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.
> 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.
The basis for patents and copyrights is this clause in the constitution: "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."
Correct, the goal: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", i.e. make trade secrets public, Science is a public endeavor, the goal here is the public good, not the inventors good. The means of obtaining that goal: " by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." They key word here is "by" which makes it clear we're now discussing means and not the goal. The goal is the first phrase of the sentence.
The original claim was that patents exist "in order to encourage people to invent". You claim that that is wrong, and they exist in order to "encourage inventors to make their inventions public knowledge". Someone responds and says that they actually exist in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". You then say:
> Correct, the goal: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", i.e. make trade secrets public
I could just as easily say:
Correct, the goal: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", i.e. encourage people to invent.
My point is that it was left up to us as a society to interpret those words, and just claiming that your interpretation is the correct one does not make it so.
> I could just as easily say: Correct, the goal: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", i.e. encourage people to invent.
No you can't, inventions that aren't public don't promote the progress of Science. Science is by it's very nature a public endeavor.
> My point is that it was left up to us as a society to interpret those words, and just claiming that your interpretation is the correct one does not make it so.
It is so because words have meaning and under no interpretation can promoting science simply mean to encourage invention because invention alone, without making the knowledge public, does not promote science.
Except that the exact phrasing is "useful Arts", which refers to documenting technical skills like manufacture and craftsmanship. The original legal climate with regard to fiction was heavily pro piracy. Not even Charles Dickens managed to make much of a dent in attitudes over a half century later.
"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."
So "useful arts" doesn't refer to writings? How about "writings"?
In an environment where inventors were not sufficiently motivated to produce sans patents, patents might quite legitimately be "promot[ing] the progress of Science and useful Arts" in part by providing that motivation.
That doesn't conflict with anything I said; I never said patents don't motivate inventors; I said motivating inventors was not the purpose of patents, it's merely the side effect of the method used to get inventors to give up their trade secrets.
But back to software patents, if the real societal good of patent law is disclosure than there is no need for it at all in the software world. As soon as Visicalc sold their first spreadsheet every programmer knew how to build one. There is no benefit to society to grant the monopoly in exchange for instructions on how to build a software idea.
No, that's an argument against patents functioning well to achieve disclosure. The purpose of patents is clear: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts and requires no debate nor arguments.
The straight forward way is to give a financial incentive for inventors to tinker and come up with new ideas.
The way you're suggesting is to give inventors (that are already inventing without need of incentive) an incentive to disclose their invention and then that will promote other inventors to build on top of the invention even though they will have pay the original inventor for the privilege.
My point is that neither of these methods are effective at promoting progress in software.
The reason patents exist, as you've repeatedly asserted, is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. We are discussing two mechanisms by which that might be accomplished (and by which it is quite arguably accomplished in some fields).
> The reason patents exist, as you've repeatedly asserted, is to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Then our discussion is over as that is the only point I was making.
> We are discussing two mechanisms by which that might be accomplished
No we are not, as how to accomplish promoting science was not anything I commented on at all. You may be trying to discuss it, but I'm not interested in that digression.
"[M]otivating inventors was not the purpose of patents, it's merely the side effect of the method used to get inventors to give up their trade secrets."
You seriously need to explain how, because as far as I can tell your claim here is nothing but brain-damage. As we've agreed, "promoting the progress of science and useful arts" is the purpose of patents. PROMOTING DISCLOSURE IS A MECHANISM, and PROMOTING INVENTION IS A MECHANISM and YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BOTH, dismissing the former as ancillary and pushing the latter as central. A claim that you weren't talking about mechanisms... baffles me. Without some clarification, I'm calling it quits on this thread.
No I was not talking about both, I dismissed them as mechanisms to bring the point back to the only thing I was discussing, the goal. I don't care about the mechanisms and if you can't see that then maybe you've got some brain damage to cope with and you should stop talking.
Holding on to the slim remaining chance you're not trolling...
I quote you again:
"[M]otivating inventors was not the purpose of patents, it's merely the side effect of the method used to get inventors to give up their trade secrets."
Let's break this down a little:
"X was not the purpose of patents, it's merely a side effect of the method used to get Y."
And now you're claiming you weren't talking about X and Y?
Note that I've shown this to others, and they don't understand your position either, so if it's brain-damage it's not uniquely mine.
You as much as said it's not a goal at all, whereas it can absolutely be an instrumental goal (which is what I'd read the parent as responding to, and how the issue is often - though not always - framed) without being a terminal goal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sole motivation? Primary motivation? I don't see the evidence for it. From "The Bishop's Boys", pg. 164:
"Wilbur was thirty-two years old in the spring of 1899. He realized that now was the time. He needed a challenge, a measure of himself—a problem that matched his skills and abilities. The recognition that flight was such a problem did not come in a blinding flash of insight, but grew slowly during the years 1896-99."
He'd been interested in flight since he was a boy.
Thank you, same thing happened with the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, and again is probably going to happen with Beeline(that lovely technology which helps your brain transition text lines).
And how well did that work out for the Wright brothers?
While they were busy trying to enforce their patent, they stopped innovating, and their competitors kept moving forward, exploiting the market the Wright brothers created.
It didn't work out very well for them (or the U.S. in general. Innovation simply moved to France- further away from harassment by the Wright's. I remember reading an article stating that this is the reason so many parts of the aeroplane have French names (fuselage, aileron, &tc)
If you can keep something secret, why would you bother patenting it?
I think that the most important secondary effect is that it puts all inventions on a more of less level playing field.
Inventions that can't be kept secret due to practical limitations(like the cotton gin, or the steam engine) are just as valuable as inventions that can be hidden (computer programs, chemical processes, etc.)
I'm afraid that point doesn't work so well here. After Lotus brought out 1-2-3 a few years later, VisiCalc didn't do so well. VisiCorp was dead less than 2 years after the release of 1-2-3. One could argue that a patent would have kept VisiCorp alive. (Admittedly, part of the failure of the company was due to litigation with the authors of VisiCalc.)
Exactly. Innovation in the field of spreadsheet programs would have completely stagnated by keeping it limited to a company that was clearly done innovating. Their lack of further innovation would only have been greater with a monopoly.
So what? Consumers preferred 1-2-3 to VisiCalc, that's how markets works. Society doesn't have to guarantee anybody a market share if their products are inferior.
It could be argued that without VisiCalc, 1-2-3 might never have existed. After all, besides the development work, VisiCalc had also done all the hard work of creating and validating a new market. If somebody does all that work only to be displaced by someone else who has the benefit of hindsight, what is the incentive for taking big risks?
> Society doesn't have to guarantee anybody a market share if their products are inferior.
Of course not. But it remains true that your original argument doesn't work here.
I imagine you're generally against software patents. So am I. But don't hold up VisiCalc as a poster child for software development without patents, because in the long run it was very much a failure as a product, and the company that sold it went broke, while this might not have happened had they patented it.
I might be completely wrong but I think you can make the argument that back then the challenge was in the implementation since there were so many technical difficulties and there was no need to patent an approach since it would be difficult to replicate. Now with modern tools it's pretty easy to replicate most software so getting a patent makes more sense.
I don't think software patents should be granted but clearly there's an incentive to patent as much as you can.
The problem is, the software patents don't really explain implementation, they simply describe it. Take the scan and email button patent. It presented no implementation at all, in fact the original "inventor" never actually managed to get it to work. So, what's the value to the society in that patent? What's the value to the society in a lot of software patents that offer no actual implementation, or general idea patents.
It used to be that you could patent specific implementations, and of some one could come up with a better implementation, they could patent that. Nowadays, it seams like you can patent just about anything, regardless of whether or not it can be implemented at the moment. It would be like the Wright Brothers patenting "a flying device that uses an engine and a propeller" without ever even trying to build one.
This is an accurate description of the problem. In theory a patent for "A flying device by propulsion of engine and rotary propeller" is a fine patent, but the details of the patent would have to go into implementation.
Patents, in theory, apply to methods rather than concepts, so if someone does patent "a one click shopping button" they should only hold patent for their implementation.
The problem is both the misapplication of patents which appear to grant patents over any implementation, as well as patents over implementations which are too simple, such that anyone who wants to build a similar item would go to that implementation as an obvious solution.
I think given the volume of software out there now it's a lot easier to replicate than it used to be. You'd have to be pretty clever to achieve some of the things that were done before the 90s but now most products can be copied pretty easily - not necessarily scaled though.
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?
"A piece of code in C is applied math, but a mechanism with cranks and pulleys is not?"
Software patents is not even about code. Almost nobody that patents software makes code public accessible. With a patent you are supposed to make public the plans, in exchange of the monopoly.
The idea of patents was that anybody could replicate the work reading the plans, so society advances when the author of the original work dies.
With software patents the code is not there, so it becomes monopolies for abstract ideas, the more abstract the better.
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.
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?
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.
> 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?
But that is exactly the way it happens now: the little guy can consider himself lucky if he is not the one to get sued both by big companies AND trolls.
In the software world the problem is just utterly insane, but this is a general feature of the patent system.
The vision, tools, and processes that lead to great inventions are where the real value lies. These intangibles can't be easily copied. They aren't ever in the public eye, and without really being a part of that process you can't learn much about it.
Learn how to do this instead of learning how to just invent a Thingamajig.
Then you can consistently make Thingamajigs that are first-to-market products with great branding that people will choose over your competitors products.
Patents aren't needed. Copyright protection is.
People should be allowed to have their own namespace in the public market and it is beneficial to have a system of government to enforce this. We don't need to protect anything else.
Say you're a little guy with a patent. How much time, effort, and money will it take to sue a large corporation with deep pockets and several law firms on retainer?
So not a single even vaguely pro-patent position from anyone?
The USPTO has processed 16,020,302 applications in its history. Obviously many of these are from big business, but many are from individuals. Why haven't the individuals figured out by now that they are worthless? Why do they keep falling for it?
Sometimes a system is completely morally bankrupt, but still profitable for the players thereof. Many players will, in that circumstance, continue to play, even if everyone agrees that it would be better to have a different system.
Few (or zero) people believe that patents are universally valueless to the patent-holder.
What is widely believed, especially in the field of software, is that society would be better off without software patents. In particular, that "Progress in Science and the useful Arts", at minimum in the area of software, would proceed faster without patents. Whether or not it would be more just is less widely agreed upon.
Of course, many stakeholders profit from the existing regime. Some of those say "patents are good", some say "patents are bad, but while they exist, will shall use them".
Or do you prefer that the little guys spend millions of dollars against the big guys in court?. Who of course have thousands of essential patents each that the little guys infringe.
1. That decision seems unlikely. "I want $X. But I'm worried that if someone copies my idea I'll get $0.2X. So I'd much rather keep it to myself and get $0 instead." I'm no fan of the assumption that humans always make rational economic decisions, but surely it isn't normal to be that silly.
2. The assumption that if the first inventor doesn't share their idea then that idea is lost to humanity and nobody will ever come up with a similar idea ever again just doesn't follow. We've got major business strategies (submarine patenting) and even an entire industry (patent trolls) who rely on the fact that this isn't how things tend to work out.
...if Eli Whitney [had] decided to keep the cotton gin to himself...
How on earth would that have been feasible? I mean, it would be somewhat realistic to imagine him not having the will to invent it in the first place. How on earth can one keep secret the design of a mechanical device that one sells to the public? Has any attempt to do so ever been successful?
Perhaps not so much a mechanical device, but take a closed source patented piece of software for example. You could be able to keep the design (source code) secret, and yet still sell it to the public.
By now we've seen this movie enough to know that if enough people care about the software, its DRM will be broken eventually. There is also a breakover point at which the more onerous the DRM is to paying users, the more users will choose not to pay and simply use the cracked version. This point will vary based on the nature of the software.
...is this sarcasm? Cotton gin led to the growth of slavery in the southern US. I'm not saying this is the only factor to consider relating to inventing cotton gin, but you went there... (as in, if you weren't being sarcastic, you could have chosen a less charged example)
I'd love to learn more. But I still assert that patents are pretty fundamental to the current working of the health industry, even if not fundamental to health itself (Which I think we both agree, patents are not).
Maybe so. Keep in mind, mathematics is not considered an acceptable background for admission to the patent bar. This is because abstract laws are not patentable. Admission to the patent bar is largely based on studying physical or biological sciences, not math.
This becomes a problem, though, when math essentially does become patentable, because it means we've barred people with the best background to review these patents from the profession that reviews them.
All in all, I think eliminating software patents is something that should be seriously considered. Maybe just use copyright? It's not an easy question, so I don't mean to be glib here. But eliminating them should at least be considered as one viable option. The current situation is really bad.
Yeah, I agree that the "math" argument is too simplistic. There are plenty of algorithms, numerical models, etc, which can require massive capital expenditure to develop -- not because they're hard to code, but hard to devise. The same rationale for why we should have patents on mechanical devices applies to these efforts (some argue all patents should be abolished, but they seem to be in a small minority).
The problem is with the protection of "inventions" which are obvious or non-innovative, not with patents of one type of invention over another.
What difference is there between devising a mathematical method, a business method and a mechanical engineering method to accomplish something?
I am just trying to understand the rational behind what is and what isn't patentable.
Is it perhaps a question of applicability? Profitability? Enforceability? Is it a question of a difference in values held by mathematicians v. inventors?
You can't patent F=MA but you can patent a weapon such that you drop large rocks off of cliffs to bonk people on the head. The patent covers something that uses natural processes and mathematics but not the underlying mathematics or natural process. In software this means something like quicksort could be patented(if it passed the nonobviousness clause) but the mathematics behind it recurrence relations, divide and conquer, big O analysis, etc. would be unpatentable.
If there is a difference between mathematicians vs. inventors it is an understanding that a mathematical description of a thing and the thing itself are two different things(one of which is patentable).
You can model a rock-dropper-omatic with mathematics, but what you get is just a mathematical description of the rock-dropper-omatic, it isn't a rock-dropper-omatic itself.
However a mathematical description of an algorithm is the algorithm. There is no dichotomy. Quicksort isn't "not math, but describable with math", it is math. Same with FFT algorithms, and the Pythagorean theorem. You wouldn't dare say that a "mathematical description of the Pythagorean theorem" is a distinct entity from the theorem itself (and that one of them is patentable)...
> 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.
> 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.
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.
“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.
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).
> When you invent something really useful that's never existed before... don't you deserve something awesome in return?
This probably feels like the ethically correct outcome when you've invented something interesting, however it runs counter to free market economics. Being first can provide a competitive edge but it isn't the only factor.
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...
> 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.
The problems is that 9 out of 10 times, that idea is derivative of some other idea(s). And you just have to hope that the original idea(s) either aren't patented or have since expired.
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
If only there were a different form of intellectual property, one that grants a limited monopoly over the embodiment of a creative work rather than legal ownership of the idea behind it. Oh, wait. There is. It's called "copyright." And it's (more than) strong enough for the job.
Right, and somebody simply reverse engineers your creative work and re-implements it, completely bypassing any protection provided by IP. As long as you make something that cannot be hidden away in the cloud or protected as trade secrets, your work is always vulnerable to reverse engineering, and it's surprisingly cheap to get it done. Forget software, even fabricated chips get reverse engineered on a regular basis.
Oh, don't think this is a problem that is localized to some countries -- it happens all over the world. The actual work itself may be outsourced to some countries (some Eastern Bloc countries spring to mind; I met a couple of guys from Czechoslovakia who specialized in reversing wireless firmware in GPS devices) but the firms who contract this work and use the results operate in the US and Europe as well.
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.
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.
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.
The marketplace rewards all sorts of things that are not related to the brilliance of the idea. Access to capital, management expertise, skill of execution, plain dumb luck, etc.
Therefore, the marketplace encourages companies to take a fast-follower approach. Let someone else spend the money to come up with the idea, and then pounce all over it.
The goal of the patent system is to encourage the idea itself, by giving a monopoly to the inventor. In this way, fast-followers have to compensate the inventor for the invention by licensing the patent.
Alternatives to patents -- prizes, research grants, compulsory licensing, etc. -- are also designed to separate the value of the idea itself from the rough-and-tumble of the marketplace.
> I was born well after VisiCalc was released. I look back on those years, and wish I could have experienced how "open" things were.
You might have missed the "look and feel" reference in the post. Lotus (makers of another spreadsheet, "1 2 3") sued other companies over the look and feel of software that was "too similar" to 1 2 3. Two companies went out of business.
> 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.
That's certainly one principle. But literally implemented "principles" are often toxic when it comes to public policy. I largely think that's due to a failure to think through the effects on the entire system. The principle is emotionally appealing, but ends up having undesired or even disastrous primary- and/or side- effects in the real world.
In the patent case, we have a Mexican Standoff[1] in that virtually every player is vulnerable (violates one or more patents knowingly or unknowingly) and the only defense is stockpiling more armaments (patents) and shooters (legal staff). The risks and barriers to entry to small players are high. And that doesn't account for the actions of parasitic agencies like patent trolls.
That said, things are largely more open now in practice. The level of interchange of ideas and code is far, far greater now than ever before. That culture didn't die or go away -- it exploded right along with the rest of computing.
> 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.
You're thinking at the individual scope. When making a policy, a given individual doesn't weight much. Even all inventors put together don't have much moral weight, compared to the rest of the population.
So, patents rewards inventors. That's an advantage. But it's a little advantage, for there are not that many inventors to begin with. There are also the costs associated with the implementation of patents (patent bureau, patent lawyers…), which may be significant, but not much in my opinion. So, on first approximation, we can ignore those aspects, because there are bigger effects, that affect society as a whole.
On the disadvantage side, patents restricts what people can do, and they kill competition. (Of course. They were designed that way. But it's still a disadvantage.)
On the advantage side, patents are an incentive for inventors to invent, and for companies to fund them. The inventions then benefit everyone (starting with rich people, but still).
Now, all we have do do is measure which weight the most. See how patents actually affect society, and decide if it's a net benefit, or a net loss. Either way, try and think about policies which may have more advantages, or fewer drawbacks —or both. Patents are far from the only way of encouraging innovation, after all.
You can see that it's much more complex than the "reward the inventor" principle. Principles are good, but they're often not enough. When you look at actual consequences, you see that sticking to easy to understand principles is not always the best thing to do. Especially when deciding for an entire country.
I agree with you about patents, but overall, I don't things are worse or less open now. Visicalc wasn't patented, but it was a commercial, $99, closed source product. The open source movement is much bigger and stronger now. Linux and Github would have been mind blowingly awesome in 1979. They are mind blowingly awesome now!
If you have the best implementation of that idea, won't you get credit for it anyway? Patents, like everything else designed to inhibit innovation and the flow of ideas, are bad for society.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
You couldn't patent what already existed in paper form 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
I don't think revenue would work. I say just make it a very short period of time. enough for the inventor to get a jump start and then open it up to benefit all.
I am against patents in general, and specially in software, but I can see there is no way to change the system the way politics and lobbying work.
So maybe we should try another approach, something every government likes: taxes. Let's add a tax on patents please. (Maybe copyright too, specially of old (>10 years) works.) A big yearly tax for every patent you own.
It's the only way I can imagine to put some slowdown to the cancerous growth of IP.
