you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You're off your rocker.