
Enough Is Enough - ssclafani
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/06/enough-is-enough.html
======
jasonkester
Maybe somebody needs to move this issue to someplace more visible.

I'd like to introduce the concept of Movie Patents. I'd register a patent for
the plot device of having the bad guy be the main character's best friend,
with additional clauses for being his boss, advisor, or partner. I wouldn't
ever make any movies. I'd just sit back and collect royalties from everybody
who used my idea.

The reason behind this is that maybe then people who matter would actually
notice how silly this concept is. It's so plainly obvious that it's a bad idea
that regular people can finally understand what's going on. Eventually, people
with the ability to make changes might actually find themselves forced to make
changes.

Software, as big as it is, is just not that big. This issue can piss every
single one of us off, and it won't make the NBC Nightly News. It can't piss
off the people it needs to piss off in order to get it fixed, so chances are
it will stay unfixed indefinitely.

~~~
Joakal
That's called a copyright.

People have disputed the originality of movie ideas including Matrix [0] and
Harry Potter [1].

[0] [http://blogcritics.org/video/article/author-sues-matrix-
writ...](http://blogcritics.org/video/article/author-sues-matrix-writers-over-
copyright/)

[1]
[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/entertainment/main...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/entertainment/main6219192.shtml)

~~~
jxcole
Totally not copyright. Copyright applies to software too, but patents are the
one everyone cares about. The idea of patenting plots is a good one. In fact,
it might even be legal _except_ that everything that can be done in a book has
been done already. Software is such a young field these immodest trolls are
able to exploit them.

So to clarify: Saying two different movies both of which has the "friend turns
out to be bad" are copies is wrong; that's just not enough of a similarity to
base a copyright case on. However, if you happen to find a way to patent it
(which you probably could if there hasn't been prior art), you would be able
to sue for patent infringement.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>" _everything that can be done in a book has been done already_ "

Doubtful. But, given that if diversity in movie plots benefits mankind (!)
then offering an incentive to develop a new plot could be worth it. If the
plot is entirely disclosed so that it can be used for free by anyone in a few
years then is this not a benefit?

------
DrJokepu
I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real
problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial.

Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an
enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years
of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from
being trivial (in fact it's so complicated I have to admit I don't understand
some parts of it) and it's light years ahead (in terms of usefulness and
speed) of any other algorithm with similar applications.

Obviously the last thing we want now is simply handing it over to our
competitors, after all this work. If the patent system didn't guarantee us
monopoly on using the fruits of our own R&D, this algorithm probably would not
have been developed for a very long time, if ever, by anyone. It would have
been innovation that never happened.

My point is that the threshold of what can patentable should by way higher,
but I think we need a (software) patent system none the less.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others
independently developing a similar algorithm?

~~~
DrJokepu
Your question assumes two things that I haven't said, implied and are simply
untrue. I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a
lack of clarity on my part.

First, it assumes that we want to be protected against "others independently
developing a similar algorithm". Second, it assumes that I "believe that my
company deserves to be protected" from such other people. We're not concerned
about other people independently developing a similar algorithm as it's rather
non-trivial and as I mentioned, it took an awful lot of effort to develop it.
We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g.
competitors) will use our research and work.

As for your second assumption, personally (and I'm not representing my
employer here) I don't believe that we have the moral right to be protected
from other people doing their research independently who reach the same
results.

In lights of all this, I really don't know how to answer your question.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I was asking this question because protection against others independently
developing a similar algorithm is what the patent system provides, and that's
why many people, including myself, are opposed to it.

I wasn't assuming that you personally or even your employer actually wanted
that kind of protection. So my rather rhetorical question was intended to
highlight that discrepancy.

You want to prevent others from copying your work but what you do by patenting
it is more than that. You prevent others from making or benefiting from their
own original invention. Of course, as long as software patents exist, you
don't have much choice.

~~~
qq66
What about this is unique to software patents?

I don't understand the "destroy software patents" crusade. "Destroy all
patents" makes sense, and "improve all patents" makes sense, but why are
software patents any different than device or chemical patents?

~~~
fauigerzigerk
My main point is not limited to software patents, it's just more striking in
this area because the drawbacks of patents are so clearly demonstrated every
day. And contrary to other disciplines, copyright covers a lot of ground when
it comes to software.

But to understand what might make software special you have to look no further
than the things that are currently not patentable and never have been, like
mathematical approaches and business processes.

So, for instance, if you invent some data mining approach based on graph
theory and you write your formulas on a piece of paper or into your matlab or
R worksheet you cannot patent it. If you express the same ideas in a couple of
C functions you can patent it.

Another example. Say you are the first to have the idea of selling coke and
sandwiches at gas stations. You cannot patent it. But if you are the first to
have the idea of selling avatars from within some computer game, you can
patent it. Why is that?

The differentiation between patentable and non patentable types of approaches
and ideas is not something that was invented by software patent crusaders.
It's right there in the law already.

------
pkteison
I spent a week vacation with 2 friends who work at the patent office, so w e
had time to discuss over beers. They don't believe there is a problem. They
rely so heavily on prior art, and have trouble with the very concept that
something was too obvious for the first 20 programmers to want to patent it,
so prior art is very incomplete. I show them 1 click, they tell me that if it
was that obvious someone would have patented it before. They refuse to
consider the "skilled in the art" obviousness test because they say it's too
easy to believe something is obvious after it's been explained to me.

~~~
abeppu
I can believe it's too easy to believe that something non-obvious is obvious
once you've understood it. But that doesn't mean that some things aren't
legitimately obvious. It seems like we ought to take an empirical approach to
distinguishing which are which -- take skilled engineers either in groups or
singly who haven't heard of a given solution, pose them the problem that the
solution is meant to solve, let them brainstorm or think for some fixed amount
of time, and see if anything they come up with largely reproduces the solution
in mind. If fewer than k engineers are needed before someone thinks of it,
then it's obvious. If more than l > k engineers are needed before someone
thinks of it, then it's not obvious. If somewhere between k and l engineers
are needed, then maybe you still get to argue about it. On a related note, I
think I have a new strategy for generating interview questions.

------
statictype
Mostly agree, except:

 _Second, Lodsys didn't even "invent" the idea. They purchased the patent and
are now using it like a cluster bomb on the entire mobile app developer
community._

The fact that Lodsys bought the patent and didn't invent the idea themselves
seems entirely irrelevant to this dilemma. Unless you also think that if you
acquire someone else's software, you don't have the right to sell it.

~~~
scott_s
I think it does matter, because it means certain behavior is more likely.

Companies that create patents are more likely to invest their time, money and
effort into actually making things that will eventually be sold (in whatever
fashion). This activity adds value to the economy. While it is possible for
such companies to aggressively pursue their patents in the way that Lodsys
has, they don't need to do it to survive, and I hope that the people who work
there would rather spend time on more productive things. That's not a
guarantee, of course.

Companies that merely collect patents, and exist solely to collect and profit
off of the patents themselves, do not add value to the economy. They are
parasites. Because they have no other way of generating revenue, we can
_expect_ them to behave in the way that Lodsys has.

If it was possible to design the IP laws so that patent trolling was not
profitable, then I think that would be a good thing. I'm not sure if it's
possible - but I think it's worthwhile to recognize that there is a relevant
difference.

~~~
Joeri
Patent trolls do add some value to the economy. The value they add is in the
purchasing of the patent, leaving the original patent holder with a pile of
cash they can use to build another product.

Then again, they take way more value out of the market, so it ends up being a
negative.

~~~
scott_s
I think that patent trolls typically acquire them from dying companies, not
healthy ones. So while they're parasites on the economy, they're vultures to
companies. That probably provides some liquidity to the economy, but I doubt
it's significant.

------
ChuckMcM
"I believe that software patents should not exist. They are a tax on
innovation. And software is closer to media than it is to hardware. Patenting
software is like patenting music."

This is what I fear. I worry this idea will take hold and we'll get copyright
protection for software 'design' instead of patent protection, and then that
happens, the Lodsys crap will have a lifetime of 85 years not 20.

We _need_ to be able to protect someone's innovation so that they aren't
screwed over by some larger competitor taking their idea and running with it.
That need is real and continues to exist, we _need_ patents.

Let's argue for the real problem here, we also need a better system for
dumping things that should not have been patented in the first place because
they fail the 'novel' test. We need jurists that understand the technology
they are being asked to evaluate, and we need to require at least three people
'skilled in the art' to sit in on juries in patent hearings. I might even go
so far as to create special patent juries for these cases. We need a better
way of reviewing a patent and validating it against the state of the art.

What we don't need is to convince policy makers that software is like 'music.'
And we don't need people believing that we don't need any protection for
people's work should they choose to take advantage of those protections.

~~~
russell
There has never been copyright for design. Copyright for source code and for
binaries works quite well for protecting software from wholesale copying,
piracy notwithstanding. Software _ideas_ are a dime a dozen. The real
protection comes from the difficulty of the implementation, the pace of
change, and the first mover advantage.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Copyright is provided for the expression of a work. So if I tell the story of
a girl who wears a red cloak and visits her ailing grandmother who lives in a
remote estate, only to find her grandmother has been eaten by an
anthromorphized wolf. I run the risk of violating the copyright on the story
of Little Red Riding Hood. Except that it was a folk tale before 1900 and yet
even though its 'out of copyright' there is a pall over whether or not Google
can show you their scanned copy from 1909 of the story illustrated by artists
at the time.

My thesis is quite simple;

1) There _must_ be a doctrine for protecting the origination and
implementation of complex systems, whether their components are manufactured
from solid materials or are simply algorithmic components.

You'll recall that software patents came to be when it was shown that
implementation via software was indistinguishable from implementation in
hardware for some classes of problem. Your "first mover' advantage is
worthless if someone else controls all the distribution.

Further, not all software efforts are 'trivial' and while we see those stories
all the time I don't believe you could make a similar argument for the
implementation of assymetric cryptography as a 'trivial' software patent.

2) The current _system_ is clearly flawed in many ways, but the concept is
not.

3) Pushing otherwise technologically illiterate but 'wanting to help' policy
makers toward the concept that all software is more like creating 'art' than
it like creating 'machines.' Would have the un-intended side effect of having
those policy makers moving the necessary protection doctrine to the only other
set of laws we have which are copyright.

Copyright, being even more easily argued than software, has been completely
corrupted by media 'barons' and their efforts around the world. Which is why
the question of whether or not I could legally copy a book printed in 1900
about a story that was 'old' even then, is currently 'questionable' whereas
building a steam engine and selling it for profit is not.

~~~
Joeri
I hold a completely contrary view:

1) There can be no doctrine to protect ideas, because any sufficiently complex
software system to be marketable also relies on so many different ideas that
the cost of licensing patents to enter the market is prohibitive. See for
example the mobile OS market, which is effectively inaccessible for new
players right now unless they have a billion-dollar bankroll.

Your example of cryptography is a bad one, because those ideas are usually
developed in educational environments, funded by tax dollars. For those rare
classes of software where the idea really is non-obvious and takes a large
time to develop, government can provide the necessary funding to develop it,
without the other 98% of software having to suffer under a restrictive patent
system.

2) The current system is flawed conceptually, we don't need a software patent
system, never did. It's a myth, and there's no cost/benefit analysis that ever
proved it as anything else. We don't need a patent system for many other
classes of invention also. In most industries it's a net negative, not much
more than a tax on doing business.

3) Whether or not software is like making art has nothing to do with the legal
situation. If the laws covering art are even worse than the laws covering
technological invention then those laws need to change as well. That copyright
has been misappropriated to the degree that it has is not something you solve
by making less subject matter copyrightable, but by fixing the law.

------
lmarinho
If you are at the end of a hard day's work, struggling with a tough problem
and making no progress at all, even regressing at some points, take solace in
this: you still did a lot more for the world than the guys at Lodsys

~~~
sliverstorm
I wonder what kind of job satisfaction being a valueless leech off society
brings?

~~~
Stwerner
You would be surprised. I met someone this weekend at a wedding who works at a
law firm that specialises in software patent suits, and he really didn't
understand or even care. Outside of this and similar communities, no one has
any idea that software shouldn't be patentable, or even that there are issues
with it in the first place.

~~~
lmarinho
Not to mention that the shady practices are obfuscated by properly sterilized
language, as in many other organizations. One does not "threaten small
developers with expensive lawsuits", one merely "extracts value from
investments".

------
rbanffy
Unfortunately, by choosing to license instead of crushing them early,
companies like Google, Apple, IBM, Cisco and Accenture and government bodies
like the IRS provided funding for the troll to grow and thrive.

It's relatively easy to say "enough is enough". Actually fighting back is
harder and, at this point, almost impossible.

~~~
dstein
Paying patent license fees is a lot like paying off terrorists in hopes
they'll go away.

~~~
arethuza
Sounds more like organized crime than terrorism, with the legal system as the
enforcers.

------
radu_floricica
Posting in this kind of threads is always bringing karma points and leaving me
vaguely unsatisfied.

Lots of people speak about the "stupidity" of it all. I see no stupidity here.
Just the normal, to-be-expected lean of a big government toward protecting the
incumbents.

Also I think people should speak more often about drastically shortening
copyright and patent terms. They are both very useful, even in controversial
domains like software or biotech (patenting genes). The problem is that the
situation is waay skewed one way. If you want to bring it closer to normal,
start asking for 1 year patent terms and 3 year copyright.

------
laujen
An idea I will throw out there: I always wondered why anyone should be able to
hold onto an idea (patent it) if they don't use it. I can't help but wonder if
the best way to fix the patent system isn't to overhaul it -- which would be
nearly impossible to do due to entrenched interests -- but instead invalidate
all patents if they aren't used within a certain time period by the rights
holder. In other words, use it or lose it.

~~~
bhousel
Wouldn't suing someone count as 'using it'?

~~~
WiseWeasel
No. 'Using it' would mean distributing a product that directly makes use of
the patented technology.

In practice, however, this will simply force patent trolls to jump through a
few more hoops and find the least expensive way to distribute the product in
some form in order to defeat the intent of the law while following its letter.

------
zhyder
We need a generic fix for the patent system, not something specific to
software. I think the only way to do this is to change the process of suing
for patent infringement. The patent holder must determine how much investment
was made to develop the specific patent [1], and this number should be the
upper bound on how much the patent holder can sue for [2].

This would effectively cover the pharmaceutical case where hundreds of
millions are invested, as well as the worst software case where only a few
thousand are invested.

[1] - This number would need to pass simple smell tests: the sum of these
investment amounts across a patent portfolio can't exceed the total expenses
in the company's books for R&D, etc. [2] - If a patent holder sues multiple
companies at once, each infringing company would owe only a fraction of the
total.

~~~
billswift
There have been a lot of discussion about problems with patents (especially
"patent thickets") in drug development also, see Derek Lowe's posts
<http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/patents_and_ip/> and especially
[http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/01/20/freedom_to_o...](http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/01/20/freedom_to_operate.php)

------
tlrobinson
In a previous discussion someone suggested forming a reverse patent troll
organization that accepted donations of patents from open source developers
and whoever, and used them to counter sue patents trolls. The obvious problems
are it's expensive to file for patents and lawsuits, and it doesn't protect
against "pure" trolls.

Another idea: a simple community that accepts and publishes every random
software idea anyone ever comes up with in order to establish prior art.

Perhaps include mechanisms to discover patent applications linked to relevant
keywords, etc.

What would it take to prove the date of submissibon to the system? Is there
some type of digital notary that we could send a daily batch of documents?

~~~
carussell
<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Legal:Prior_Art>

------
iqster
I'm just fed up with the stupidity of the status quo. As a number of posts
have pointed out, the lawyers, Patent Office, etc. generally don't see this as
a problem. People like us who actually want to create new things ... we're the
ones who are the losers.

This is another instance where it would have been beneficial if all software
professionals belonged to a Guild or union. If we were organized, at least
there is some sliver of a chance that we'd be able to have an influence on the
legislative process. If that fails, we would just not work to create software
patents.

~~~
jerf
Within ten years of such a guild's creation, it would be in support of patent
law and probably lobbying for it to be strengthened. By creating such a guild,
you create guild leadership, and leadership of guilds(/unions) tend to prefer
stability and larger organizations over a rich array of smaller companies that
make it much harder to exert control.

~~~
iqster
Heh ... I'm just reading Hackers and Painters ... I think it said some of the
greatest programmers subscribe to Libertarianism, and gives good reasons why.
Touche!

------
brudgers
> _"They_ [software patents] _are a tax on innovation."_

While I tend to agree in general, the Lodsys situation is not a particularly
good example in support of the position from an intellectual standpoint,
though it may be good for rallying the troops. This is because Apple's actions
in regard to in app purchases (IAP's) have been explicitly anti-innovation,
i.e. Apple has required a specific monetizable IAP protocol in lieu of
allowing developers to innovate (one does not need to even get into questions
regarding the innovation raised by Apple's patent portfolio regarding UX
elements). Let us remember that developers are only vulnerable because they
are complying with a technical mandate of their agreement with Apple and that
this mandate is solely intended to produce uniformity within the IOS
ecosystem. Given Apple's patent portfolio, they may have far more to gain in
terms of IP protection by upholding Lodsys's position than by fighting it.

------
drcube
I'm sorry, but I've got a patent for "outrage on the internet", so I'm going
to need to see some royalties.

------
MatthewPhillips
I think there are 2 main problems here.

1) Patenting obvious stuff / stuff with prior art. "X, but on the internet"

2) Patenting stuff with no intention of releasing a product.

I see a lot of talk about the former and not enough about the latter. My
question is this, could we put a time limit on releasing a product once a
patent is awarded? Is it normal in other industries to patent something as
soon as possible or do they wait until a product is ready to be released? What
would be an acceptable time limit? In this case, the patent was issued in May
2007, 4 years ago. Is it reasonable for the inventor to not have a product
using this on the market yet?

------
tomelders
Can we trick a patent troll into patenting the Triforce and just let 4Chan
deal with this?

~~~
retroafroman
Or we should all learn a trick or two from Anon about being the digital
equivalent of a pitchfork wielding, angry mob.

------
stcredzero
_The whole thing is nuts. I can't understand why our goverment [sic] allows
this shit to go on_

Because software and technology are like magic to a large part of the
population, including a large segment of those involved in government and the
judiciary.

Patents are just another specialized form of legalese. It's obvious we need
better ways of challenging patents and filtering them in the first place.

------
orijing
> I can't understand why our goverment allows this shit to go on.

It's because Congress has been embroiled in a bitter fight of brinkmanship
over who can stall longer over raising the debt limit over the past year. Not
much actual progress has come out since they decided that they will keep up
the debt limit talks, knowing completely that the partisanship will yield no
progress.

While they have debated raising the debt limit, the debt has risen by over
half a trillion dollars. They need to fix that and move onto other things. The
point of Congress isn't to debate solely over how to balance the budget. They
have other responsibilities too, and they need to get to it.

------
grimen
Somethng like this scares the hell out of me:

[http://www.insidefacebook.com/2011/05/17/facebook-patent-
pho...](http://www.insidefacebook.com/2011/05/17/facebook-patent-photo-
tagging/)

Now I'm in Europe where this don't apply, but we actually had plans making our
platform available in U.S. later on with something that has to do with tagging
images - which itself is hardly any innovation (?!!)!. I mean, c'mon. We will
now probably avoid that and look east instead. I'm still fascinated that they
managed to get thorugh with this, almost like the 1-click-purchase that Amazon
trying to paten. It's almost like a fairy tale - with no happy ending.

~~~
Vivtek
Amazon didn't just try to patent one-click purchasing. They actually _hold_
said patent. They don't enforce it, largely because O'Reilly found prior art
that could destroy it if Amazon ever oversteps, but they do hold the patent.

That's the central travesty here. Possibly if you're a patent attorney, you
really do think purchasing with one click is a detailed and arcane technology
the development of which is expensive enough to require a 20-year monopoly,
but all that tells me is that patent attorneys are somewhat dim people who
wouldn't understand productive work if it bit them in the face.

Not that I have strong feelings or anything.

------
stusmith1977
I'm not a fan of sotware patents, but perhaps there's a halfway house towards
getting rid of them:

Make software patents only holdable by a real person (i.e. not a corporation),
and not transferable. Any money received from a patent infringement lawsuit
would be paid to that named person.

That way, they can be used for their original purpose (to protect small
inventors and allow them to build a larger business), but can't be collected
by the trolls.

(It would also give companies an incentive to keep 'their' patent owners
happy).

Just an idea... I'm sure there's a glaring hole in it somewhere.

~~~
handrake
Well then, trolls would start 'hiring' these inventors (maybe as a contractor
for just a period of legal battles) and keep pursuing their lucrative
business.

------
vilya
The point of a patent is to ensure that ideas are made public, so that all can
benefit from them. In exchange, the inventor gets their time-limited monopoly
on the idea.

Unfortunately software patents are useless for this purpose: they don't fulfil
the function of making ideas public. Who, in this day and age, refers to a
patent for the details of an algorithm?

I would argue that open-source software, in many ways, succeeds where software
patents fail.

------
jaekwon
I think a major potential for disruption is right here under our nose. Instead
of approaching it from a political point of view (blame those politicians!)
why don't someone with money create an alternative community-supported system
of work attribution?

You can imagine each company keeping a private/internal log of innovation in
Merkle trees (with timed signatures by some central authority). All innovation
and production is assumed to be original works of art until proven otherwise.
In the current patent system, all innovation is public, but there is only 1
winner. In the new system, everybody can win if we all arrive at innovations
independently.

Problem solved, + you enforce good documentation practices.

This is an engineering problem. Why don't you fund a startup that builds this
system? If we all start using it, that's when we have the power to change the
status quo. If we don't know what alternatives are out there, we have no
chance of disabling the current system.

I doubt that keeping the government out of software IP disputes altogether is
a good idea, because realistically that won't work out -- it'll encourage
stealing and the playing field will change for the worse.

------
SoftwareMaven
As much as a wonder if there is a point, it can't hurt to write your elected
officials and tell them, in reasonable, cogent terms, why software patents
cause problems and how they should be fixed.

You can find and write them here: <http://capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/officials/>

------
drostan
Does it really promote innovation to advantage 2nd movers? Sure it is
_possible_ to add to the software and improve it, but often, the innovation is
simply execution, buzz, sales and other non-trivial business things. How can
there be a reward for the equally important talents of having the vision for
new solutions and ability to create them if there is no patent or licensing
protection?

Also, it scares me a bit when someone as influential as Fred takes this to his
blog - read by so many startups. VCs make money from execution and have an (or
another) incentive to suggest that patents are not an acceptable tool for
startups.

I agree with the need for patent reform, actually, but a) I'm not sure
eliminating software patents is the answer and b) would encourage each startup
to make their own decision on how to use the current laws to give them every
advantage they can get.

------
tttp
I hope that avc, ycombinator, Andreessen Horowitz and a lot of known VC and
business angels introduce a new simple rule on their agreement:

To get funded, a company must not try to obtain software patent, and if they
do have software patent(s), they will publicly say they will not try to
license them and will not sue for infringement of one of their patent.

Beside clearing up the landscape, it will send a clear message, hopefully that
is going to be heard by politicians and media: software patent doesn't help
innovation, quite the opposite, the guys that fund innovation refuse to give
money to companies (ab)using software patent.

Moreover, as VCs seem to be able to work on templates for the paperwork to
lower the cost of the creation and founding of a start-up, couldn't they work
on standard responses to lower the cost of defending against a patent troll as
well ?

~~~
MatthewPhillips
If I'm a patent troll, I see this as a golden opportunity to patent the work
of companies they invest in.

~~~
tttp
HI,

You can't patent something that has prior art (and if the patent office
doesn't see it, it will invalidate the patent it has wrongly granted). Not
sure I understood your point.

------
LiveTheDream
Would there be any value in a large collection of prior art software, designs,
"look and feels", etc? The idea being that since we feel that many software
patents are trivial, why not actually implement the ideas and thus provide a
line of defense against silly, trivial patents.

Very novel, complex software that might be worth a patent would be very
unlikely to turn up in such a collection because of the effort required.
Ideally, this would help create an ecosystem where patent-worthy software is
awarded a patent, and trivial software is not (because of prior art).

This is an idea I've thought about for a long time. One could argue that much
of this idea might already be implemented by websites like sourceforge,
github, etc. A focus on explicitly being prior art would probably help,
however, justifying the need for a separate archive of ideas.

------
iamben
Why not diminish the value of a patent once it's sold? That way you prevent
companies like Lodsys buying and trolling, and if you put the money / time /
resources into the development of something, you can reap the reward.

Just a thought, not the answer. But the system is totally ridiculous as it
stands.

~~~
fredwilson
i like that idea

------
MatthewPhillips
I like the idea of losing patents if you don't have a product in the market
within a year or so.

~~~
huherto
But it seems easy to fake. Can you just put a product, or do you need a number
of users or income?

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Yeah, you're probably right. Ideally it would make it more expensive for a
troll to do their work, but they could just throw up a web page for their
"product" and not attempt to sell it.

~~~
9999
Exactly, it would cost a company like Lodsys only a few thousand dollars to
hire a couple of devs and build an iPhone application that makes use of the
patent currently under consideration. That would not be a considerable
additional burden when you consider that legal fees for acquiring a patent
already stretch into the tens of thousands of dollars.

------
atirip
Why not incorporate in Europe? Ireland, like Google? Software patent problem
solved.

~~~
praptak
Only if you won't do any business in US, ever.

~~~
atirip
First, you can easily leave old company behind and establish a new, clean one,
transfering all assets. Second you can have a separate company (like an agent)
for doing business in US. Third, why do you need, as a software company, to do
any business IN US anyway? WITH US residents you can without any worries.

------
joeburke
This article is much more about the evilness of patent trolls than about
software patents.

My thoughts:

\- Prevent the existence of trolls (for example by mandating that only patents
that are central to your own business can be enforced).

\- Raise the bar for the acceptability of software patents.

\- Reduce the lifetime of software patents to something more in line with the
software industry (a few years maybe).

But by all means, preserve software patents, they do have some value if used
as they were designed for (protect companies that invest into R&D).

------
zarify
Why not simply remove the ability to sell the patent to someone else?

Sunset the validity of the patent like the original scope of copyright, and
limit the transferral to being able to license it for use so that the only
financial benefit goes to the original R&D crowd. That way it still promotes
research but limits the possibility of patent trolls since they'd have to
actually do the research themselves.

------
jtap
So all of technology including manufacturing has gotten quicker, faster,
overall better, but the patent system hasn't changed. Also the entire cycle of
a company is speeding up. An easy example the time companies that are listed
on the s&p 500 are getting shorter. Instead of getting rid of patents can we
just shorten the time that they are valid. Say 5 years.

------
seats
I appreciate this thread and I think that the movie plot patent is a fantastic
analogy so great topic starter submission.

I have to say though that I am disappointed by the blog post. Based on the
title and the topic I kind of expected _something_ , _anything_ as a
suggestion, instead of just a rant and a loose plan to spam every elected
official you meet.

------
imtyler
I think America's patent & copyright laws are in need of a serious rethinking
in the digital age, but what are we the people doing about it? I would love to
get involved (or donate) but I'm not aware of any credible groups or projects
making strides to help bring about such a change. Any noteworthy efforts out
there that I should know about?

~~~
unfasten
The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( <http://www.eff.org/issues/patents> ) is
working at it. They're starting off with getting the most ridiculous patents
reexamined by the patent office in their Patent Busting project
<http://w2.eff.org/patent/> . They've succeeded in having a number of patents
reexamined and some narrowed or invalidated.

They also lobby for patent reform. They're exactly the credible group you're
looking for, in my opinion. Here's part of their statement on the patent page:

    
    
       There are many ways to promote better patent quality and a vibrant
       knowledge commons. One approach is to advocate for good legislation in
       Congress and proper interpretation of that legislation by the courts.
       Another is to promote enforcement efforts, such as the reexamination of
       bogus patents. EFF employs both approaches to protect the public
       interest while supporting innovation.

~~~
imtyler
Thank you! I'll be looking into these organizations, I just signed up for the
EFF newsletter. I appreciate the response.

------
levifig
And then there's iA Writer and their egotistic attempt to patent "Focus Mode"…
Seriously: <https://twitter.com/#!/iA/status/74588465953640448>

Same problem: other apps used it because it's such a generic concept. They
(always) say that it's for protection… Riiiight! :|

------
jcarreiro
I don't understand why someone who invents a better combustion engine should
deserve a patent while someone who invents a better computer algorithm should
not.

That doesn't imply that I think that every bit of programming deserves the
protection of a patent. But if someone invents a new algorithm, then why
doesn't that deserve a patent?

------
huherto
Other than patent trolls. Who is supporting software patents?

I understand that big software companies. (IBM, Oracle, Apple, etc) own a
large portfolios of patents that they can use to defend themselves. But, do
they really support software patents or they just use them to play the games
they have to play?

------
timedoctor
The only real solution for these companies is to incorporate offshore (or to
have no money). This could be a significant long term issue for US companies,
and makes me more hesitant about incorporating in the US where I am vulnerable
to patent trolls.

------
hnsmurf
What we need is a trade association to address this issue. One specifically
focused on software startups would be nice. It'd probably have to be funded
more by investors and recently successful startups. Maybe Fred should give it
a shot.

------
kleiba
_Patenting software is like patenting music._

Oh god, please don't give them ideas...

------
mfn
Just wondering, would these still apply if the app developer was in a country
other than the US, but the apps were being downloaded from an app store by US
citizens?

------
mrkva
What does VC mean? Vinylchlorid?

~~~
kaib
In the Hacker News context most usually Venture Capital or Venture Capitalist.

~~~
mrkva
Thanks

------
tedjdziuba
Alright, Fred. We all agree with you here, the people you need to convince are
the ones writing the laws. You're a wealthy and powerful person, who is good
friends with other wealthy and powerful people, so why not leverage that? Hire
a lobbying firm, get actively involved in the cause.

Whatever you do, don't count on Reddit and Hacker News to do it for you,
that's just slacktivism.

~~~
dpcan
Exactly. We all sit around here and preach to the choir.

I don't know that anyone really knows how or what to do here. How does a non-
mainstream issue like this get into the public eye in such a way that anyone
but our niche gives a crap?

Lastly, we have to ask why they REALLY exist. What is REALLY going on. Where
is the money in all this, who's making the most?

If Big Software Corp A wants patents to stick around, and the legislator wants
Big Software Corp A's money for the next election, do they have any interest
in representing the people, or just the corporation?

In this situation, the number of PEOPLE who don't want these patents has to
surpass the influence of the large corporations who do want software patents
to stay as they are. I just don't see this happening.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Just out of curiosity, when is the last time you talked with your
representative in Congress? (I know, I'm assuming you are based in the USA)

I ask because I find a high correlation between this particular point of view
: "entity 'x' whom is unassailable, is corrupting the politician I voted in to
represent me." And people who have neither voted, nor talked with any
representative who was either elected or was trying to be elected.

Here is my idea on 'what to do' here, let me know if it sounds reasonable or
not.

My idea is that a group of technologists work with Congress and the Patent and
Trademark office to take a look at the existing processes and goals and then
put together a program for moving the existing patent law into something that
makes sense and serves the needs of inventors without creating opportunities
for commercial extortion.

Worth a shot?

~~~
bjelkeman-again
The question is if it is more effective to hack politics through the
traditional way, ie lobbying and being involved in politics, or if you can do
better by being a hacker/entrepreneur.

I mentioned this before in a discussion about how we change government policy
by building software. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2479302>

~~~
ChuckMcM
Excellent! That is another great way to help out. I tell people that democracy
is a participation sport, it's so much more effective to do something about
your concerns than to simply complain about them, and doing something isn't
all that hard.

------
generators
patent should include AMOUNT OF INNOVATIVENESS. AND RESTRICT THE REWARD
INVENTOR CAN ASK FOR IT. ( IN TERMS OF TIME, FOR SOFTWARE PATENTS, TIME OF
PATENTS SHOULD BE REDUCE HEAVILY, IN TERMS OF MONEY, IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF
REPLICATION ETC, IN TERMS OF NEGOTIABLE AND UN NEGOTIABLE REWRADS ) . think
about this. <\-- THIS WILL REQUIRED MORE EFFORTS. but overall , it will ease
the pain on both side later. ( in terms of cost of lawsuits and discovery of
patent infringement cost )

------
meow
The cave man who invented 'wheel' was knocking on my door today.. apparently
he was granted a 4k year patent for cart wheels by Unbelievably Sloppy Patent
Troll Office (USPTO)...

------
tomelders
Sadly, Software® patents are here to stay, so long® as the patent trolls® and
lobbyists®© can find enough people in the "corridors of power"® who'll
shamelessly accept their cheques to maintain the status quo.

The problem is inherent in the fact that people®© are flawed. And by "flawed",
I mean "cunts"®

Unless I'm wrong. In which case we can expect software patents to disappear
next week.

~~~
dhimes
Umm, I have a patent on using software to write the word "cun--." Please
redact, or send me $5 ;)

