
Software patents are the problem not the answer - pmjordan
http://www.unionsquareventures.com/2010/02/software-patents-are-the-problem-not-the-answer.php
======
char
I couldn't agree more. Patents are a complete waste of time.

It is ridiculous to me that people can actually patent an idea, as if they are
the only ones in the world who thought of it. (You're never the only one in
the world who thought of your idea, even if you think you are.) A patent is
not going to prevent someone else from executing the same idea in a better
way. Meanwhile, all it does is slow down innovation and drain money and
resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

~~~
mattiss
You do realize that without patents large companies have FAR less incentive to
buyout novel startups right?

------
kiba
_"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."_ \- Boldrin
and Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly

[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

I highly recommend that everyone should read this book, if only to elevate the
average level of sophistication in HN debates about intellectual property.

------
chrisbennet
I think people lose sight of just what patents are for; they are to
_encourage_ innovation.

From the US Consitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
their respective Writings and Discoveries"

Software patents as currently practiced do not serve this purpose. Imagine if
you were a writer and the words you commonly used for you craft were "owned"
by others? This is the situation now for software developers.

------
es3754
Agreed. Software patents hinder innovation. Large companies can afford to
create and license patents; startups launch products/web services and hope not
to trip any of those "landmines" when they become successful.

------
dan_the_welder
It has been said that what the current patents issue creates is a landscape
where you can only be the one winner or among the many losers.

If there was a different solution, then there could be many small players
filling different niches. This would be a win since there would be many
opportunities to create a business and contribute to the economy.

Look at ISPs, if all you have is Comcast then you have a parallel to the
current patents winner take all situation with all the problems that creates.

I really think the larger issue is that if people can't create businesses that
fill out the economic landscape then those people are not able to work to
their potential and that is a huge unintended drag on growth.

------
fnid2
I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with
software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of
intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil
engineers?

For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical
equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a
button to do a lot of work, which previously required an entire factory of
employees perhaps, and right now, I could patent that. Without software
patents I couldn't.

However, if I invent a big machine, that does the same thing my software did,
and I build it with gears and levers and conveyor belts, I could patent
_that_. No one argues that I shouldn't be allowed to patent a physical device
or the design for a physical device.

But people argue that I shouldn't be allowed to patent a software device that
does exactly the same thing as the hardware device.

Why the bias toward the physical? Why don't abstract inventions carry the same
worthiness of intellectual protection that physical devices afford?

~~~
roc
The common complaints about software patents rely on mistakes and shortcomings
of the book-keeping: obvious inventions sneaking through, prior art missed,
terms too long, etc.

But the real difference (and problem, imo) can be found in the claims.

A patent for a physical invention lays out, in its claims, _precisely_ how an
invention works. A lever-arm here, a catch there.

Infringement on that patent can only happen if a competing implementation
contains all the elements of the original claims.

So if I want to achieve the same result that you did, I simply have to build
my solution such that at least one element is distinct.

E.g. If you were granted a patent on a traditional set of gears to effect
variable windscreen wiper delay, I could use an orbital gearing solution.
Regardless of which solution is better, at the end of the day we'd both be
able to offer our clients variable wiper delay.

Software (and process) claims, by contrast, invariably work at a higher level.
Gone are levers and gears, in their place we find 'a method', 'a network', 'a
client'. As we all know "a network" describes a far, far larger domain than "a
gear" (and even "a gear" is pretty darn generous).

Software patents are literally staking their claims at a higher level of
abstraction and the practical result is that there is generally no feasible
alternative implementation. So no competitor can offer a competing product
that effects the same result, even if the substance of their solution is
wildly different than the original invention.

Rather than granting a monopoly on the invention, software patents live far
closer to the level of granting a monopoly on the idea. And this introduces a
much more severe drag on the market than you see with physical inventions.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
_A patent for a physical invention lays out, in its claims, precisely how an
invention works. A lever-arm here, a catch there_

Only if it was written by a really crappy lawyer! The company I work for spent
months coming up with a design for a mechanism and ended up with something
pretty suboptimal in order to avoid all the existing patent claims. A good
patent attorney will state the claims as generally as possible. e.g., don't
call out a "10-24 screw," instead call out a "fixed or removable fastener" or
"a means of locating the rotating element" etc. You may be confused because
many patents show drawings, but those drawings are only examples to illustrate
the concept, not necessarily actual claims

~~~
fnid2
Sounds like innovation to join a market, rather than innovation to _create_ a
market. Why not just patent an _improvement_ on an existing product?

That's one good thing about open source software. Improvements can just be
tacked on. You don't have to go invent something totally new. That is one
thing that separates software and machines.

It's hard to tack a more efficient engine onto a 5 year old tractor.

------
muerdeme
Minor quibble: patent prosecution is the process of getting a patent from the
PTO. Patent enforcement is suing a startup for infringement.

------
yason
Can anyone think of or refer to any single case where a software patent had
actually and demonstrably advanced the field?

Just for reference, this is not entirely rhetorical; I would like to know
about such, too.

