16 ms·

Perhaps this is an unfair caricature, but it has been my observation that the vast majority of "pro-software patent" supporters are misguided fans of either Mic

Perhaps this is an unfair caricature, but it has been my observation that the vast majority of "pro-software patent" supporters are misguided fans of either Microsoft or Apple. They seldom have anything to do with software development, and their perspective is seldom enlightened or nuanced. Strawman, unfair, bigotry, whatever -- I would love to be proven wrong. I have yet to hear a pro-software patent argument that isn't littered with corporate partisan nonsense.

econgeeker 15y ago
I have yet to hear an anti-patent argument that wasn't just repetition of the "patents are wrong" ideology. I'm actually neutral on patents in the sense of "what would be best in an ideal world". But the bottom line is this- my work is not free unless I choose to donate it. Thus in exchange for giving you my work, I'm going to require a license. If you steal it, you've stolen it, just as if you stole a car. But wait-- if you steal my car I don't have it anymore, you say, but if you steal my technology, I still have it, you say. And yes, that's true, but it is irrelevant. If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property. It isn't that technology can be replicated-- after all, I don't hear you saying software shouldn't be copyrighted or sold-- it is whether you can get your copy without paying me for my work or not. Just because software or a patent can be replicated, doesn't mean it isn't property and isn't valuable. Am I knocking down a straw man? Well, you didn't actually make any argument-- you just disparaged people who have a different point of view. So, that forced me to guess what your argument was, and then respond. I do this so you understand that I am capable of making an argument... I just find the anti-patent people rarely give actual arguments to rebut.
- hn_decay 15y ago
  Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on trivial, obvious, or inevitable "inventions". Your position on multitouch alone is a perfect example, really -- they didn't invent the hardware, didn't make the first implementation, and it had been predicted by mainstream media a decade in advance, but because Apple had the foresight to patent it first (even Microsoft Surface has years on Apple)...invention. Hardly. There are novel software implementations. That applies to vanishingly few software patents.
  - Steko 15y ago
    Apple didn't patent anything first, they bought the inventor and paid him. Go ask the guy who made fingerworks whether he is better off with Apple paying him or if Google had just ripped his shit off.
    - hn_decay 15y ago
      "Apple didn't patent anything first, they bought the inventor and paid him." http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,966,578.PN.&OS=PN/7,966,578&RS=PN/7,966,578 http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Se...
      - Steko 15y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other then to distract from the fact that your prior art argument has been torn to shreds repeatedly.
        hn_decay 15y ago
        Are you always such a boring fanboy? THAT is the Apple multitouch patent that the industry holds as fearsome. No one gives a shit about the Fingertouch patents.
        Steko 15y ago
        Do you always resort to namecalling? Oh wait I guess you do... P.s. we're talking about prior art for multitouch, the Fingerworks patents seem far more relevant than your hardon for Minority Report and Microsoft Surface. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=20060238519&OS=20060238519&RS=20060238519 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...
        panacea 15y ago
        hn_decay... Regardless of the validity of your comments, you just played the "fanboy"/'Godwin' card. That's a virtual mutually assured destruction move. You won and lost and the debate is now a fallout zone.
- kelnos 15y ago
  If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property. Perhaps, but the market for this technology is completely inelastic. Regardless of the money/effort/time required to develop this technology, you get the exact same monopoly guarantee in the form of the patent. And you can charge whatever you want for a license, even if that price is entirely unreasonable. You can even be discriminatory, and charge different people different amounts. Or, worse, you can refuse to license to some people, or to everyone. For a technology that took significant money/effort/time to develop, I can agree with patent protection. But most software patents are comparatively trivial.
  - Terretta 15y ago
    For a technology that took significant money/effort/time to develop, I can agree with patent protection. An odd position, as it penalizes the thoughtfully elegant lateral thinking solution, which is arguably harder to do.
    - kelnos 15y ago
      Does it? If you can come up with the idea -- lateral thinking or not -- in a couple hours, then any number of other people could do so too. In that sense I don't find the idea "valuable" enough to warrant strong patent protection. Patents are an economic tool, not an "I'm clever so I should get paid" tool. The point is to help people push aside concerns about time and money when developing a new idea. Because if a competitor of equal skill can duplicate your work in a fraction of the time, just because they have access to the results of your R&D, that's a strong incentive not to even bother in the first place. So it's about time and money, not about smart thinking or elegance. (Regarding patents in general, even this argument falls apart a little bit for me. I think trade secret law is sufficient in many cases where patents are traditionally used.)
- coffeeaddicted 15y ago
  You mix up patents and copyright. You are right with copyright - I copy your code, I know I do that and that's why I'm ok with copyright protection. With patents people don't steal it - they don't even know you own it in most cases. Because software development would grind to a full-stop if you had to check every time you code something for all possible patent violations. Even lawyers have a hard time figuring out which code breaks which patents - software developers simply have no chance doing that on their own anymore. Patents are the wrong protection scheme for software for the same reason they are wrong for example for protecting book authors (imagine "Happy Ends" or similar ideas would be patented...).
- maggit 15y ago
  I suspect you are conflating the copyright/anti-copyright issue with the patent/anti-patent issue. I don't know what "patents are wrong" ideology you refer to. The arguments I see against patents over and over are concrete examples of small companies coming into trouble because they did something obvious, and do not have the legal and financial muscle to handle it, to for example have the patent invalidated because it is on something obvious. Patents are supposed to help small actors fight big ones, not the other way around. Software patents have come into a bad light because they frequently do the latter.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

econgeeker 15y ago

I have yet to hear an anti-patent argument that wasn't just repetition of the "patents are wrong" ideology. I'm actually neutral on patents in the sense of "what would be best in an ideal world". But the bottom line is this- my work is not free unless I choose to donate it. Thus in exchange for giving you my work, I'm going to require a license. If you steal it, you've stolen it, just as if you stole a car. But wait-- if you steal my car I don't have it anymore, you say, but if you steal my technology, I still have it, you say. And yes, that's true, but it is irrelevant. If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property. It isn't that technology can be replicated-- after all, I don't hear you saying software shouldn't be copyrighted or sold-- it is whether you can get your copy without paying me for my work or not. Just because software or a patent can be replicated, doesn't mean it isn't property and isn't valuable. Am I knocking down a straw man? Well, you didn't actually make any argument-- you just disparaged people who have a different point of view. So, that forced me to guess what your argument was, and then respond. I do this so you understand that I am capable of making an argument... I just find the anti-patent people rarely give actual arguments to rebut.

hn_decay 15y ago
Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on trivial, obvious, or inevitable "inventions". Your position on multitouch alone is a perfect example, really -- they didn't invent the hardware, didn't make the first implementation, and it had been predicted by mainstream media a decade in advance, but because Apple had the foresight to patent it first (even Microsoft Surface has years on Apple)...invention. Hardly. There are novel software implementations. That applies to vanishingly few software patents.
- Steko 15y ago
  Apple didn't patent anything first, they bought the inventor and paid him. Go ask the guy who made fingerworks whether he is better off with Apple paying him or if Google had just ripped his shit off.
  - hn_decay 15y ago
    "Apple didn't patent anything first, they bought the inventor and paid him." http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,966,578.PN.&OS=PN/7,966,578&RS=PN/7,966,578 http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Se...
    - Steko 15y ago
      I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other then to distract from the fact that your prior art argument has been torn to shreds repeatedly.
      - hn_decay 15y ago
        Are you always such a boring fanboy? THAT is the Apple multitouch patent that the industry holds as fearsome. No one gives a shit about the Fingertouch patents.
        Steko 15y ago
        Do you always resort to namecalling? Oh wait I guess you do... P.s. we're talking about prior art for multitouch, the Fingerworks patents seem far more relevant than your hardon for Minority Report and Microsoft Surface. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=20060238519&OS=20060238519&RS=20060238519 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...
        panacea 15y ago
        hn_decay... Regardless of the validity of your comments, you just played the "fanboy"/'Godwin' card. That's a virtual mutually assured destruction move. You won and lost and the debate is now a fallout zone.
kelnos 15y ago
If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property. Perhaps, but the market for this technology is completely inelastic. Regardless of the money/effort/time required to develop this technology, you get the exact same monopoly guarantee in the form of the patent. And you can charge whatever you want for a license, even if that price is entirely unreasonable. You can even be discriminatory, and charge different people different amounts. Or, worse, you can refuse to license to some people, or to everyone. For a technology that took significant money/effort/time to develop, I can agree with patent protection. But most software patents are comparatively trivial.
- Terretta 15y ago
  For a technology that took significant money/effort/time to develop, I can agree with patent protection. An odd position, as it penalizes the thoughtfully elegant lateral thinking solution, which is arguably harder to do.
  - kelnos 15y ago
    Does it? If you can come up with the idea -- lateral thinking or not -- in a couple hours, then any number of other people could do so too. In that sense I don't find the idea "valuable" enough to warrant strong patent protection. Patents are an economic tool, not an "I'm clever so I should get paid" tool. The point is to help people push aside concerns about time and money when developing a new idea. Because if a competitor of equal skill can duplicate your work in a fraction of the time, just because they have access to the results of your R&D, that's a strong incentive not to even bother in the first place. So it's about time and money, not about smart thinking or elegance. (Regarding patents in general, even this argument falls apart a little bit for me. I think trade secret law is sufficient in many cases where patents are traditionally used.)
coffeeaddicted 15y ago
You mix up patents and copyright. You are right with copyright - I copy your code, I know I do that and that's why I'm ok with copyright protection. With patents people don't steal it - they don't even know you own it in most cases. Because software development would grind to a full-stop if you had to check every time you code something for all possible patent violations. Even lawyers have a hard time figuring out which code breaks which patents - software developers simply have no chance doing that on their own anymore. Patents are the wrong protection scheme for software for the same reason they are wrong for example for protecting book authors (imagine "Happy Ends" or similar ideas would be patented...).
maggit 15y ago
I suspect you are conflating the copyright/anti-copyright issue with the patent/anti-patent issue. I don't know what "patents are wrong" ideology you refer to. The arguments I see against patents over and over are concrete examples of small companies coming into trouble because they did something obvious, and do not have the legal and financial muscle to handle it, to for example have the patent invalidated because it is on something obvious. Patents are supposed to help small actors fight big ones, not the other way around. Software patents have come into a bad light because they frequently do the latter.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]