

Patents - ugh
http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2010/03/09/patents/

======
kiba
In the interest of raising the intellectual property debate beyond tired old
arguments that HN readers has been making for the past 15 threads or so, once
again, I urges everyone to read _Against Intellectual Monopoly_ at
[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

 _It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright
and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and
inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music,
literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of
a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and
example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a
practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty._ \-- David K.
Levine and Michele Boldrin, _Against Intellectual Monopoly_

It will cost you exactly nothing to read the electronic version of the book,
so read it!

P.S. Yes, I been making the same book recommendation for the last several
threads about IP, but it doesn't seem to have an impact on the quality of
discussion.

~~~
Groxx
I'll read it, because I'm interested, but the concept that "if everyone knew
what I knew, they'd get along / talk better" is ridiculous.

------
marze
The best argument against software patents is this:

Patents exist to encourage and reward innovation and invention, by granting
20-year monopolies on new ideas.

Software does not need additional motivation for innovation because there is
and was tremendous innovation and invention, and would be without patents.

20-year patents on software concepts reduce the rate of innovation in
software.

~~~
philh
"Patents encourage X; software is good at X, and would be without patents;
[therefore?] patents actually harm X in software."

I can't work out whether the third paragraph is intended to follow from the
second (non sequitur), or stand by itself (unsupported claim). But it's not a
good argument either way.

~~~
marze
It is impossible to know for certainty if innovation would be faster or slower
if patents were not given for software, but I feel it is a key question.

You see well known problems discussed, such as prior art being buried in
compiled code and the lack of awareness in general of the prior art the
examiners have (usually they just do searches on the patent archive).

However, I haven't seen as much discussion of the problem that software
patents are just not needed to spur innovation in the software arena in the
first place, since rapid innovation would occur anyway. (Not to mention
granting a 20-year monopoly in regular years is like granting a 100-year
monopoly in software years.)

------
fizx
This article suggests a test for obviousness (and therefore patent
invalidation): If the patent's commercial use necessarily requires full
disclosure of the contents of the patent, the patent is obvious.

Counterarguments?

~~~
macrael
It is nice to think that all patents are supposed to bring something into
public knowledge that would otherwise have remain hidden but I don't think
that is their real purpose. It seems to me that the contract is that the state
will protect your invention precisely because if they didn't, it would be
easily copyable and therefore you would not have put effort into inventing it.
Things that can be kept secret don't really need patent protection at all, you
just keep them secret.

Whenever I try and reason about patents, I think of the development of the
steam engine. Patents seem to have been developed for that time period and
that kind of invention. Anyone can look at a steam engine and understand how
all of the parts work. When someone came up with a clever way of solving a
problem, making a better steam engine, anyone could have easily seen what they
did and made their own version. Patents protected the inventor and allowed him
to recoup his R&D expenses. So when you look at the evolution of the steam
engine you see places where people licensed patents from previous inventors
and places where they came up with different (often less efficient) solutions
to previously solved problems because the previous solution was patented. I
think that this is an example of the patent system working well. Steam engines
evolved rapidly and inventors were able to continue inventing because they
could make money off of their ideas.

The question now is how appropriate are patents in software, a field that is
very very different from the mechanical nuts and bolts field that they were
created for. I don't know the answer to that question, but it is shitty for
small players to be in constant fear of the big guys.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
there was recently a great article posted somewhere on exactly the subject of
steam engines and how little progress was made until the patent expired. now I
can't find it damn it.

edit, found it! <http://mises.org/daily/3280>

edit: it's an excerpt from the book kiba is talking about above.

