6 ms·

Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on tr

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.
        hn_decay 15y ago
        Perhaps, but it is entirely pertinent. Many of these pro-patent positions, I suspect, are entirely rooted in the feeling of belonging to a certain community. See Gruber's bizarrely hypocritical piece which mirrors that public sentiment. I believe that software patents are overwhelmingly farce, whether they support Microsoft in attacking Apple, Apple against Samsung, Samsung against Apple, or any of various IP ventures against App Store developers. It is not a position that varies based upon the actors. The pro-Apple lobby, however, has a position that essentially holds Apple's patents as legitimate and righteous to enforce, but everyone else's as illegitimate for various reasons. It is farce to criticize lodsys and others for entirely legal IP protections -- as the system supposedly encourages -- while supporting Apple and their like behaviors. Whether a company is open to counter-attacks is irrelevant to the legitimacy of patents. Virtually everyone who interacts with HN relies upon Linux (for instance as the foundation of their startup). Linux infrgines on countless Microsoft patents. Thus far Microsoft has treaded lightly, but I don't think it's tough to imagine how sentiments would change if they started laying the hammer down, shutting down every cloud host, etc. The simple love of a gadget has many supporting an incredibly dangerous position. But sentiments are changing. I argue for the exercise of it, but there is no doubt that dramatic software patent changes are coming due.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  I'd rather ask society if they're better off, because that is the argument that you're trying to make isn't it? That patents are a good idea, not that they're a system that it's easy for individuals to game for financial reward.
  - Steko 15y ago
    That's not an easy question. The alternative to patents is either less innovation (see countries with weak IP protection) or massive secrecy. I don't see either of those as particularly compelling alternatives. Patents need some major reforms but not abolishing.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      The alternative to patents is either less innovation (see countries with weak IP protection) or massive secrecy. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that weak IP protection leads to less innovation. I'd argue that it's equally as likely that the causation is reversed; that is, countries that do more innovating will eventually have stronger IP protection, whether the actual innovators want it or not. Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. Patent language rarely discloses any information that would be of use to a software developer. Software developers almost never read patents when implementing their own systems, with a few notable exceptions (such as the case where someone wants to implement a well-known patented algorithm).
      - Steko 15y ago
        I think it's trivial to say that weak IP protection would lead to less innovation with simple counterfactuals. Let's go back a few years and remove all IP protections for media. Does Avatar still get a half billion dollar budget to get made? "Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. " This is just arguing degrees. Whatever it's at now, I think the alternative is far more massive secrecy then currently.
        wbienek 15y ago
econgeeker 15y ago
Right, you can't argue the facts so just be disparaging. The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008, not "years" before Apple showed the iPhone. You're absolutely uninformed about even the basic facts or timeline, yet you're happy to make broad assertions and engage in attacks to the person. Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you. Have a nice day!
- hn_decay 15y ago
  "The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008" Surface was unveiled in 2007, with the final hardware design being completed two years prior. The project itself started based upon, humorously, Minority Report. "Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you." Yeah you've said that a couple of times now. Kind of funny, really.
  - Steko 15y ago
    Figerworks patents: 1999 to 2005. Keep citing MS Surface like it's relevant.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      Multitouch has been around long before 1999. http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
  - rimantas 15y ago
    iPhone was introduced in 2007. According to Jobs it took 2.5 years to develop.

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.
      - hn_decay 15y ago
        Perhaps, but it is entirely pertinent. Many of these pro-patent positions, I suspect, are entirely rooted in the feeling of belonging to a certain community. See Gruber's bizarrely hypocritical piece which mirrors that public sentiment. I believe that software patents are overwhelmingly farce, whether they support Microsoft in attacking Apple, Apple against Samsung, Samsung against Apple, or any of various IP ventures against App Store developers. It is not a position that varies based upon the actors. The pro-Apple lobby, however, has a position that essentially holds Apple's patents as legitimate and righteous to enforce, but everyone else's as illegitimate for various reasons. It is farce to criticize lodsys and others for entirely legal IP protections -- as the system supposedly encourages -- while supporting Apple and their like behaviors. Whether a company is open to counter-attacks is irrelevant to the legitimacy of patents. Virtually everyone who interacts with HN relies upon Linux (for instance as the foundation of their startup). Linux infrgines on countless Microsoft patents. Thus far Microsoft has treaded lightly, but I don't think it's tough to imagine how sentiments would change if they started laying the hammer down, shutting down every cloud host, etc. The simple love of a gadget has many supporting an incredibly dangerous position. But sentiments are changing. I argue for the exercise of it, but there is no doubt that dramatic software patent changes are coming due.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
ZeroGravitas 15y ago
I'd rather ask society if they're better off, because that is the argument that you're trying to make isn't it? That patents are a good idea, not that they're a system that it's easy for individuals to game for financial reward.
- Steko 15y ago
  That's not an easy question. The alternative to patents is either less innovation (see countries with weak IP protection) or massive secrecy. I don't see either of those as particularly compelling alternatives. Patents need some major reforms but not abolishing.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    The alternative to patents is either less innovation (see countries with weak IP protection) or massive secrecy. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that weak IP protection leads to less innovation. I'd argue that it's equally as likely that the causation is reversed; that is, countries that do more innovating will eventually have stronger IP protection, whether the actual innovators want it or not. Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. Patent language rarely discloses any information that would be of use to a software developer. Software developers almost never read patents when implementing their own systems, with a few notable exceptions (such as the case where someone wants to implement a well-known patented algorithm).
    - Steko 15y ago
      I think it's trivial to say that weak IP protection would lead to less innovation with simple counterfactuals. Let's go back a few years and remove all IP protections for media. Does Avatar still get a half billion dollar budget to get made? "Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. " This is just arguing degrees. Whatever it's at now, I think the alternative is far more massive secrecy then currently.
      - wbienek 15y ago

econgeeker 15y ago

Right, you can't argue the facts so just be disparaging. The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008, not "years" before Apple showed the iPhone. You're absolutely uninformed about even the basic facts or timeline, yet you're happy to make broad assertions and engage in attacks to the person. Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you. Have a nice day!

hn_decay 15y ago
"The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008" Surface was unveiled in 2007, with the final hardware design being completed two years prior. The project itself started based upon, humorously, Minority Report. "Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you." Yeah you've said that a couple of times now. Kind of funny, really.
- Steko 15y ago
  Figerworks patents: 1999 to 2005. Keep citing MS Surface like it's relevant.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Multitouch has been around long before 1999. http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
- rimantas 15y ago
  iPhone was introduced in 2007. According to Jobs it took 2.5 years to develop.