
Why didn't we patent the spreadsheet? Were we stupid? (1999) - hugs
http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm
======
guelo
And yet they had plenty of incentive to invent the spreadsheet. Patents grant
a government protected monopoly in order to encourage people to invent. If
people have the incentive to invent anyway then it is better for society to
allow competition, since competition benefits consumers much more than
monopolies.

~~~
gnaritas
> Patents grant a government protected monopoly in order to encourage people
> to invent.

No they don't. The patent system was developed to encourage inventors to make
their inventions public knowledge for the public good. It was never about
encouraging invention, the limited monopoly was the means to and end,
unlocking trade secrets for the public good. You've confused the means for the
motive.

~~~
sillysaurus2
I think this is correct. For example, the Wright Brothers' sole motivation for
inventing the airplane was to patent it and make money. Without patents, they
would've either kept it secret or not done it at all.

~~~
yxhuvud
That is quite ridiculous. There were lots and lots of people that tried
(increasingly successful) to create aircrafts, both before and after the
wright brothers. If there is one high profile invention that would capture the
dreams of inventors and invent just for the hell of it, then flying is that
invention.

The results of the patents the Wright brothers were granted is quite evident
if one compares the state of aircraft during the first world war - USA was
woefully behind everyone else, mostly because the Wright patent(s?) stopped
aircraft innovation there until it expired.

~~~
sillysaurus2
I have no idea what you're talking about, but the Wright brothers' primary
motivation for inventing the airplane was to patent it and make money off it.
You don't have to take my word for it.

Also, it wasn't at all clear what the way to invent flight was going to be.
Most people were trying an approach called something like "inherent stability"
where they were trying to design their aircraft so that it couldn't crash.
I.e. instead of giving pilots three axis control, they felt it necessary to
design their aircraft so that pilots didn't need any control. So it may be
obvious in hindsight how to invent flight, but it was extraordinarily non-
obvious at the time, as every invention is.

We'd certainly like to believe invention happens for the sake of invention,
but empirically dollar signs make the world go 'round.

~~~
jlgreco
That they thought they could make money off of an airplane patent is proof
that they understood that airplanes would be useful in their own right. Had
they not done it, somebody else would have, with or without patents; it was
inevitable. It might have taken a handful of more years, but it was
inevitable.

A crude though reasonable way to estimate how inevitable a development was is
to look at the period of time between when the prerequisites for an idea were
created, and when the idea itself was created. Some ideas, such as the
phonograph (which could have been created at least a few centuries earlier)
have a very large span of time between these two things. These ideas could
plausibly have been "missed" if circumstances didn't align. Other ideas were
devised shortly after their prerequisites. Liquid fuel rockets burning LOX and
LH2 were first considered by Tsiolkovsky just two years after hydrogen was
first liquefied. Goddard did not know of Tsiolkovsky but that hardly mattered,
that idea was inevitable. He, instead of Tsiolkovsky, went through with the
idea.

In the case of the Wright brothers, powered controllable airplanes hit the
scene quite shortly after suitable engines were feasible. They deserve credit
for being the ones that actually did it, but there is really little reason to
think that there was ever a risk of a future without planes.

~~~
WalterBright
I figure that without the Wrights, the problem would have been solved within 5
years or so. But still, the Wrights did it.

~~~
jlgreco
Absolutely agree.

------
wnevets
>Programs were thought to be mere mathematical algorithms, and mathematical
algorithms, as laws of nature, were not patentable.

And thats the way it should be now. I dont think you should be able to patent
math, dna or the air we breathe

~~~
dsego
So if it is on paper it's not an invention, but if you apply it on a piece of
metal it suddenly is? A piece of code in C is applied math, but a mechanism
with cranks and pulleys is not?

~~~
Arelius
Personally I think all patents are stupid. I mean clearly they are more
fundamental to some industries (health) But I think once we figured out how to
do research without patents, the world would be a better place with zero
patents.

~~~
nsxwolf
Not even on tangible, physical inventions? How can the little guy ever make
money on an idea if he or she can be instantly wiped out by someone with more
money?

~~~
TheMagicHorsey
I don't know. But how did Facebook, Twitter, and Github grow without applying
for patents for years. Twitter only started filing patents recently. Facebook
started filing after it already won in the market against MySpace and
Friendster.

Why didn't Google just copy Facebook and Twitter? Those would be easy apps to
copy in the state they were when they first got famous.

It doesn't happen because its harder for people to copy ideas than you think
it is. If you write software for a living and work in a big organization you
will understand that they don't have a magic wand that they can just wave to
make new products appear.

~~~
throwawaykf02
_> But how did Facebook, Twitter, and Github grow without applying for patents
for years _

Network effects and jealously guarding their data. These days the technology
is not nearly as important as the data.

------
DanBC
> Just a few examples of concepts where patents played no role in those days:
> word wrapping, cut and paste, the word processing ruler, sorting and
> compression algorithms, hypertext linking, and compiler techniques.

Well, some people tried:

Hyperlinks:

([http://eupat.ffii.org/patents/effects/hyperlink/index.en.htm...](http://eupat.ffii.org/patents/effects/hyperlink/index.en.html))

> _British Telecom in the 70s and 80s filed patents in the US on the concept
> of cross-references in hypertext. In 2000 BT discovered one of these
> "Rembrandts in the Attic" (US 4,873,662) and decided to use it for squeezing
> money out of internet access providers. Litigation is beginning in 2002-02._

([http://www.cptech.org/ip/business/hyperlink.html](http://www.cptech.org/ip/business/hyperlink.html))

([http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2000/06/23/bt.html](http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2000/06/23/bt.html))

~~~
JackFr
Also: Wheels on luggage. Cameras in phones.

------
6ren

      If I invented the spreadsheet today, of course I would file for a patent.
    

I can't help feeling bad for VisiCalc, getting killed by Lotus 123, and they
in turn by Excel. Similar to Apple (almost) getting killed by the PC (they
invented the Personal Computer - even the term was appropriated by their
competitor).

When you invent something really useful that's never existed before... don't
you deserve something awesome in return? But I guess they did make some
serious money; and consumers benefited from the better implementations (which
is why they switched). Ownership would have prevented this particular
progress.

I still feel bad for them though.

~~~
bendoidic
“Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.” \- Thomas Edison, king of
patents

Implementation, partnerships, marketing (visibility), and growth are all just
as important as being first. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings in
academia, where the ultimate goal is simply to be published first and
recognized most.

~~~
6ren
Thank you! A contrast with academia is a good way to look at it.

Also, one might say Bricklin et al _did_ get the academic reward of being
recognized as first; but that ethically, whoever helps people most deserves
the greater reward (through implementation that meets their needs; word of
mouth that reaches them; ease of adoption; 3rd party support; constant
improvement etc).

------
TheSwordsman
I don't personally have a problem with software patents in principle. You've
come up with a brilliant idea, you spent time and money to implement it, and
you want to make sure you receive the credit for it. I get that.

I was born well after VisiCalc was released. I look back on those years, and
wish I could have experienced how "open" things were. It seems like the
culture was completely different when it came to new ideas for the most part.
Also when it came to sharing ideas. Things were different.

In recent years I've become less and less of a fan of software patents. Only
because they are being used to hinder development of new services because they
may somehow relate to a very generic idea that someone had. If you're going to
get a patent, and will not abuse it...go for it!

Stupid, no. Just happened in a completely different universe...

~~~
angersock
"You've come up with a brilliant idea, you spent time and money to implement
it, and you want to make sure you receive the credit for it."

Hint: the marketplace is the way to get that credit.

~~~
tokenadult
The marketplace sometimes rewards thieves more than creators, which is the
historical reason for laws that regulate intellectual property rights. You may
disagree with current laws (I personally think the current term of copyright
protection is much too long), but I have lived somewhere where enforcement of
intellectual property rights was weak at one time, and that was not good for
innovation there.

AFTER EDIT: Both of the first two kind replies to my comment ask for some more
details about what I observed overseas. Early 1980s Taiwan was the land of
"Rolex" watches sold on street corners, pirated United States bestsellers in
English-language bookstores for tourists, and general violation of patent,
copyright, and trademark rights. Every country in the world seems to go
through a stage of copying rather than innovating in its economic development.
Eventually, as Taiwan democratized, it became apparent that international
trade relations would OF COURSE be helped by meeting treaty obligations to
protect intellectual property from other countries. Moreover, it was
discovered that there are plenty of creative, inventive people in Taiwan, who
created more and invented more as gradually domestic individuals and companies
received greater legal protection of intellectual property rights. Innovation
is hard to sustain where copying is the path to quick riches. But innovation
becomes a more reasonable path for investment of personal time and effort if
being first to make something new allows some LIMITED time (I'm with everyone
here in desiring intellectual property rights not to extend too long in time)
to enter the market and see what consumers think of the innovation.

~~~
angersock
So, specifically in software, if it is simple for "thieves" to "steal" the
work, it probably wasn't worthy of protection in the first place.

I will admit, you can be a great engineer and a terrible businessman, and thus
fumble a first-mover advantage, but I don't think patents are the solution to
that.

Would you mind elaborating on your experience?

~~~
stan_rogers
You don't have to be "a terrible businessman" if you're, say, some guy in a
basement and the "thief" is a large company with the ability to copy quickly
(even if badly) and deep marketing and production pockets. By the time you're
able to broadcast your innovation beyond your neighborhood, you're already
competing against the proverbial "major national brand" of the product you
invented, as seen on TV and available in a store near you.

------
grimtrigger
_Nevertheless, patenting software is encouraged by law, and I find it my duty
to the shareholders of the companies I 've been working for to take advantage
of this protection._

What a cowardly cop out. If you believe in software patents, I can understand
getting one. But to say "I must do X because X is profitable" is ridiculous.

~~~
sillysaurus2
Offtopic, but would you quote using * asterisks? Quoting like that makes it
almost impossible for mobile users to read.

~~~
jlgreco
Frustratingly, italics on the chrome browser on android seem to not work. I
usually give it a combination of '>', quotation marks, and italics.

------
nateabele
It's amazing how many things we take for granted that likely wouldn't exist if
it had been possible for companies to acquire software patents in the 70's and
80's. I wonder how much of the Free & Open Source software that the internet
is built on would never have even been written (or written but not made
public) for fear of infringement.

Puts somewhat of a new spin on the debate about it today.

~~~
bad_user
It does make one wonder, what innovations aren't happening today because of
software patents?

~~~
Qantourisc
Many, because doing so would infringe on some patent. For example your product
might not work without rounded corners. (For example sell-rolling phone, not
that I can think of a use for it, but still you get the idea.)

------
erichocean
This is timely, my startup is working on an invention that does for business
computing what the spreadsheet did for number crunching, and yes, we're
patenting it.

Mostly because our competitors are all multi-billion dollar companies and we
need _something_ on our side when the inevitable law suits start flying, and
the copiers get revved up.

 _sigh_ It annoys both of us founders to no end, but I don't see another
option given the legal environment in the US today.

~~~
dnautics
there used to be a SIR - "statutory invetion registry" but the obama
administration got rid of it.

You should consider licensing your stuff through one of the companies that
works to ensure that your stuff is in the commons.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation)

~~~
erichocean
Thanks for the link! I hadn't heard of them before.

------
dm2
Are there any arguments against a "Mandatory Reasonable Patent License Fee"
law that requires patent holders to license their patent? Maybe have it kick
in one year after the company offers it to the public or other companies.

If anyone had a dispute then they could set up a special court or process for
determining a reasonable fee (not difficult) for the patent license.

The same could be done with some services and utilities.

This would result in a win-win for all parties involved; the patent holder
would receive incentive for the invention, the patent licensee would receive
revenue from offering a superior product/service or at lower cost, and
especially the consumer who receives a better product and would have more
choice of higher quality products.

This would also result in companies doing less "favors" and "ass-kissing" to
each other in order to keep license deals.

It seems like this would be the best of both worlds because the patent holder
would receive incentive for the invention and t

------
jebblue
You couldn't patent what already existed in paper form
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet)
unless you referenced the patents for the spreadsheet which existed before
computers and the patent office agreed it was an improvement on the original
patent.

------
clueless123
For the same reason, a bunch of stupid patents for stuff like "touch screen
paswords" where granted where plenty of prior art existed, Basically, at the
time of first invention software could not be patented, so when patents
finally where allowed, no previous patent existed.

My bad for being too far ahead of my time :(

------
mathattack
_Personally, I think that the fact that software patents started being granted
so late in the history of programming (which was in full swing 30 years
earlier in the 1950 's) will cause all sorts of problems for the software
industry._

He was very prescient with this concluding comment!

------
microcolonel
Who cares? Why use a violent monopoly to encourage something which was already
profitable, and at the expense of similar work later on?

Who cares what somebody in the software industry thinks the government ought
to be doing with their monopoly on the initiation of violent force?

To the people citing the U.S. constitution here, this isn't about america,
it's about pointing guns at people for doing something like what you're doing.

------
Aldo_MX
I'm not against the patents, but I think there should also exist a revenue
limit, and whenever a patent reaches either the time or the revenue limit, get
invalidated automatically.

~~~
cmsmith
Oh I'm sorry, we haven't actually made any revenue on that patent because it's
owned by our subsidiary 'PatentCom' which charges us a license fee of $1/yr to
use it.

------
xkiwi
I immediately come up with an idea to patent stupidity, so no one is allowed
to be stupid or they have to pay a fee.

~~~
gonnakillme
Presumably you yourself have an unlimited license? ;)

~~~
xkiwi
that's not my point. I hope people really have a deep through before they do
anything.

But, I have more interesting to troll and patent trolls. Both are fun and
worth doing.

