Ask HN: What's your view on software patents?
As an inventor, is it worth pursuing a patent grant?
8 comments
I have worked on a special software project for several hours a day, nearly 365 days a year, for several years. It has dominated my life and my creative efforts. The result is something very different in a field where everyone does the same thing.
The problem is it would be easy to copy once I demonstrate commercial success, and the field is dominated by major players. If I launch and am successful, they will copy me, and I have no hope of successfully competing against such competition.
I understand it's almost impossible for a small player to defend a patent. It's too expensive and the outcome is uncertain. My only hope is to get provisional patents and develop the business to where I can sell out before my patents are challenged in court.
So, yes I approve of software patents held by those who make use of them as opposed to patent trolls with no products of their own. Actually using them however is dicey.
The problem is it would be easy to copy once I demonstrate commercial success, and the field is dominated by major players. If I launch and am successful, they will copy me, and I have no hope of successfully competing against such competition.
I understand it's almost impossible for a small player to defend a patent. It's too expensive and the outcome is uncertain. My only hope is to get provisional patents and develop the business to where I can sell out before my patents are challenged in court.
So, yes I approve of software patents held by those who make use of them as opposed to patent trolls with no products of their own. Actually using them however is dicey.
How would your competitors have access to your code base? Furthermore, there’s more to a successful company than just working software.
They don't need access to the code, if I understand correctly the assumption is that they would reverse engineer it.
He's also assuming that the big players would be able to reproduce any other part of the company (e.g. execution)
He's also assuming that the big players would be able to reproduce any other part of the company (e.g. execution)
Possibly, but it depends who you hope that it will protect you against, or who you wish to extort with it.
Software patents are granted by people who don’t understand software, for pretty much anything.
If you hope that it can protect you against a large company, there’s a pretty good chance that their portfolio already contains a broader, stupider patent than the one you’ve acquired, which covers what they’re doing. Or perhaps the same thing worded differently. You will lose.
If not, or if it’s a smaller company with keen VCs or deep pockets, they can just burn you out on legal fees for IP lawyers. You will lose.
All your patent will be good for is extinguishing small independent businesses in your space, by drawing them into lawyerdom, at considerable cost to yourself. You will win, simply because you have more to spend.
Software patents are granted by people who don’t understand software, for pretty much anything.
If you hope that it can protect you against a large company, there’s a pretty good chance that their portfolio already contains a broader, stupider patent than the one you’ve acquired, which covers what they’re doing. Or perhaps the same thing worded differently. You will lose.
If not, or if it’s a smaller company with keen VCs or deep pockets, they can just burn you out on legal fees for IP lawyers. You will lose.
All your patent will be good for is extinguishing small independent businesses in your space, by drawing them into lawyerdom, at considerable cost to yourself. You will win, simply because you have more to spend.
I work in the tech transfer office for a medium sized university (a non practicing entity! shock horror) and patents are a very key tool for us.
Many players we license technology to are only interested in licensing a technology if it's protected by a patent. If there isn't any patent protection, then any third party willing to put enough in can simply read some journal articles published by the researchers (because they do publish everything they can for prestige and more government money) and implement the software themselves and the licensee has no way to stop them (other than through their own execution).
I haven't work at the tech transfer office for very long, but I think I have only seen software related inventions be licensed that had patent protection. When we do license a patent, the licensee most often receives worldwide exclusive rights to exploit the technology in their field. (well, I guess it's not quite worldwide monopoly, it's only a monopoly in the regions the patent is filed in, we do give them worldwide rights to use other stuff like copyright and trade secrets though).
Many players we license technology to are only interested in licensing a technology if it's protected by a patent. If there isn't any patent protection, then any third party willing to put enough in can simply read some journal articles published by the researchers (because they do publish everything they can for prestige and more government money) and implement the software themselves and the licensee has no way to stop them (other than through their own execution).
I haven't work at the tech transfer office for very long, but I think I have only seen software related inventions be licensed that had patent protection. When we do license a patent, the licensee most often receives worldwide exclusive rights to exploit the technology in their field. (well, I guess it's not quite worldwide monopoly, it's only a monopoly in the regions the patent is filed in, we do give them worldwide rights to use other stuff like copyright and trade secrets though).
I absolutely despise copyrights and parents.
The very idea that someone should have exclusive rights to an idea is ridiculous and unsustainable.
I have had dozens of ideas that I later realized were already patented. How is someone supposed to innovate when they're expected to know about everything that has ever been patented?
I am hopeful that decentralized content/software/service distribution will prevent patent and copyright protection from being enforced altogether, making them obsolete.
I hold that exact same views regarding piracy, privacy, drugs, gun control, etc. These restrictions simply can't be enforced in a decentralized world.
The very idea that someone should have exclusive rights to an idea is ridiculous and unsustainable.
I have had dozens of ideas that I later realized were already patented. How is someone supposed to innovate when they're expected to know about everything that has ever been patented?
I am hopeful that decentralized content/software/service distribution will prevent patent and copyright protection from being enforced altogether, making them obsolete.
I hold that exact same views regarding piracy, privacy, drugs, gun control, etc. These restrictions simply can't be enforced in a decentralized world.
I think most software devs are HIGHLY against patents for software. Hence the strong opensource community within software.
Personally: Screw patents.
Personally: Screw patents.
I would also like to hear stories of how a patent helped you or your team