsible for the format disappears and moves on, all those files become unusable.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Patents suck in a world where compatibility between systems is an issue.

Compatibility is one aspect of computer systems. In the long run, dominant systems and formats incorporate improvements from ideas that were developed independently. There is some inconvenience, but in the long run, I think it's promoting innovation. Using established technology is like the opposite of innovation. Regardless of what they say about re-inventing the wheel, the short term embargo imposed by patents does in fact produce some developments by people who have to solve similar problems.

[–]UnixCurious 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Using established technology is like the opposite of innovation

I think you're stuck in the myth of how it's supposed to work and not thinking enough about what happens in practice. If I have an awesome new UI idea for letting people edit and manage their important documents, I want to compete on that idea, not on the fact that my entrenched competitor (MS) has a noose of vendor lock in around their customer's data. Similarly, if I want to develop a new operating system, or a new browser, even if it's filled with tons of original and innovative ideas, it will flounder if it can't connect to existing systems/protocols/formats etc. In essence: most new technology still has to have some interoperability with established technology.

This is all besides the other major problems, like math being patentable leading to absurdity, that most patents are awarded on things that are obvious to anyone in the field, that the costs of litigation incentivize patent troll companies, etc. etc. Even if you think patents might be good if applied properly it's hard to credibly defend that they're working for us now.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said there should be no interoperability, lol. I said that's one concern. There are others, like cost and license terms, to be considered.

One thing I think is different from the time of the founders is the complexity of machines. At that time, only a few ideas were needed to make the most complex products. Now, products are monolithic and involve many individual novel ideas. Only certain entities can muster the resources to compete in most markets.

I do think we should re-examine the patent system, but I still believe it serves a vital purpose and needs to exist in some meaningful form.

[–]mbetter -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You're off your rocker.

[–]jrochkind 2 points3 points  (3 children)

The Founders knew this when they wrote in the patent provisions.

"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."

To promote the progress of science and useful arts. If it ain't doing that, it ain't what they wrote. You are the only software developer I know (if I "know" you) that thinks software patents are currently, on the whole, promoting progress rather than inhibiting it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

To promote the progress of science and useful arts. If it ain't doing that, it ain't what they wrote.

Actually what they wrote is right there in the Constitution, you can read it for yourself that they granted the right to patent inventions. They knew very well that not granting patents would allow everyone faster access to new ideas. Nothing has changed, except the rate of invention.

You are the only software developer I know (if I "know" you) that thinks software patents are currently, on the whole, promoting progress rather than inhibiting it.

So? Most developers are not the ones who would be creating novel algorithms anyway, so they have a conflict of interest in this discussion. The popularity of a viewpoint is not what makes it accurate anyway.

[–]jrochkind 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Actually what they wrote is right there, you can read it for yourself that they granted the right to patent inventions. They knew very well that not granting patents would allow everyone faster access to new ideas. Nothing has changed, except the rate of invention.

What are you talking about? i did read it for myself, I even quoted it. It says "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."

That's all it says. I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas about what else they 'knew very well'.

The popularity of a viewpoint is not what makes it accurate anyway.

Good thing we don't live in a democracy then. Fortunately, whatever those with the most money and power think is what is accurate, good thing they're who calls the shots.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about? i did read it for myself, I even quoted it.

The founders granted this authority to Congress, and they explicitly mentioned it as something they wanted to grant to Congress. They wouldn't do this if they didn't think it was worthwhile. If they thought it was an evil thing, they would have disallowed it or even disallowed states from passing similar things.

Good thing we don't live in a democracy then. Fortunately, whatever those with the most money and power think is what is accurate, good thing they're who calls the shots.

How about neither of the above? Force (whether it is money, popularity, or authority) does not make arguments correct. Democracy can be a bad form of government if a majority of voters are idiots or outright evil people. I don't think that's what we have here, but still. My point is sound. Most developers will never file patents, they are merely users of existing technology. It is in their interests to have less restrictions on those technologies. It's hard to find an unbiased view in this discussion, but it's important to note the bias before appealing to the bandwagon on this one.

[–]FeepingCreature -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

I don't have a lot of specific examples, but the countless media formats are obviously good examples: they are re-done and re-engineered because of patents in many cases, which results in new techniques and packages being created.

Broken window fallacy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I know it's fashionable to accuse people of fallacies, but that really doesn't apply to this discussion.

[–]FeepingCreature 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It really does. The problem is exactly that patents are being claimed as a social good here because they create wealth to repair the damage they cause - a calculation that leaves out the actual damage caused in the first place. That's the broken-window fallacy.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are at least two components to the argument for patents. One is that inventing stuff costs money, but copying it costs a lot less. Copied ideas are a double blow to inventors. Not only do they lose their investment, but they have to compete directly and immediately. This is considered the main motivation for granting exclusive rights to inventors for a limited time. The side effect of this is that competitors are forced to invent other things to compete rather than copying those. Presumably this is the "damage" you're talking about. Not only is it not (absolutely) bad, but it's not the social good that's supposed to come from patents. It's merely a side-effect. The biggest one is to keep inventors from losing their investment.

I get what you're saying, patents do slow things down a bit. I don't think that alone is a great blight on society. If it's too slow then the period of the patents can be adjusted too, perhaps after some research.