

Ask YC: Why is everyone so negative about patents? - mixmax

It appears that everyone  in the tech and startup industries have a very negative attitude towards patents, why is this?<p>As I see it patents are nothing but good for startups. If you have one you have some sort of defense against being run over by others stealing your unique technology. And noone sues a startup based on patent infringement knowing that there is probably not a lot of money to be made if the case is won.<p>Besides VC's love patents.<p>So why exactly are patents so evil?
======
boucher
Probably the best argument against software patents is the way they are
implemented. The patent office is doing a horrible job at determining which
patents to grant.

Just look at Amazon's one click patent, or at the thousands of patents granted
to patent trolls for things like "lists of media that are customized to a
specific user". I kid you not, the last company I worked at was being sued for
presenting users with song recommendations because it violated a patent on
"customized lists".

The other major issue I see is that software companies don't care about
patents. Very few patents are enforced by large companies, because its not
worth it. Not to mention, you can't do basically anything anymore without
infringing on someone's patent. They've become a sort of mutually assured
destruction mechanism that companies build up with the pretext of being able
to counter sue anyone who sues them.

~~~
cperciva
_The patent office is doing a horrible job at determining which patents to
grant._

Absolutely. I've seen lots of good software patents -- patents which are
inventive, useful, and benefit the world by being published. The patent which
covers rsync is a perfect example -- anything which is worth half of a PhD
thesis when it is rediscovered a few years later certainly qualifies as
"novel" in my opinion.

I've also seen a lot of very bad patents -- patents which cover "inventions"
which were already well known in the field, patents which take a well-
understood practice and add a formulaic "over the internet", patents which are
written in such a manner as to not actually disclose anything about the
invention being patented, et cetera.

The patent system needs to be reformed so as to stop granting so many bad
patents; but I absolutely believe that software patents could be a net
positive if they were implemented properly.

~~~
TheTarquin
"The patent office is doing a horrible job at determining which patents to
grant."

This could also be because, as Charles Duell, the head of the Patent Office
pointed out at the end of the 19th century, "Everything that can be invented
has been invented."

...

Okay, so the internet is now telling my that that's probably apocryphal,
(<http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/22779.html>)but it still makes for an
amusing quote. And I'm not one to let reality get in the way of humor. :-P

------
rms
In areas where patents are the norm (not web 2.0), they have dramatically
raised the cost of doing the business.

Also, on the topic of patents, did the USA switch to first a file? I was
unclear if that actually ended up being part of the recent patent reform.

------
tjr
[http://philip.greenspun.com/business/internet-software-
paten...](http://philip.greenspun.com/business/internet-software-patents)

...sums up a big part of the problem.

------
jyu
The USPTO is backed up by several years. Even if you have a cookie cutter
patent application, it will take several years before it is issued. It also
commits you towards a product/strategy direction when it may be better to not
file, and stay flexible.

Software intellectual property is typically protected by trade secret rather
than patents.

~~~
anamax
> It also commits you towards a product/strategy direction when it may be
> better to not file, and stay flexible.

No, it doesn't. Filing a patent application doesn't obligate you to practice
it.

Trademarks are use it or lose it.

~~~
jyu
you're right that there is no specific obligation. however, if you spend $20k+
and several years of partial mindshare on a specific technology, you're much
more committed and thus less flexible.

trade secret and trademarks are two different things.

------
xirium
Postgres ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=109387> ) and MySQL (
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=118791> ) would both run faster if they
didn't avoid patented methods.

~~~
thorax
This alone doesn't make a very good argument, unless you're arguing against
any sort of protected intellectual property.

I mean Ford's cars might get better gas mileage if they didn't have to avoid
patents by Toyota. Project Gutenberg would have a lot more free books if they
didn't avoid copyrighted works.

I think the poster was looking for solid flaws in the system regarding
software. For example, the frivolous nature of things like 1-click (though I
think Amazon has had a hard time keeping that from being attacked right and
left).

------
davidw
Because the costs of software patents outweigh the benefits. I think that the
equation is different for other fields (biotech, for instance) though.

------
bayareaguy
patents are fine for some industries but for software they do more harm than
good.

