US patent chief to software patent critics: "Give it a rest already"(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
US patent chief to software patent critics: "Give it a rest already"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/us-patent-chief-to-software-patent-critics-give-it-a-rest-already/
209 comments
Yup. That was the first line that stuck out to me too and prompted me to come over to HN and comment.
Innovation is happening at a breakneck pace despite software patents because everyone is just ignoring them and inventing anyways.
The patents do damage after the fact, killing good tech jobs by diverting money from engineering and R&D to the zero-sum game of patent litigation that just leaves society as a whole poorer.
TBH, I don't know how many entrepreneurs opt out of entrepreneurship due to the risk of being sued down the line, but I doubt that it is very high. Most of the entrepreneurs worried about patent litigation will just start amassing a patent portfolio of their own as a defensive strategy. The end result of that game is less progress since innovation efforts are diverted to patent defense efforts.
I don't know about everyone else here, but I would love a conversation on a national scale to discuss jobs that don't move the country and humanity forward, but just move cash from one pocket to another without benefitting anyone but the people moving the money. Wall street financial innovations, patent litigation and the TSA are just three examples of areas that have experienced job growth in the past 20 years (even with the 2008 meltdown), but that do little to nothing to improve the human condition. For some reason, the more we automate jobs and increase the productivity of the American worker, the more we divert our attention to creating jobs that don't add value.
Innovation is happening at a breakneck pace despite software patents because everyone is just ignoring them and inventing anyways.
The patents do damage after the fact, killing good tech jobs by diverting money from engineering and R&D to the zero-sum game of patent litigation that just leaves society as a whole poorer.
TBH, I don't know how many entrepreneurs opt out of entrepreneurship due to the risk of being sued down the line, but I doubt that it is very high. Most of the entrepreneurs worried about patent litigation will just start amassing a patent portfolio of their own as a defensive strategy. The end result of that game is less progress since innovation efforts are diverted to patent defense efforts.
I don't know about everyone else here, but I would love a conversation on a national scale to discuss jobs that don't move the country and humanity forward, but just move cash from one pocket to another without benefitting anyone but the people moving the money. Wall street financial innovations, patent litigation and the TSA are just three examples of areas that have experienced job growth in the past 20 years (even with the 2008 meltdown), but that do little to nothing to improve the human condition. For some reason, the more we automate jobs and increase the productivity of the American worker, the more we divert our attention to creating jobs that don't add value.
"[T]he zero-sum game [...] leaves society as a whole poorer."
That's not zero-sum.
That's not zero-sum.
Between the firms fighting its zero-sum. Everyone spends a lot of money acquiring a large patent portfolio for defense. No one wins or loses. But overall it is a misallocation of capital. All that money and human resources could be spent on further innovation.
Zero-sum means that the payoff matrix in any outcome, across all players, sums to zero. Between the firms fighting, assuming that they are in fact just buying patents for defense, the sum across all players is profoundly negative.
If you define the payoff matrix as: [I win = 1, I loose = -1], then you'll have a zero-sum game.
The problem here is that this kind of mechanics can suck up unlimited amounts of money for little absolute value, as you're paying for the relative - to just get better than your opponent. It's the same problem as with political campaigns - a ridiculously huge waste of resources with no theoretical upper bound, just to influence how people choose between few available options.
The problem here is that this kind of mechanics can suck up unlimited amounts of money for little absolute value, as you're paying for the relative - to just get better than your opponent. It's the same problem as with political campaigns - a ridiculously huge waste of resources with no theoretical upper bound, just to influence how people choose between few available options.
I don't follow the first bit. The second is absolutely true - many sorts of arms races follow a similar pattern, where the marginal cost of beating out your rivals may be less than the marginal gain, but the total cost you're collectively paying winds up enormous.
"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
> I don't follow the first bit.
On the second thought I think this might just be a sign of my confusion in the topic. I somehow always conflated the two ideas into one.
On the second thought I think this might just be a sign of my confusion in the topic. I somehow always conflated the two ideas into one.
It is still a loss, because you are spending capital on patents you should be spending on innovation. It is a complete black hole of investment because nothing positive comes out of software patents, in the end they just feed lawyers, who are producing no benefit to society as a result of it.
It is the same reasoning why paying people to dig holes and fill them in isn't actually economically stimulating. If the fruits of labors expended serve no practical purpose, they are an effective money sink that slows down the economy.
It is the same reasoning why paying people to dig holes and fill them in isn't actually economically stimulating. If the fruits of labors expended serve no practical purpose, they are an effective money sink that slows down the economy.
Regarding the first part, that is very much true for money spent litigating patents. It is not necessarily the case for money spent to purchase patents, which in theory is going (directly or indirectly) to people who are innovating (assuming the patents are actually innovative and useful).
> money spent to purchase patents, which in theory is going (directly or indirectly) to people who are innovating (assuming the patents are actually innovative and useful).
unfortunately, the patents purchased are not likely to be useful (in the sense that the creation of that patent brought value), and i think this is especially true in software patents. I say so because i expect that those patents purchased are already used by various software engineers (probably unknowingly). The creation of those patents did not add value, due to the fact that no creative forces were involved.
In a real arms race, the race to produce weapons might induce economic activity because metal needs mining, manufacturing and jobs. This does stimulate the economy, and you can construe that theres some benefit to be had.
For software patents, it does not stimulate anything! Perhaps lawyers who gets paid drafting it, but actual creative output isn't there, and so it is a net drain to even create the patent.
unfortunately, the patents purchased are not likely to be useful (in the sense that the creation of that patent brought value), and i think this is especially true in software patents. I say so because i expect that those patents purchased are already used by various software engineers (probably unknowingly). The creation of those patents did not add value, due to the fact that no creative forces were involved.
In a real arms race, the race to produce weapons might induce economic activity because metal needs mining, manufacturing and jobs. This does stimulate the economy, and you can construe that theres some benefit to be had.
For software patents, it does not stimulate anything! Perhaps lawyers who gets paid drafting it, but actual creative output isn't there, and so it is a net drain to even create the patent.
"[U]nfortunately, the patents purchased are not likely to be useful (in the sense that the creation of that patent brought value), and i think this is especially true in software patents."
That may very well be the case; I was clarifying the incompleteness of the argument, not advocating software patents.
"In a real arms race, the race to produce weapons might induce economic activity because metal needs mining, manufacturing and jobs. This does stimulate the economy, and you can construe that theres some benefit to be had.
"For software patents, it does not stimulate anything! Perhaps lawyers who gets paid drafting it, but actual creative output isn't there, and so it is a net drain to even create the patent."
Please explain the difference between paying a lawyer to write a patent that adds nothing, and paying someone to dug up and manufacture a bullet that sits in a chest somewhere, serving as a deterrent.
Two things I can see are 1) the people being paid to mine and machine are probably less well off than the lawyer, so there may be an (arguably) helpful redistributive effect; 2) mines and machine shops have huge fixed cost - having invested that, other tasks may be able to piggyback. I am slightly hesitant in concluding 2 - while the effect itself seems reasonable, I may simply be unaware of useful infrastructure supporting the patent process. Is there something additional that I am missing?
That may very well be the case; I was clarifying the incompleteness of the argument, not advocating software patents.
"In a real arms race, the race to produce weapons might induce economic activity because metal needs mining, manufacturing and jobs. This does stimulate the economy, and you can construe that theres some benefit to be had.
"For software patents, it does not stimulate anything! Perhaps lawyers who gets paid drafting it, but actual creative output isn't there, and so it is a net drain to even create the patent."
Please explain the difference between paying a lawyer to write a patent that adds nothing, and paying someone to dug up and manufacture a bullet that sits in a chest somewhere, serving as a deterrent.
Two things I can see are 1) the people being paid to mine and machine are probably less well off than the lawyer, so there may be an (arguably) helpful redistributive effect; 2) mines and machine shops have huge fixed cost - having invested that, other tasks may be able to piggyback. I am slightly hesitant in concluding 2 - while the effect itself seems reasonable, I may simply be unaware of useful infrastructure supporting the patent process. Is there something additional that I am missing?
The lawyers are getting richer.
David Kappos was an IP lawyer at IBM before moving to the Patent Office. He's an insider who has benefited from and built a career around IP litigation. I'm sure he sees his profession as worthy and noble. Certainly not parasitic and destructive.
A stout defender of the status quo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kappos
A stout defender of the status quo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kappos
"jobs that don't move the country and humanity forward, but just move cash from one pocket to another without benefiting anyone but the people moving the money."
The accumulation of such 'societal overheads', as entrenched systems act to grab more resources for themselves at the expense of everyone else, is a common factor in all civilizations. Specifically, it's a common factor in the process that ultimately leads to the collapse of complex societies.
Read the book 'Collapse of complex societies' by Tainter. It's a study of failed human societies throughout history, and the common factors in their process of collapse. Yes, it turns out there is a single, driving common factor. Complex societies go into violent, chaotic and permanent collapse, at the point when their available resources (of all kinds, including manpower, energy, knowledge, food, water, etc) become less than the resources required to maintain the social infrastructure. At that point there's a rapid structural implosion, with failing infrastructure leading to inability to allocate resources to maintain the infrastructure - a positive feedback process that bites hard. Usually, almost everyone dies.
The snowball can begin when some external challenge requires an extra expenditure of resources - which are not available. Or it can begin simply because the social structure grows too complicated and parasitic, thus exceeding physical limits. Human societies almost never seem to be able to collectively say "hey, we don't need all this useless crap, let's simplify!"
The patent system, copyright, and indeed most if not all of the Federal Government and related structures like the Federal Reserve Bank (three things it actually isn't) as they are now,are all examples of wasteful, parasitic overheads with net negative benefit to American society. Which are major factors bringing society closer to systemic collapse. The energy crisis is rapidly lowering the 'available resources' ceiling, while all these parasitic, self-serving layers of social/legal complexity are inexorably raising the required resource expenditure. Maybe these lines on the graph have already crossed - there's some inertia and lag in this process, but it's still a mathematical reality that can't ultimately be avoided.
Personally, I consider the entire legal framework of corporate personhood, stock holding and the abstractions of social responsibility, finance and control that creates, to be another massive layer of harmful complexity. Creating 'inhuman' immortal entities which then grow to direct most of society's resources and control most of the media and government structures, seems like a very, very bad mistake. The present insane state of the patent and copyright systems is merely a side effect of that more fundamental error.
By now the entire corrupt, self-serving octopus of corporate/government parasitism is probably too entrenched to 'simplify' back to a sensible, workable level via methods available within the existing system.
Personally, I'd say the optimal level for such things would be 'gone entirely'. I'm aware most would not agree. I've also long felt that without a second American Revolution, there's no chance of making any progress in cutting back these existence-threatening layers of self-serving complexity. Lately it seems like I'm not so entirely alone in that view.
The accumulation of such 'societal overheads', as entrenched systems act to grab more resources for themselves at the expense of everyone else, is a common factor in all civilizations. Specifically, it's a common factor in the process that ultimately leads to the collapse of complex societies.
Read the book 'Collapse of complex societies' by Tainter. It's a study of failed human societies throughout history, and the common factors in their process of collapse. Yes, it turns out there is a single, driving common factor. Complex societies go into violent, chaotic and permanent collapse, at the point when their available resources (of all kinds, including manpower, energy, knowledge, food, water, etc) become less than the resources required to maintain the social infrastructure. At that point there's a rapid structural implosion, with failing infrastructure leading to inability to allocate resources to maintain the infrastructure - a positive feedback process that bites hard. Usually, almost everyone dies.
The snowball can begin when some external challenge requires an extra expenditure of resources - which are not available. Or it can begin simply because the social structure grows too complicated and parasitic, thus exceeding physical limits. Human societies almost never seem to be able to collectively say "hey, we don't need all this useless crap, let's simplify!"
The patent system, copyright, and indeed most if not all of the Federal Government and related structures like the Federal Reserve Bank (three things it actually isn't) as they are now,are all examples of wasteful, parasitic overheads with net negative benefit to American society. Which are major factors bringing society closer to systemic collapse. The energy crisis is rapidly lowering the 'available resources' ceiling, while all these parasitic, self-serving layers of social/legal complexity are inexorably raising the required resource expenditure. Maybe these lines on the graph have already crossed - there's some inertia and lag in this process, but it's still a mathematical reality that can't ultimately be avoided.
Personally, I consider the entire legal framework of corporate personhood, stock holding and the abstractions of social responsibility, finance and control that creates, to be another massive layer of harmful complexity. Creating 'inhuman' immortal entities which then grow to direct most of society's resources and control most of the media and government structures, seems like a very, very bad mistake. The present insane state of the patent and copyright systems is merely a side effect of that more fundamental error.
By now the entire corrupt, self-serving octopus of corporate/government parasitism is probably too entrenched to 'simplify' back to a sensible, workable level via methods available within the existing system.
Personally, I'd say the optimal level for such things would be 'gone entirely'. I'm aware most would not agree. I've also long felt that without a second American Revolution, there's no chance of making any progress in cutting back these existence-threatening layers of self-serving complexity. Lately it seems like I'm not so entirely alone in that view.
...Federal Reserve Bank (three things it actually isn't)...
Even though you hate the federal reserve bank, did you see the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis published a working paper critical of software patents recently? http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf
Also way back in 2004, Alan Greenspan, then chair of the fed, questioned patents. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200402...
Even those that don't hate the fed can get behind hating patents.
Also way back in 2004, Alan Greenspan, then chair of the fed, questioned patents. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200402...
Even those that don't hate the fed can get behind hating patents.
> Metric X is high, therefore disputed policy Y is boosting metric X.
Although the reasoning doesn't exactly follow, it does still say something important: that the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation. In other words, he's saying that we have something to lose, and he's right.
You can make a strong argument that we won't lose it, and I'd agree with you. But it's not exactly proven. Actually, I don't think it's a simple win or lose situation, I think that patents (or the lack thereof) change the nature of things invented, and it's hard to quantify whether it's better or worse.
Although the reasoning doesn't exactly follow, it does still say something important: that the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation. In other words, he's saying that we have something to lose, and he's right.
You can make a strong argument that we won't lose it, and I'd agree with you. But it's not exactly proven. Actually, I don't think it's a simple win or lose situation, I think that patents (or the lack thereof) change the nature of things invented, and it's hard to quantify whether it's better or worse.
> the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation
This is like saying it wouldn't be so bad to be blind because blind people are able to live fulfilling and experience-rich lives. Yes, that is true, blind people do live rich and fulfilling lives, but this says nothing at all about the richness of the lives they could be living if they were not blind.
We have fewer than five large companies dominating the smart phone space. Let's ignore for a moment the fallacy that because smart phone innovation is occurring that therefore all innovation is a-okay. There are no small players in this space. This is like American car companies before Tesla and the other new electric companies got started. We know from experience that the domination of an industry by a few large players does not lead to innovation in the long term. It leads to tit-for-tat competition with little novel exploration of the space of possible products. These companies become conservative and self-concerned.
I think if you do any research into the current patent system, you will find it self-evident that the situation is untenable. Amazon holds a patent on "one-click ordering". They own a 20-year patent on the notion of only needing to click one button to make a purchase. Apple was just granted a patent on "searching across multiple databases simultaneously". The absurdity of the situation is apparent.
We are already in a period where large companies can use their patents to crush startups. It does not matter if the patent dispute is spurious and the startup clearly within their rights. Large companies with in-house legal staff can drown a startup by requiring them to fork out enormous quantities of money for legal representation in their self-defense. With a suite of patents, a company like Apple can bring suit after suit until finally the small company either loses one (these things are not decided by engineers or experts in patent law, they are decided by juries, a curse and a blessing), or runs out of money. This is analogous to the libel/slander situation in Britain, in which the cost of defending against a libel suite is enough to ruin a journalistic enterprise.
Read about what happened to Vlingo, as the situation I just described has already occurred: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo...
This is like saying it wouldn't be so bad to be blind because blind people are able to live fulfilling and experience-rich lives. Yes, that is true, blind people do live rich and fulfilling lives, but this says nothing at all about the richness of the lives they could be living if they were not blind.
We have fewer than five large companies dominating the smart phone space. Let's ignore for a moment the fallacy that because smart phone innovation is occurring that therefore all innovation is a-okay. There are no small players in this space. This is like American car companies before Tesla and the other new electric companies got started. We know from experience that the domination of an industry by a few large players does not lead to innovation in the long term. It leads to tit-for-tat competition with little novel exploration of the space of possible products. These companies become conservative and self-concerned.
I think if you do any research into the current patent system, you will find it self-evident that the situation is untenable. Amazon holds a patent on "one-click ordering". They own a 20-year patent on the notion of only needing to click one button to make a purchase. Apple was just granted a patent on "searching across multiple databases simultaneously". The absurdity of the situation is apparent.
We are already in a period where large companies can use their patents to crush startups. It does not matter if the patent dispute is spurious and the startup clearly within their rights. Large companies with in-house legal staff can drown a startup by requiring them to fork out enormous quantities of money for legal representation in their self-defense. With a suite of patents, a company like Apple can bring suit after suit until finally the small company either loses one (these things are not decided by engineers or experts in patent law, they are decided by juries, a curse and a blessing), or runs out of money. This is analogous to the libel/slander situation in Britain, in which the cost of defending against a libel suite is enough to ruin a journalistic enterprise.
Read about what happened to Vlingo, as the situation I just described has already occurred: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-amo...
> There are no small players in this space.
There's a horde of small players in the space. They've been dropping like flies, but there's a steady stream of new entrants both on the handset and software sides. Most of these new companies will fail as well. But it's not because of patents, it's because there are big economies of scale and the network effects are even bigger.
There's a horde of small players in the space. They've been dropping like flies, but there's a steady stream of new entrants both on the handset and software sides. Most of these new companies will fail as well. But it's not because of patents, it's because there are big economies of scale and the network effects are even bigger.
Indeed. The irony of reading that statement on this very web site is just staggering. How many companies are in the current YC round again?
This argument shouldn't even be at issue. Of course we're seeing very rapid innovation. The question is whether that's because of or in spite of the current patent regime, which is very hard to answer. People like us see the harm that bad patents can do and decide one way.
Other people look at (1) the fact that there is rapid innovation in the market and (2) the patent system was designed to foster innovation as evidence to the contrary. You're not going to win these people over by claiming that patents are "killing" innovation. All they have to do is look in their pockets to see that you're wrong.
This argument shouldn't even be at issue. Of course we're seeing very rapid innovation. The question is whether that's because of or in spite of the current patent regime, which is very hard to answer. People like us see the harm that bad patents can do and decide one way.
Other people look at (1) the fact that there is rapid innovation in the market and (2) the patent system was designed to foster innovation as evidence to the contrary. You're not going to win these people over by claiming that patents are "killing" innovation. All they have to do is look in their pockets to see that you're wrong.
> How many companies are in the current YC round again?
Small players in cell phones: http://www.phonearena.com/news/10-cell-phone-companies-youve...
Out of ten, one of them is U.S.-based. That seems to support the assertion that something is wrong in the U.S.
> This is like saying it wouldn't be so bad to be blind because blind people are able to live fulfilling and experience-rich lives.
not to distract from the threads theme of misinterpretation, but no, not quite. it's more like saying "being blind doesn't completely ruin your life".
not to distract from the threads theme of misinterpretation, but no, not quite. it's more like saying "being blind doesn't completely ruin your life".
You have not convinced me that the patent chief is intellectually dishonest.
I was already convinced that the patent system needs reform.
I was already convinced that the patent system needs reform.
Suppose I were to break into your house, steal one item, and soil the rug each day, every day, evading all determined efforts to stop me; yet you still kept going to work, paying your taxes, and so on. Could you prove that the cessation of my bad actions would not throw your participation in society into a tailspin? Or, would it merely be the welcome end to an extremely expensive and annoying problem?
Fuck man! Not the fucking rug. That rug really tied the room together.
> it does still say something important: that the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation.
Rarely is it the case that anything is truly "total". And if the patent system is squashing 25% of innovation in the software industry, or even 10%, that is a big problem.
Also, it is possible to squash certain kinds of innovators - like startups without tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on patent litigation. While massive corporations can get nailed for a billion or two and hardly notice.
A patent-litigious environment is deadly for startups. And startups are crucial innovators.
Rarely is it the case that anything is truly "total". And if the patent system is squashing 25% of innovation in the software industry, or even 10%, that is a big problem.
Also, it is possible to squash certain kinds of innovators - like startups without tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on patent litigation. While massive corporations can get nailed for a billion or two and hardly notice.
A patent-litigious environment is deadly for startups. And startups are crucial innovators.
reitzensteinm called the chief "intellectually dishonest", and did not properly support that strong claim. That is bad for the discussion. None of the arguments/claims you are making change that fact.
I said his method of debate was intellectually dishonest. Not the man or his opinion on the matter. For all I know he thoroughly researched the topic and weighed both sides before reaching his conclusions.
But his argument was clearly fallacious. In one sentence, he implies that correlation proves causation, followed by an attempt to frame the debate on his terms by definitively dismissing the claims of the opposition.
These are not tactics used in honest debate. They're being used to discredit the opposition and sway third parties.
I see that as cut and dry. If you don't, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I stand by what I said, and its relevance to this discussion.
But his argument was clearly fallacious. In one sentence, he implies that correlation proves causation, followed by an attempt to frame the debate on his terms by definitively dismissing the claims of the opposition.
These are not tactics used in honest debate. They're being used to discredit the opposition and sway third parties.
I see that as cut and dry. If you don't, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I stand by what I said, and its relevance to this discussion.
You inferred from his words that correlation proves causation. Whether he implied it or not is in dispute.
That's really splitting hairs. The man said "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken".
In other words, he says that innovation is occuring at a rapid rate, therefore the patent system isn't broken. Sure, that's not him arguing via correlation, but nonetheless that's a logical fallacy. And that's intellectually dishonest.
In other words, he says that innovation is occuring at a rapid rate, therefore the patent system isn't broken. Sure, that's not him arguing via correlation, but nonetheless that's a logical fallacy. And that's intellectually dishonest.
Exactly. It's like saying "The bus is still hurdling down the road at highway speeds, therefore there is not hobo vomit in the back seat."
We may not be able to know whether he's being intellectually dishonest until we know what he "really thinks," but he is absolutely using a spotlight fallacy.
It doesn't really say anything important (IMHO) because we may also have a hell of a lot to gain.
You can make an equally strong argument that not only will we not lose it, but we'll be far, far better off with major restrictions on what he's peddling.
You can make an equally strong argument that not only will we not lose it, but we'll be far, far better off with major restrictions on what he's peddling.
Sure, there are arguments to be had, and I would tend to agree with you that (at least in some sectors) we stand to gain more than lose.
But the commenter to whom I replied called the patent chief "intellectually dishonest", and I think that's a strong statement and not adequately supported.
But the commenter to whom I replied called the patent chief "intellectually dishonest", and I think that's a strong statement and not adequately supported.
Well, it's either intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy IMHO, because without some sort of backing argument you've just got someone trying to pass off a simple correlation as some sort of evidence of his argument - innovation is good, innovation happens and patents also happen, therefore patents are good.
He's either avoiding any/all arguments in that area or ignorant of them.
He's either avoiding any/all arguments in that area or ignorant of them.
You seem to be arguing against something I neither said nor implied.
I am not claiming that my opinion is proven. The data does not exist to have that level of certainty either way.
I merely have a strong belief, and do not outright reject the notion that Mr Kappos could be right.
To do so would make my arguments as intellectually dishonest as his, and I believe that to be unacceptable no matter which side you're on.
I am not claiming that my opinion is proven. The data does not exist to have that level of certainty either way.
I merely have a strong belief, and do not outright reject the notion that Mr Kappos could be right.
To do so would make my arguments as intellectually dishonest as his, and I believe that to be unacceptable no matter which side you're on.
Innovation?
The problem is that people are patenting non-innovative stuff. At this point one could write an automatic patent generator, much like domain name generators.
Or we could have the Patent-libs (like ad-libs).
Software that runs on [DeviceType] that has [ShapeOfCorner] and allows the user to [DigitalVersionOfNaturallyOccurringAction] which produces [ObviousOutcome].
The problem is that people are patenting non-innovative stuff. At this point one could write an automatic patent generator, much like domain name generators.
Or we could have the Patent-libs (like ad-libs).
Software that runs on [DeviceType] that has [ShapeOfCorner] and allows the user to [DigitalVersionOfNaturallyOccurringAction] which produces [ObviousOutcome].
Maybe we should. Exhaust all combinations and verify them for time when this "idea" was conceived, then dump out the list on a website and have people come up with uses for it (and actually use them.)
Boom! Prior art to invalidate future bullshit.
Boom! Prior art to invalidate future bullshit.
> In IP geek circles, Manfred is legendary; he's the guy who patented the business practice of moving your e-business somewhere with a slack intellectual property regime in order to evade licensing encumbrances. He's the guy who patented using genetic algorithms to patent everything they can permutate from an initial description of a problem domain – not just a better mousetrap, but the set of all possible better mousetraps. Roughly a third of his inventions are legal, a third are illegal, and the remainder are legal but will become illegal as soon as the legislatosaurus wakes up, smells the coffee, and panics. There are patent attorneys in Reno who swear that Manfred Macx is a pseudo, a net alias fronting for a bunch of crazed anonymous hackers armed with the Genetic Algorithm That Ate Calcutta: a kind of Serdar Argic of intellectual property, or maybe another Bourbaki math borg. There are lawyers in San Diego and Redmond who swear blind that Macx is an economic saboteur bent on wrecking the underpinning of capitalism, and there are communists in Prague who think he's the bastard spawn of Bill Gates by way of the Pope.
Excerpt from Accelerando by Charles Stross (cstross). Emphasis added.
I would love to see some sort of legal patent pool that grants free licenses only to entities that either do not have patents themselves, or which have granted licenses for all of their patents to other members of the pool. The trick of course is getting such a pool to a critical mass that joining it and licensing all your patents to it becomes worth it.
Excerpt from Accelerando by Charles Stross (cstross). Emphasis added.
I would love to see some sort of legal patent pool that grants free licenses only to entities that either do not have patents themselves, or which have granted licenses for all of their patents to other members of the pool. The trick of course is getting such a pool to a critical mass that joining it and licensing all your patents to it becomes worth it.
That exact sort of patent pool exists for the Linux community - its called the Open Invention Network.
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
The last bit is the idea behind the Defensive Patent License, though the site seems to be down (and malicious, says google) so I won't link it.
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_Patent_License
"It requires entities licensing their patents under the DPL to license all of their patents under the DPL, with free licenses granted to all other DPL participants.[4] DPL participants remain free to launch patent lawsuits against non-participants."
"It requires entities licensing their patents under the DPL to license all of their patents under the DPL, with free licenses granted to all other DPL participants.[4] DPL participants remain free to launch patent lawsuits against non-participants."
Ah brilliant. Sounds like pretty much exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of.
I can't remember where I read it or the name of it, but just such a patent pool was founded a few years back and then the principals realized they could be making more money trolling.
So they do. Using the patents in the pool.
So they do. Using the patents in the pool.
Dude, that's brilliant. This idea needs some sort of presentation, video, early prototype or something to make it go "viral."
All this really needs is for the standard search engine to automatically generate the prior art for every patent search. No matter what you search for - pop! - there's your prior art instantly posted to the public domain with an open license.
Isn't the new model first-to-file though? So you'd have a second group of robots actually patenting things coming out of the generator.
[deleted]
>Metric X is high, therefore disputed policy Y is boosting metric X.
I would say that it is even worse than that, because the metric itself is disputed.
If the police were to start a policy of giving out free GPS handguns to anyone, they might justify it by saying that they have caught more murderers since the policy began. The metric itself is flawed, as it assumes that catching a murderer it good in and of itself, and is in fact better than preventing a murder in the first place.
Here, he is arguing that lawsuits are good in and of themselves, without looking into whether those lawsuits have a positive or negative effect. He merely states without justification that the lawsuits have the effect of ``protecting innovation.''
I would say that it is even worse than that, because the metric itself is disputed.
If the police were to start a policy of giving out free GPS handguns to anyone, they might justify it by saying that they have caught more murderers since the policy began. The metric itself is flawed, as it assumes that catching a murderer it good in and of itself, and is in fact better than preventing a murder in the first place.
Here, he is arguing that lawsuits are good in and of themselves, without looking into whether those lawsuits have a positive or negative effect. He merely states without justification that the lawsuits have the effect of ``protecting innovation.''
Stating something without justification is the BEST way to state it. Haha. It's "begging the question" in it's most convincing form.
At this rate, I'd rather just pay an "Innovation Tax" and be done with it.
At this rate, I'd rather just pay an "Innovation Tax" and be done with it.
In the article, his responses suggest that he views patents as the first step toward litigation - that suing or being sued is an intended, by design outcome of patents existing.
It's as though he sees litigation and prosecution as beneficial to our economy, instead of seeing the ways in which it blocks innovation and free market actions.
It's as though he sees litigation and prosecution as beneficial to our economy, instead of seeing the ways in which it blocks innovation and free market actions.
Without agreeing with him on this specific point, I do have to note that just because he sees the amount of litigation as a good thing does not mean he thinks that litigation itself is beneficial to the economy.
As a general rule, litigation is a sign of activity. The more economic activity you have, the more interactions and transactions you have, the more conflicts that arise, and the more litigation you have to resolve those conflicts. The litigation itself is of course overhead, but the fact that there are many conflicts can be a sign of an industry in which a lot of things are happening.
As a general rule, litigation is a sign of activity. The more economic activity you have, the more interactions and transactions you have, the more conflicts that arise, and the more litigation you have to resolve those conflicts. The litigation itself is of course overhead, but the fact that there are many conflicts can be a sign of an industry in which a lot of things are happening.
The litigation itself is of course overhead, but the fact that there are many conflicts can be a sign of an industry in which a lot of things are happening.
As I'm sure you are aware, not everyone thrives in conflict. Some would much rather design a system to prevent it. I can't help but feel that this is similar to claiming that there must be a lot of fun happening on the school playground, because a lot of bullies are beating up the kids who just want to get along (and, occasionally, other bullies).
As I'm sure you are aware, not everyone thrives in conflict. Some would much rather design a system to prevent it. I can't help but feel that this is similar to claiming that there must be a lot of fun happening on the school playground, because a lot of bullies are beating up the kids who just want to get along (and, occasionally, other bullies).
Conflict is an unavoidable consequence of human interaction. There are various things you can do to make conflict resolution as quick and efficient as possible, but ultimately if you have X interactions between people, some fairly stable percentage of those interactions will result in conflict that requires litigation to mediate.
A more apropos playground analogy might be skinned knees. They are of course not a good thing in and of themselves, but if you have a bunch of kids running around and running into each other, you're going to get skinned knees. The more kids you have running around and the more active they are, the more trips to the nurse's office there are going to be. You can make the playground safer, tell kids to be more careful, etc, but at the end of the day kids getting playground injuries is correlated with kids playing.
A more apropos playground analogy might be skinned knees. They are of course not a good thing in and of themselves, but if you have a bunch of kids running around and running into each other, you're going to get skinned knees. The more kids you have running around and the more active they are, the more trips to the nurse's office there are going to be. You can make the playground safer, tell kids to be more careful, etc, but at the end of the day kids getting playground injuries is correlated with kids playing.
Conflict may be unavoidable, but that doesn't mean it requires public resources to resolve, nor that it needs resolution at all. Even without patent disputes, there would be a "conflict" between android and iOS -- that doesn't mean we would need the courts to step in and figure out which os is better -- the conflict is kind of the point.
We could clearly today have either more or less protections: you can pretty easily imagine a system with less patents or one with more and stricter forms of legal protection. A system with more forms of protection would probably see more legal battles. A system with less protection would see more market battles with focus on winning over consumers vs juries. The system we have today isn't some divinely revealed sweet spot, so the attitude that "conflicts are inevitable and this is how we solve them, thus there's nothing we can do about it" is disingenuous.
We could clearly today have either more or less protections: you can pretty easily imagine a system with less patents or one with more and stricter forms of legal protection. A system with more forms of protection would probably see more legal battles. A system with less protection would see more market battles with focus on winning over consumers vs juries. The system we have today isn't some divinely revealed sweet spot, so the attitude that "conflicts are inevitable and this is how we solve them, thus there's nothing we can do about it" is disingenuous.
I don't think the skinned knee analogy is quite apropos. Skinned knees are caused by gravity. Patent litigation is caused by the deliberate action of patent litigators.
I also disagree that conflict in the form of litigation is an unavoidable consequence of technology innovation. To a small developer, there's little effective difference between patent litigation and a bullet in the back of the head. They're both a death sentence, except the bullet would be over quicker. Instead of streamlining the process of executing small developers, courts and legislators should remove the actual threat.
I should note that, though I disagree with many of your points in many of your comments, I do value the alternate perspective you bring to patent-related discussions on HN.
I also disagree that conflict in the form of litigation is an unavoidable consequence of technology innovation. To a small developer, there's little effective difference between patent litigation and a bullet in the back of the head. They're both a death sentence, except the bullet would be over quicker. Instead of streamlining the process of executing small developers, courts and legislators should remove the actual threat.
I should note that, though I disagree with many of your points in many of your comments, I do value the alternate perspective you bring to patent-related discussions on HN.
The cost of compliance should be considered in determining whether a rule of law is ultimately to the net benefit of the economy, but if the net benefit is positive, the fact that compliance might put small players out of business shouldn't be a determinative objection. As an economic matter of fact, businesses that can't comply with generally beneficial regulation should go out of business.
So the debate should be about whether patent rights are in fact legitimate and beneficial regulations, taking into the cost of compliance but also taking into account ways in which those costs may be minimized through the structure of the law.
I think there are ways to structure the patent law, with bright-line defenses, so as to make defense of a suit extremely quick and cheap even by pro se litigants. One example would be requiring some sort of evidence of intentional copying as is required for copyright infringement.
So the debate should be about whether patent rights are in fact legitimate and beneficial regulations, taking into the cost of compliance but also taking into account ways in which those costs may be minimized through the structure of the law.
I think there are ways to structure the patent law, with bright-line defenses, so as to make defense of a suit extremely quick and cheap even by pro se litigants. One example would be requiring some sort of evidence of intentional copying as is required for copyright infringement.
A more apropos playground analogy might be skinned knees.
With the penalty that both the nurse and the injured person receives $1 from the person who caused the skinned knee. You can make the playground safer and tell kids to be more careful, but you'll still see Bruno falling on purpose and blaming Mary to the nurse.
With the penalty that both the nurse and the injured person receives $1 from the person who caused the skinned knee. You can make the playground safer and tell kids to be more careful, but you'll still see Bruno falling on purpose and blaming Mary to the nurse.
You also have people who get shoved to the ground and just take it, letting the bullies get away.
People assume that there are more of the fakers than the pushovers, but most of the studies I've seen of the legal system show that there are way more people who fail to enforce their rights than there are people trying to game the system. E.g. only a small fraction of medical malpractice claims are clearly not meritorious. On the other hand, only a small fraction of those who have a legitimate malpractice actually sue. The same is true for environmental harms, etc.
People assume that there are more of the fakers than the pushovers, but most of the studies I've seen of the legal system show that there are way more people who fail to enforce their rights than there are people trying to game the system. E.g. only a small fraction of medical malpractice claims are clearly not meritorious. On the other hand, only a small fraction of those who have a legitimate malpractice actually sue. The same is true for environmental harms, etc.
[deleted]
Ah, so the windows are meant to be broken, else how will glassworkers remain employed?
> It's as though he sees litigation and prosecution as beneficial to our economy
Well as a lawyer, litigation and prosecution are very beneficial to his local economy.
Well as a lawyer, litigation and prosecution are very beneficial to his local economy.
Metric X is high, therefore disputed policy Y is boosting metric X.
Not what was actually claimed. Non-inhibition is not the same as a boost, now is it?
The head of the USPTO isn't even willing to have an intellectually honest debate on the subject. It's pretty clear that change is not going to come from within.
The USPTO doesn't make patent law. It's an administrative agency. The guy's main concern is servicing the ever-increasing number of patent filings, which are what finances his agency. If you want change, ask for the PTO to be funded by taxes instead of filing fees.
Not what was actually claimed. Non-inhibition is not the same as a boost, now is it?
The head of the USPTO isn't even willing to have an intellectually honest debate on the subject. It's pretty clear that change is not going to come from within.
The USPTO doesn't make patent law. It's an administrative agency. The guy's main concern is servicing the ever-increasing number of patent filings, which are what finances his agency. If you want change, ask for the PTO to be funded by taxes instead of filing fees.
"Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like charm."
Somewhere in a patent-free parallel universe humans are flying around in cars.
He's the one that pushed for the recent "reform" of the patent system that Obama praised so much. If he would admit he was wrong, and he did nothing major to help the industry, he would probably lose his job. Not that Obama doesn't think like him, too regarding the patent system...so he might not.
Hmm...looks like a guy trying defend/validate his own job. Last I checked, people had no problem keeping up with innovation. I have yet to hear somebody say: "Slow down! We are innovating too rapidly!"
The patent system is a feeding trough for parasites, little more.
The patent system is a feeding trough for parasites, little more.
I believe that's a form of the correlation proves causation fallacy, probably others as well.
[deleted]
It is not today's innovation I am worried about, it is tomorrows.
Fuck this guy and fuck patents.
That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others,
we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously.
- Benjamin Franklin
Thats how you create a better world for everyone. I'm pretty sure this guy wants to create a better world for his corporate friends only.
As someone who works in the biopharmaceutical industry, I couldn't disagree with you more.
Surely you must be trolling.
Not trolling. I work in biotech. This industry lives and dies on IP. It literally costs hundreds of millions of dollars to run clinical trials and most of them fail. If someone else can come along and make a knock-off of your product and steal your profit then there's no incentive to run them. The whole model of the pharmaceutical industry relies on ~15-20 years of patent protection. People certainly play games with patents in biopharma, too, but without some form of IP protection you wouldn't get new drugs. Simple as that.
New drugs are an extremely specific and limited case of Patents, a chemical formula.
If Biotech worked the way software did, you would be able to patent "A combination of chemicals inside of a pill that cures headaches".
If Biotech worked the way software did, you would be able to patent "A combination of chemicals inside of a pill that cures headaches".
Very true. Or even just: "A combination of chemicals".
What I also find remarkable is how much actual research in biotech is done with public money. And how much big pharma spends on marketing, as opposed to actual research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-comp...
I think India's take on pharma products is enlightening. The pharma industry has managed to effect some self-serving changes in India's patent laws. However, as we speak the Supreme Court of India is hearing a case of particular interest.
http://theconversation.edu.au/david-and-goliath-novartis-cha...
What I also find remarkable is how much actual research in biotech is done with public money. And how much big pharma spends on marketing, as opposed to actual research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-comp...
I think India's take on pharma products is enlightening. The pharma industry has managed to effect some self-serving changes in India's patent laws. However, as we speak the Supreme Court of India is hearing a case of particular interest.
http://theconversation.edu.au/david-and-goliath-novartis-cha...
"A combination of chemicals inside of a pill that cures headaches"
Oh my god. That is a terrific analogy. I regularly talk to people who don't understand the horror of software patents and have been trying to come up with a good example - this is perfect.
Oh my god. That is a terrific analogy. I regularly talk to people who don't understand the horror of software patents and have been trying to come up with a good example - this is perfect.
It's unfortunate that we call the protection for pharmaceutical products "patents." They are probably more like a copyright on a compound with a 20-year expiration. Yes, this is totally necessary, also as is preventing someone from knocking out a direct copy of some innovative physical machine.
Conventional wisdom for a long time considered software more like a book (or else the "author" of the first spreadsheet would probably be a billionaire many times over).
When the legal industry saw the money involved in software during the dot-com boom they muscled their way in, as any racketeers would do. Their racket is of course protection and counter-protection services riding on the conveniently-broken USPTO.
Conventional wisdom for a long time considered software more like a book (or else the "author" of the first spreadsheet would probably be a billionaire many times over).
When the legal industry saw the money involved in software during the dot-com boom they muscled their way in, as any racketeers would do. Their racket is of course protection and counter-protection services riding on the conveniently-broken USPTO.
No, they're entirely functional. You can't copyright, say, penicillin (it is not a creative work!), but you can get a patent on the use of penicillin to kill microorganisms.
Yeah that's true, the specific application is involved so its not strictly equivalent to a copyright. All in all, I think the pharmaceutical industry is a place where patents themselves seem to work as intended even if manufacturers' legal, sales and marketing departments have been known to take atrocious liberties.
Pharmaceuticals are an area where patents seem most justified. Companies need to spend years of R&D to find a specific compound that helps cure disease, and then need to recoup the costs over years. I definitely feel software patents hinder innovation more than help it, but I would be worried about less investment put into drug discovery if the patent system were completely abolished.
While I realize that you're not saying the contrary, the "will of the founding fathers" isn't exactly anti-patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
That being said, the Constitution isn't some holy un-flawed document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
That being said, the Constitution isn't some holy un-flawed document.
What he thinks we should do and what most people actually care about don't align. For every Tesla there are probably 1000 Edisons.
I met David a few weeks ago to talk about patents and software. I have to say that coming out of that meeting I felt a lot better about things than going in.
He has good intentions. He worked hard to get provisions in the new law that would allow his office to fix the most egregious problems.
They are opening the first satellite patent office in San Jose specifically to address software and technology hardware patents.
I have to agree with him -- we need to give the new laws a chance to work. They just went into effect a few months ago.
He has good intentions. He worked hard to get provisions in the new law that would allow his office to fix the most egregious problems.
They are opening the first satellite patent office in San Jose specifically to address software and technology hardware patents.
I have to agree with him -- we need to give the new laws a chance to work. They just went into effect a few months ago.
Intentions may be good, AIA may be better than previous. But, when we have public officials that can't even articulate logically how patents enhance / protect innovation, there is a bigger problem.
It's the hill-climbing problem, and empty rhetoric, illogical propaganda and protection of special interests is preventing a policy that is far better for innovation, and the country, as a whole.
It's the hill-climbing problem, and empty rhetoric, illogical propaganda and protection of special interests is preventing a policy that is far better for innovation, and the country, as a whole.
It's true that the new law needs a chance. And it's true that all or the vast majority of politicians and bureaucrats have good intentions and want things to work. And it's unfortunately a reality that someone who is part of the system (head of the PTO!) has to protect and defend the system.
The problem is that software patents are in fact fundamentally broken. Think about it this way: does it make sense that the patent rules should be the same in fields as different as software/web/internet and pharmaceuticals/biotech -- where the innovation cycle, product lifecycle, and R&D costs are so dramatically different? If we had to design the patent system from scratch, would we put in place the same rules?
The reforms may help a little on the margins. But more fundamental change is needed in the software arena.
The problem is that software patents are in fact fundamentally broken. Think about it this way: does it make sense that the patent rules should be the same in fields as different as software/web/internet and pharmaceuticals/biotech -- where the innovation cycle, product lifecycle, and R&D costs are so dramatically different? If we had to design the patent system from scratch, would we put in place the same rules?
The reforms may help a little on the margins. But more fundamental change is needed in the software arena.
My view is perhaps a bit limited because I'm in the software industry. Are other industries represented fairly well by the current laws and is it only the software industry that are demanding changes?
Though government is adept at yielding to special interest and industry groups, fundamental change may be difficult to hope for if the software industry is the lone voice at this point.
Though government is adept at yielding to special interest and industry groups, fundamental change may be difficult to hope for if the software industry is the lone voice at this point.
It's not even the software industry generally. My background is in embedded software (military radios, heavy-duty network infrastructure), and I never saw that kind of opposition. I got my degree in aerospace engineering, and even among university kids nobody ever questioned the validity of the patent system or the fact that the university took out patents, etc.
I think the difference is that most engineering industries are very capital intensive. Defending the occasional patent lawsuit doesn't seem so onerous when your capital expenditures are measured in the hundreds of millions or billions.
I think the difference is that most engineering industries are very capital intensive. Defending the occasional patent lawsuit doesn't seem so onerous when your capital expenditures are measured in the hundreds of millions or billions.
He might be a good guy who has chosen to work within the system, and he might be defending the system to strengthen his influence over others that are also in the system.
But there's no reason software patent critics should believe that he's solving the problems, given the history of patents in the US and the contents of this article. What he should say: "'Amazon one-click' is a low-quality patent", "we judge XX% of software patents to be low-quality", and "our reforms will reduce this to Y%". Until then, keep making noise.
But there's no reason software patent critics should believe that he's solving the problems, given the history of patents in the US and the contents of this article. What he should say: "'Amazon one-click' is a low-quality patent", "we judge XX% of software patents to be low-quality", and "our reforms will reduce this to Y%". Until then, keep making noise.
Agree with a small correction: The first USPTO satellite office opened was in Detroit. After that, the USPTO announced plans to open offices in Denver, San Jose and Dallas/Fort Worth.
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_20981965/denver-get-u-...
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_20981965/denver-get-u-...
> "Our patent system is the envy of the world,"
I thought it was worlds lawyers wet dream and laughing stock of everybody else.
I can't remember one mention of US patent that was not grotesquely funny. I heard nothing of sorts about patents of any other country. The only thing I heard about those is that they are hard to get, expensive and short lasting.
I thought it was worlds lawyers wet dream and laughing stock of everybody else.
I can't remember one mention of US patent that was not grotesquely funny. I heard nothing of sorts about patents of any other country. The only thing I heard about those is that they are hard to get, expensive and short lasting.
The about-face Silicon Valley has done on this issue in the last decade or two is pretty amusing. Back when Silicon Valley meant Microsoft making software and Sun making hardware, people ranted and tore their hair out over how lack of IP enforcement in developing countries was destroying innovation...
The two aren't mutually exclusive. IP needs to be enforced in order for our current system to work -- Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement. On the other hand, if asinine patents and overly broad copyrights are handed out, then it becomes difficult for everybody.
Copyright needs to be enforced, but on a narrower set of IP. Patents should actually be innovative, unique, and original. Copyright should be specific, with broad fair use and protected status for parodies and satires.
Copyright needs to be enforced, but on a narrower set of IP. Patents should actually be innovative, unique, and original. Copyright should be specific, with broad fair use and protected status for parodies and satires.
>Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement
I remember Stallman saying something along the lines that GPL is using copyright against itself.
So I don't think GPL "depending" on copyright enforcement is a valid point for IP enforcement.
GPL is just specifically tailored for the current system and would just morph to something else if the legal climate changes.
I remember Stallman saying something along the lines that GPL is using copyright against itself.
So I don't think GPL "depending" on copyright enforcement is a valid point for IP enforcement.
GPL is just specifically tailored for the current system and would just morph to something else if the legal climate changes.
Without copyright protection, it would be pretty easy to interfere with two of the Four Freedoms.
Without copyright protection, there would be less incentive to interfere with any of the freedoms. Imagining a lack of copyright on software, the two reasons I can think of to eschew sharing are to keep for oneself/one's group an advantage provided by the program (whether that be a better search algorithm or a better nuclear weapon simulator) or to prevent exposure of assumptions made by the software to a competitor/adversary (e.g., avoid illegitimate SEO, security through obscurity).
The advantages of sharing would remain: everyone with more access, a larger number of people to help improve the software.
The pro-copyright claim is that the current system provides incentives for more software to be built than the absence of copyright would; but that's an economic model without experimental validation and not even as reliable as tested economic models (e.g., Keynesian stimulation/damping).
The advantages of sharing would remain: everyone with more access, a larger number of people to help improve the software.
The pro-copyright claim is that the current system provides incentives for more software to be built than the absence of copyright would; but that's an economic model without experimental validation and not even as reliable as tested economic models (e.g., Keynesian stimulation/damping).
> Copyright needs to be enforced, but on a narrower set of IP. Patents should actually be innovative, unique, and original. Copyright should be specific, with broad fair use and protected status for parodies and satires.
The problems with arguments like these is that the are talking about a perfect system. In reality you will just not get such a system, that just not where the insentives for change of the system go.
There are so many goverment agencys, that have some nice intent but ultimilty end up doing nothing (or in some cases to opposite).
Bringing democracy to the third world. Forign Aid helping dictators. Free Trade Agreements that ristrict trade. The list goes on.
Its not the best wikipedia article but I think public choice theory clearly states that these kinds of institutional changes are just not going to happen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory).
Crying abolish as loud as you can together with everybody else that has the same insentives, like start ups, bigger companys that do not have as many patents and political partys that are not in the goverment.
Institutional change allways hurts, or is unfair to somebody but institutonal change must happen anyway.
> Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement
One could well agrue that the GPL only exists because there is was copyrights. Stallman would not have had all the trouple with the lisp maschine without copyrights. The lisp maschine code could have been used by both companys. Maybe we would all work with lisp maschines now (let a man dream).
The problems with arguments like these is that the are talking about a perfect system. In reality you will just not get such a system, that just not where the insentives for change of the system go.
There are so many goverment agencys, that have some nice intent but ultimilty end up doing nothing (or in some cases to opposite).
Bringing democracy to the third world. Forign Aid helping dictators. Free Trade Agreements that ristrict trade. The list goes on.
Its not the best wikipedia article but I think public choice theory clearly states that these kinds of institutional changes are just not going to happen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory).
Crying abolish as loud as you can together with everybody else that has the same insentives, like start ups, bigger companys that do not have as many patents and political partys that are not in the goverment.
Institutional change allways hurts, or is unfair to somebody but institutonal change must happen anyway.
> Even the GPL depends on copyright enforcement
One could well agrue that the GPL only exists because there is was copyrights. Stallman would not have had all the trouple with the lisp maschine without copyrights. The lisp maschine code could have been used by both companys. Maybe we would all work with lisp maschines now (let a man dream).
This is a problem with the blanket term "Intellectual Property". Intellectual property consists of many things, e.g. copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
You can be in favor of some without being in favor of all.
You can be in favor of some without being in favor of all.
Why is an about-face over the course of at least 10 years amusing (I presume in a sarcastic way)?
In 10 years, even crowds of people learn about the medium-term implications of legal doctrines. 10 years ago the implications of software or business method patents weren't all that obvious. Only a few radicals were warning against them - someone sold everybody else on an emotional basis.
"Intellectual Property" in haste, repent at leisure, as Ben Franklin might have written, if he had understood the implications 200+ years ago.
In 10 years, even crowds of people learn about the medium-term implications of legal doctrines. 10 years ago the implications of software or business method patents weren't all that obvious. Only a few radicals were warning against them - someone sold everybody else on an emotional basis.
"Intellectual Property" in haste, repent at leisure, as Ben Franklin might have written, if he had understood the implications 200+ years ago.
I think that's a bit of historical revisionism right there. Nobody sold Silicon Valley 1.0 on IP protection "on an emotional basis." The companies were just tired of doing free R&D for the Chinese.
> The companies were just tired of doing free R&D for the Chinese.
And thanks to software patents and copyright that's finally over.
And thanks to software patents and copyright that's finally over.
Well, since the empirical evidence is completely against it, "Intellectual Property" has to be sold on an emotional basis.
But anyway, well played knocking down a straw man based on a point only tangentially related to the real issue. Thanks for that!
But anyway, well played knocking down a straw man based on a point only tangentially related to the real issue. Thanks for that!
Well it depends on how he's defining "the world," right? I doubt anybody in the black hole of Calcutta thinks about the US patent system much.
That's not how democracy works. When people don't like what's going on, they work until they change it. What they won't do is "give it a rest".
One could argue that we don't live in a true democracy. What we live in right now is much closer to fascism. I'd even go as far as to say that the concept of lobbying is a fascist idea.
This guy has huge ties to IBM, I'd have a very hard time believing he has the public's best interests in mind. He's more likely to pass laws which would help his rich friends instead.
Note that I'm not a strong believer of government to begin with. My rationale is that if society is anything like software development, management should be seen as counter-productive.
This guy has huge ties to IBM, I'd have a very hard time believing he has the public's best interests in mind. He's more likely to pass laws which would help his rich friends instead.
Note that I'm not a strong believer of government to begin with. My rationale is that if society is anything like software development, management should be seen as counter-productive.
The primary reason that lobbying is so pronounced is that we have a framework where micro-managing the economy is an accepted 'tool' of governance.
If you think that, in the abstract, the government should be able to favor/disfavor particular businesses (e.g. mandating Ethanol in gasoline, taxing tanning salons, prohibiting large sugary-drinks, etc) then the logical consequence is lobbying to ensure that your particular business is favored or at least not disfavored and that right (the right to petition the government) is built-in to our Constitution.
The way out of this mess is not to try to micro-manage lobbying (e.g. it is OK for a non-profit to lobby but not a for-profit or it is OK for individuals to lobby but not on behalf of a corporation) but instead to tackle the larger problem that governments should not be micro-managing the economy.
So argue for things like removing loopholes and special cases from our tax code, ditching all sorts of direct subsidies to favored entities (PBS funding, for example), and otherwise advocating for simple, consistent, and broad-based government policies rather than complex, inconsistent, and narrow government policies is the right direction, IMHO.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
If you think that, in the abstract, the government should be able to favor/disfavor particular businesses (e.g. mandating Ethanol in gasoline, taxing tanning salons, prohibiting large sugary-drinks, etc) then the logical consequence is lobbying to ensure that your particular business is favored or at least not disfavored and that right (the right to petition the government) is built-in to our Constitution.
The way out of this mess is not to try to micro-manage lobbying (e.g. it is OK for a non-profit to lobby but not a for-profit or it is OK for individuals to lobby but not on behalf of a corporation) but instead to tackle the larger problem that governments should not be micro-managing the economy.
So argue for things like removing loopholes and special cases from our tax code, ditching all sorts of direct subsidies to favored entities (PBS funding, for example), and otherwise advocating for simple, consistent, and broad-based government policies rather than complex, inconsistent, and narrow government policies is the right direction, IMHO.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
> I'd even go as far as to say that the concept of lobbying is a fascist idea
The people living in democracies without lobbying wholeheartedly agree. We genuinely can't believe you let it happen.
The people living in democracies without lobbying wholeheartedly agree. We genuinely can't believe you let it happen.
Lobbying is an essential and legitimate part of every democracy. Although it often has negative connotations, the process serves a very important role in the input of policy decisions. In the US, lobbying is constitutionally protected, without which citizens would have no guaranteed way to communicate with elected officials.
Your assertion that you and others live in democracies without such a process is false. Moreover your implication that lobbying is wholly negative and unique to the American democratic system undermines your position and demonstrates what appears to be a bias against the United States in general rather than an honest critique of the way lobbying is conducted in that country.
Your assertion that you and others live in democracies without such a process is false. Moreover your implication that lobbying is wholly negative and unique to the American democratic system undermines your position and demonstrates what appears to be a bias against the United States in general rather than an honest critique of the way lobbying is conducted in that country.
> In the US, lobbying is constitutionally protected, without which citizens would have no guaranteed way to communicate with elected officials.
Yet de-facto in the day-to-day it is not you-and-me average citizens lobbying at the highest level but HugeCorps because they have the connections and means to pay the right lobbyists that actual average citizens could never afford...
And the very word itself already has a bad connotation. It is not "democratizing" or "participating", it is "lobbying" and nobody associates a positive, generally beneficial democratic process with that.
Yet de-facto in the day-to-day it is not you-and-me average citizens lobbying at the highest level but HugeCorps because they have the connections and means to pay the right lobbyists that actual average citizens could never afford...
And the very word itself already has a bad connotation. It is not "democratizing" or "participating", it is "lobbying" and nobody associates a positive, generally beneficial democratic process with that.
I don't want to argue for lobbying, which can get pretty sickening at times, but I suspect other major democracies just aren't as blatant. How does your democracy remove corporate bribes from the equation? How do people, in aggregate, push specific issues with their legislators?
>How does your democracy remove corporate bribes from the equation? How do people, in aggregate, push specific issues with their legislators?
By voting for all issues directly, like it's done here in switzerland.
Other systems where you vote people into office to do the actual decision making for you can hardly be called democracies in comparison.
By voting for all issues directly, like it's done here in switzerland.
Other systems where you vote people into office to do the actual decision making for you can hardly be called democracies in comparison.
And then do coalitions form to influence the popular opinion of specific things that might be beneficial to them?
In many US states, they allow ballot measures, but they are often worse than the options that would come out of the legislature because of the free for all nature of advertising for them and the general public's lack of knowledge of the details of the proposal. They do, however, allow issues such as gay marriage/pot to come up if it's too controversial for the legislature.
In many US states, they allow ballot measures, but they are often worse than the options that would come out of the legislature because of the free for all nature of advertising for them and the general public's lack of knowledge of the details of the proposal. They do, however, allow issues such as gay marriage/pot to come up if it's too controversial for the legislature.
All issues? Even obscure, or technical laws? I'd love to hear more about how that works out. Certainly, the parliamentary system in Canada is a mixed bag.
Absolutely. The claim that the form of government in the United States is a "democracy" is one of the most impressive propaganda successes I've seen.
Switzerland has no requirement that political donations be reported, unlike the us. US states have referendums all the time.
Agreed, the American lobbying system makes even an Eastern European country look more democratic, because there, when people get caught "lobbying" like this with money, they are actually accused of corruption. In US it's all legal and plentiful.
In all honesty: such a place exists?
Possibly not. Here in NZ lobbying goes on, and companies get named and shamed periodically, but while corruption exists (Dotcom case running close to the line with 1 or 2 MPs) it is very low by (the abysmal) international standards.
Low corruption countries exists. I should really get a better link, but here is some info http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_New_Zealand
Yet another reason I want to move to NZ.
FYI, the European Union has a similar model (and in many aspects much worse because unlike in the US there are virtually no rules and no transparency), and more and more power is being transferred from national governments to it.
That's a little much, IMO. Lobbying is a right acknowledged in the Constitution[1]. We live in a republic, and yes it has more power than the government has ever had before, but we also have more freedoms than we've ever had before, at least in the US. Zimbabwe is actually a fascist country.
This guy is just a mundane man defending his existence. Nothing more, nothing less.
[1] The right to petition your government.
This guy is just a mundane man defending his existence. Nothing more, nothing less.
[1] The right to petition your government.
However, back when the constitution was being written corporations did not have the legal status of a person. Lobbying was never intended as a tool for corporations to gain a much bigger voice than the general public, yet this is what we have now.
One man's bribery is another man's method to reach a real person in the government instead of a feedback form (like complaining on HN about some way you got screwed by google's automatic processes).
The good side of lobbying allows for some interest group, lets use the people who do commercial fishing in the gulf as an example, to pay attention to their interests and let someone know about problems in legislation they foresee or notice after the fact. Without them, each congressman (or some subset of them) would have to employ someone who knew a thing or two about marine/environmental biology to read all their legislation for ways that it could harm x. It's really unpopular for congress to spend money on itself, so this probably wouldn't happen and we'd ignore environmental impacts of a wide variety of things.
This, of course, is in theory. I whole heatedly agree that the balance of power between interest groups and of interest groups isn't at any sort of ideal point, but I can't see removing their ability to communicate with politicians as a good thing. Lobbyists do a whole lot more than just donate to crooked politicians.
The good side of lobbying allows for some interest group, lets use the people who do commercial fishing in the gulf as an example, to pay attention to their interests and let someone know about problems in legislation they foresee or notice after the fact. Without them, each congressman (or some subset of them) would have to employ someone who knew a thing or two about marine/environmental biology to read all their legislation for ways that it could harm x. It's really unpopular for congress to spend money on itself, so this probably wouldn't happen and we'd ignore environmental impacts of a wide variety of things.
This, of course, is in theory. I whole heatedly agree that the balance of power between interest groups and of interest groups isn't at any sort of ideal point, but I can't see removing their ability to communicate with politicians as a good thing. Lobbyists do a whole lot more than just donate to crooked politicians.
If not exactly fascist, it is certainly corporatist.
The US Patent System is the envy of the world!? I'd love to have more international opinions on this, but from my experience in Japan, France and England, no one envies our patent system, and most programmers simply ignore it even when working on products for the US market.
I'm French, now living/workin in the US and I'm not too sure I agree with you. Did you know that even small businesses when they register at "Chambre du commerce" they usually protect their IP/Name through INPI. That's like the first thing they do even if it's a food truck. So for me IP protection is very present in our culture. Same for the companies I worked for we usually submit patent to USPTO before EPO.
Please do not confuse IP protection with the patent system. For example I love the copyright system while I hate the patent system. You don't copy code accidentally and to use your example - it's still relatively easy to research if names are already used and you don't have to do that often.
But you have a really hard time figuring out if you break some patents while developing software. Even lawyers and courts often have a hard time figuring out if something steps on a patent or not. As software developer where you develop new things every day you can basically only close your eyes and code on hoping you don't trigger too many patent mines. Patents belong as little in writing software as they belong in writing other things like books, articles or speeches.
But you have a really hard time figuring out if you break some patents while developing software. Even lawyers and courts often have a hard time figuring out if something steps on a patent or not. As software developer where you develop new things every day you can basically only close your eyes and code on hoping you don't trigger too many patent mines. Patents belong as little in writing software as they belong in writing other things like books, articles or speeches.
I'm French too. You're talking trademark. It's OK to protect your name. Actually, patents themselves are OK in a lot of domains, when you are patenting a specific process, the concrete, multi-step application of an idea. The problem with software/business patents is that you're usually patenting an idea.
Take it another way. Write software in the US, and as soon as you're making money, you run the risk of being sued by a patent troll in Eastern Texas. Write software in France, you run no such risk (some would even maliciously say that you don't run the risk of making money).
Take it another way. Write software in the US, and as soon as you're making money, you run the risk of being sued by a patent troll in Eastern Texas. Write software in France, you run no such risk (some would even maliciously say that you don't run the risk of making money).
Even though the USPTO is responsible for both patents and trademarks, there is a big difference between the two. A food truck protecting its name would be obtaining a trademark, not a patent.
Just goes to show how disconnected from reality our politicians really are. How come its always the least innovative people who try to protect innovation?
I'd like to have a credible source, or I'd be prone to believe he just made it up.
I don't know about "envy of the world" but until China started enforcing IP rights a little more strongly, US companies I worked with hated doing business with Chinese companies because they would just copy everything.
While all under the umbrella of "intellectual property," trademark, copyright, trade dress, and the various forms of patents all cover different things.
I think many people doing business in China are more concerned about trade dress (fooling people into thinking that their item is the "legitimate" thing).
Edit: rather than patents. I also think copyright and trademark are big concerns. I don't think patents are.
I think many people doing business in China are more concerned about trade dress (fooling people into thinking that their item is the "legitimate" thing).
Edit: rather than patents. I also think copyright and trademark are big concerns. I don't think patents are.
No, patents and copyrights and other things too. One major Chinese telecom company used to copy the equipment of one major US telecom company down to the English silk screening on the circuit boards. Who wants to do all the expensive design work for a Chinese company who is then just going to undercut you with lower prices through cheap labor?
OK, but you seem to be supporting my point...
The example you gave is copyright violation. My claim (poorly worded the first time) is that patents are not what most companies are worried about -- they're more concerned with copyright, trade dress, and trademark.
The example you gave is copyright violation. My claim (poorly worded the first time) is that patents are not what most companies are worried about -- they're more concerned with copyright, trade dress, and trademark.
It depends on what the company makes. LVMH worries about its trade marks. Merck worries about its patents. And these aren't illegitimate worries. People feel ripped off when someone takes a drug they spent time and money developing and copies it. People feel ripped off when someone takes a brand they spent time and money building and copies it. Unfair competition is at the heart of all kinds of IP.
So true! I laughed out loud when I read this line.
Self-serving bureaucrat defends his niche...
I'll be downvoted to hell for this but he has a point! We do need to let the new get a chance to work. Technology has changed everything and patent law just wasn't written to account for what's happening now. That's indisputable but it doesn't mean the whole system is broken.
I don't think anyone can say "yes the patent system is broken" or "the patent system works fine" definitively because it's not a cut and dry issue. You may argue that patents are a disincentive to innovation while others feels differently. It's really an ideological issue. It's subjective and not objective like people want to make it.
Furthermore, everyone out there yelling about how we need to rebuild the whole patent system from the ground up again or abolish it altogether are really the ones who need to give it a rest. We can't just rewrite all patent law or get rid of patents. That's like saying the US needs a new constitution. So much has been built on top of and around patent law that making such drastic changes would have ripple effects that would be worse than the original problem.
That said, I can't stand behind Kaposs' statement that pace of innovation is evidence of the patent system working. Did he even hear himself say that? What's his definition of innovation? Sure, we have lots of touch screen devices with different names coming out every single day but is that innovation? But really that's neither here nor there. The pace of innovation and the patent system working are wholly unrelated.
I also have an honest question. Why does everyone really want to reform/abolish our patent system? I mean, really. The real reason. Again, I swear its an honest question and I have an honest observation. To me, because no one has explained it to me yet, it seems like there are a few trendy startups and companies out there who got burned by the patent system. So then they threw a fit about patent reform. The HNers and Silicon Valley types picked up on this and now its the hip new cause to support. It reminds me of when being anti-copyright and pro-piracy became cool. They seem to have this really nice sounding ideology behind them that's very easy to adopt and so people do. But to me, these ideas, which in a perfect world would work out great, seem divorced from reality. In the case of startups/companies lobbying for this, don't you think that when they get to such a size where keeping the status quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd drop their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody else? I do. Because I would.
I don't think anyone can say "yes the patent system is broken" or "the patent system works fine" definitively because it's not a cut and dry issue. You may argue that patents are a disincentive to innovation while others feels differently. It's really an ideological issue. It's subjective and not objective like people want to make it.
Furthermore, everyone out there yelling about how we need to rebuild the whole patent system from the ground up again or abolish it altogether are really the ones who need to give it a rest. We can't just rewrite all patent law or get rid of patents. That's like saying the US needs a new constitution. So much has been built on top of and around patent law that making such drastic changes would have ripple effects that would be worse than the original problem.
That said, I can't stand behind Kaposs' statement that pace of innovation is evidence of the patent system working. Did he even hear himself say that? What's his definition of innovation? Sure, we have lots of touch screen devices with different names coming out every single day but is that innovation? But really that's neither here nor there. The pace of innovation and the patent system working are wholly unrelated.
I also have an honest question. Why does everyone really want to reform/abolish our patent system? I mean, really. The real reason. Again, I swear its an honest question and I have an honest observation. To me, because no one has explained it to me yet, it seems like there are a few trendy startups and companies out there who got burned by the patent system. So then they threw a fit about patent reform. The HNers and Silicon Valley types picked up on this and now its the hip new cause to support. It reminds me of when being anti-copyright and pro-piracy became cool. They seem to have this really nice sounding ideology behind them that's very easy to adopt and so people do. But to me, these ideas, which in a perfect world would work out great, seem divorced from reality. In the case of startups/companies lobbying for this, don't you think that when they get to such a size where keeping the status quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd drop their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody else? I do. Because I would.
> or get rid of patents
We could, its in the right of goverments to do that.
> That's like saying the US needs a new constitution. So much has been built on top of and around patent law that making such drastic changes would have ripple effects that would be worse than the original problem.
Thats hard to predict and otherwise its a really bad argument. It remindes me of the argument against lowering inflation. Yes lowering inflation will always creat problems, sometimes even very bad ones but that is no reason to just keep going.
Taking a stand and hit the problem in the face, deal with the consequences and from there on build on a much more solid ground like we did in monetary policy.
> I also have an honest question. Why does everyone really want to reform/abolish our patent system? I mean, really. The real reason.
I for one think that it is simple a ineffective system that will just harm the economy and the social live more general (specially in the case of copyrights).
From a purly economicl view it seams clear that all form of IP are harmful. Resources that are not limted do not need a propery rights system. I can not prove this (and I think nobody can) the benefits from copying are much much greater then the benefits from improved insentive.
If you look at sientific discovery and innovation, how it works is many small steps and improving little by little. Revolutionary discoverys do not happen very often.
There are many reason this is specially true in practice. In the real world the patent system is ruled over by a goverment agency that is (like any goverment agency) subject to lobbying and other problems discribed in public choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory).
> don't you think that when they get to such a size where keeping the status quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd drop their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody else? I do. Because I would.
Sure they would. I would too. That is exactly why we have to change insentives. As long as the system is as it is people will have the same insentives (an we all know what these are).
The most importend economic book you will every read will just say "insentive matter" on every page.
We could, its in the right of goverments to do that.
> That's like saying the US needs a new constitution. So much has been built on top of and around patent law that making such drastic changes would have ripple effects that would be worse than the original problem.
Thats hard to predict and otherwise its a really bad argument. It remindes me of the argument against lowering inflation. Yes lowering inflation will always creat problems, sometimes even very bad ones but that is no reason to just keep going.
Taking a stand and hit the problem in the face, deal with the consequences and from there on build on a much more solid ground like we did in monetary policy.
> I also have an honest question. Why does everyone really want to reform/abolish our patent system? I mean, really. The real reason.
I for one think that it is simple a ineffective system that will just harm the economy and the social live more general (specially in the case of copyrights).
From a purly economicl view it seams clear that all form of IP are harmful. Resources that are not limted do not need a propery rights system. I can not prove this (and I think nobody can) the benefits from copying are much much greater then the benefits from improved insentive.
If you look at sientific discovery and innovation, how it works is many small steps and improving little by little. Revolutionary discoverys do not happen very often.
There are many reason this is specially true in practice. In the real world the patent system is ruled over by a goverment agency that is (like any goverment agency) subject to lobbying and other problems discribed in public choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory).
> don't you think that when they get to such a size where keeping the status quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd drop their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody else? I do. Because I would.
Sure they would. I would too. That is exactly why we have to change insentives. As long as the system is as it is people will have the same insentives (an we all know what these are).
The most importend economic book you will every read will just say "insentive matter" on every page.
Fair enough, good points. But do you kind of see what I'm getting at toward the end? You may have some strong beliefs on patent law but does everyone? Really? Is it just me or does anyone else see this as a bandwagon thing. The next hip cause to support. More people regurgitating something someone told them without reading up on it on their own. That sort of thing. Everything else aside, that's what bothers me most about this issue.
> Fair enough, good points. But do you kind of see what I'm getting at toward the end? You may have some strong beliefs on patent law but does everyone? Really?
I do understand. I think its a valid point but I also think the hype throws a lot more attention on the issue. Attention that is rightly there.
I do understand. I think its a valid point but I also think the hype throws a lot more attention on the issue. Attention that is rightly there.
> Why does everyone really want to reform/abolish our patent system? I mean, really.
The current state of software patents is such that a company can stock up, lawyer up, then sue out of existence any attempt at competition. They were invented to promote innovation, not stifle it. I honestly have a hard-time imagining any competent programmer standing behind half the garbage that passes for 'innovative' patents. It would be one thing if it were just patents that were not being used, but its taken to court, succesful cases that prove the point. One-click purchasing? One-box multiple search? Companies are patenting anything they can think of - the most obvious and minor of innovations - and succesfully pushing others out. That's anti-competitive in its aboslute purest.
> We can't just rewrite all patent law or get rid of patents. That's like saying the US needs a new constitution.
Most people aren't anti-patent et al - just anti software patents. A more apt analogy would be wanting to re-write a specific interpretation of a specific clause of the constitution.
> it seems like there are a few trendy startups and companies out there who got burned by the patent system.
Read more. Companies large and small regularly get burned by ridiculous patents. Like Android removing unified search (http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-galaxy-s3-loses-unified-search-...). That's absurd.
If companies were providing actual evidence of specific, long-term, expensive investments that resulted in software innovation, with a compelling case that it would not have been invented otherwise (aka a high school coder couldn't possibly mimic it), then yeah, maybe I coudl see a justification. But the current "just show us that there's not other patents out there that did this alreadY" can only be justified by one means: "I'm a lawyer, and I want to make a good living". Case in point - David Kappos.
The current state of software patents is such that a company can stock up, lawyer up, then sue out of existence any attempt at competition. They were invented to promote innovation, not stifle it. I honestly have a hard-time imagining any competent programmer standing behind half the garbage that passes for 'innovative' patents. It would be one thing if it were just patents that were not being used, but its taken to court, succesful cases that prove the point. One-click purchasing? One-box multiple search? Companies are patenting anything they can think of - the most obvious and minor of innovations - and succesfully pushing others out. That's anti-competitive in its aboslute purest.
> We can't just rewrite all patent law or get rid of patents. That's like saying the US needs a new constitution.
Most people aren't anti-patent et al - just anti software patents. A more apt analogy would be wanting to re-write a specific interpretation of a specific clause of the constitution.
> it seems like there are a few trendy startups and companies out there who got burned by the patent system.
Read more. Companies large and small regularly get burned by ridiculous patents. Like Android removing unified search (http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-galaxy-s3-loses-unified-search-...). That's absurd.
If companies were providing actual evidence of specific, long-term, expensive investments that resulted in software innovation, with a compelling case that it would not have been invented otherwise (aka a high school coder couldn't possibly mimic it), then yeah, maybe I coudl see a justification. But the current "just show us that there's not other patents out there that did this alreadY" can only be justified by one means: "I'm a lawyer, and I want to make a good living". Case in point - David Kappos.
You'd be surprised how far and deep the problem goes. I would also argue that it's not just limited to software patents in particular, but it's become common practice for many companies to create patents for anything they can imagine. This has resulted in a deluge of patents that have to be sorted out by the USPTO, and therefore a lot of bad, should-be-invalid patents get okayed.
Here's a perfect example of a bad patent screwing a company out of a product they've been making for years: http://luma-labs.com/blogs/news/4540122-an-open-letter-to-ou...
(Summary: Competitor gets an illegitimate patent approved, and now a company that has been "infringing" on that patent since before they applied to get it has to stop making their product. Why? Because litigation will likely put them out of business, even if they win.)
I'm not against the idea of patents, but the direction they've been going in recently, in fact the direction our entire economy has been going in recently, has been that of favoring those with the money to blow on hordes of lawyers capable of interpreting and navigating the legal minefield they themselves have lobbied to create.
Here's a perfect example of a bad patent screwing a company out of a product they've been making for years: http://luma-labs.com/blogs/news/4540122-an-open-letter-to-ou...
(Summary: Competitor gets an illegitimate patent approved, and now a company that has been "infringing" on that patent since before they applied to get it has to stop making their product. Why? Because litigation will likely put them out of business, even if they win.)
I'm not against the idea of patents, but the direction they've been going in recently, in fact the direction our entire economy has been going in recently, has been that of favoring those with the money to blow on hordes of lawyers capable of interpreting and navigating the legal minefield they themselves have lobbied to create.
> when they get to such a size where keeping the status quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd drop their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody else? I do. Because I would.
I wouldn't. For many of the "I shall take advantage of this system" person/company out there, there are thankfully examples to the contrary. Redhat. Google. Sun Microsystems (RIP).
I'm convinced that the reason this issue is being aired more often now, is because the greedy kind (the trolls and unscrupulous management of product/service companies) have overplayed their hand. They have gone a bit too far with all this aggression, and I for one am very glad to see people respond in kind.
I wouldn't. For many of the "I shall take advantage of this system" person/company out there, there are thankfully examples to the contrary. Redhat. Google. Sun Microsystems (RIP).
I'm convinced that the reason this issue is being aired more often now, is because the greedy kind (the trolls and unscrupulous management of product/service companies) have overplayed their hand. They have gone a bit too far with all this aggression, and I for one am very glad to see people respond in kind.
> I'll be downvoted to hell for this
This isn't reddit. Stop.
This isn't reddit. Stop.
Reminds me of a Sanskrit sloka roughly translated as:
The wealth that cannot be stolen, neither abducted by state, nor can be divided amongst brothers, Neither it is burdensome to carry, The wealth that increases by giving, That wealth is knowledge and is supreme of all possessions
Intellectual 'property' is an oxymoron. The treatment of knowledge like a physical asset in that, it must be possessed and contained, is an exercise in futility.
The wealth that cannot be stolen, neither abducted by state, nor can be divided amongst brothers, Neither it is burdensome to carry, The wealth that increases by giving, That wealth is knowledge and is supreme of all possessions
Intellectual 'property' is an oxymoron. The treatment of knowledge like a physical asset in that, it must be possessed and contained, is an exercise in futility.
This is depressing to read, and I think he is wrong, but the more I think about this, the more I think reforming patent issuance is not going to be as helpful as we think.
Think about it - if the PTO stopped issuing software patents today, we'd still have over a decade of software patent litigation.
The real problem is our legal system - it is too expensive for a someone accused of patent violations to defend themselves. Even if you win, you are still going to be bankrupt or severely weakened by legal fees, and all you've "won" is the right to continue doing what you were doing in the first place. This is the only reason patent trolling is so successful - nobody can fight back.
Start requiring entities who file patent infringement (and other) lawsuits pay the defendants legal fees if they lose, and require an upfront bond (because otherwise they'd just sue with shell companies and declare bankruptcy if they lost). Everyone is going to be concerned about how this hurts the proverbial "little guy" and his ability to sue a big company that has taken his idea, but the little guy is already getting screwed by patent trolls - a big company like Google or Apple has the resources to fight patent litigation, but even one lawsuit is likely to be lethal for a small company. If the "little guy" is going to get hurt either way, I'd rather we tilt things to be in favor of the defendants.
Think about it - if the PTO stopped issuing software patents today, we'd still have over a decade of software patent litigation.
The real problem is our legal system - it is too expensive for a someone accused of patent violations to defend themselves. Even if you win, you are still going to be bankrupt or severely weakened by legal fees, and all you've "won" is the right to continue doing what you were doing in the first place. This is the only reason patent trolling is so successful - nobody can fight back.
Start requiring entities who file patent infringement (and other) lawsuits pay the defendants legal fees if they lose, and require an upfront bond (because otherwise they'd just sue with shell companies and declare bankruptcy if they lost). Everyone is going to be concerned about how this hurts the proverbial "little guy" and his ability to sue a big company that has taken his idea, but the little guy is already getting screwed by patent trolls - a big company like Google or Apple has the resources to fight patent litigation, but even one lawsuit is likely to be lethal for a small company. If the "little guy" is going to get hurt either way, I'd rather we tilt things to be in favor of the defendants.
> He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.
I don't think anyone has been arguing that innovation is no longer happening, but rather that the mess of software patents is making it increasingly difficult for newcomers to enter the industry.
I also like how he completely dodged the question of whether software patents should be allowed at all, from a philosophical perspective..
I don't think anyone has been arguing that innovation is no longer happening, but rather that the mess of software patents is making it increasingly difficult for newcomers to enter the industry.
I also like how he completely dodged the question of whether software patents should be allowed at all, from a philosophical perspective..
They created a system where a government lawyer makes a law that corporate lawyers can use to make a lot of money. In return, the corporate lawyer pay taxes to the government so that the government lawyer can have a fancy title in a fancy agency.
This is lawyers talking to (and for) lawyers. This doesn't concern engineers or consumers.
This is lawyers talking to (and for) lawyers. This doesn't concern engineers or consumers.
Given that he was nominated to the post by the Obama administration and confirmed by the Senate, where should a grassroots movement to get him shucked out of office be directed?
Towards rejecting the entire autonomous bureaucracy he is but a small part of. However, given that most of the US is contentedly employed in service of the top-down government, agorism is the best bet.
Lawsuits against bureaucratic offices is a good place to start. I wonder how much royalty-free software they use that has methods patented by someone else?
Here we see in action the big government mindset solution to big government induced problems, more big government. I for one, am not surprised, but I have read Ludwig von Mises' book "Bureaucracy".
Seriously, did anyone think a department whose "business" is to accept fees and keep patent examiners employed is going to shrink their market domain? There's plenty more regulatory jobs to be squeezed out of the innovation business to be had yet, this time on the back end.
Seriously, did anyone think a department whose "business" is to accept fees and keep patent examiners employed is going to shrink their market domain? There's plenty more regulatory jobs to be squeezed out of the innovation business to be had yet, this time on the back end.
Since you seam to have a intressted in this kind of thing I would recomond (if you dont know it) public choice theory.
Here are some awsome podcasts on the subject: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/public_choice/
There are also podcasts about Mises and many other intressting things on there.
Here are some awsome podcasts on the subject: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/public_choice/
There are also podcasts about Mises and many other intressting things on there.
This guy is the head of the Patent and Trademark Office? I think we can now see where part of the problem resides. "Envy of the world." He's either lying or blind.
I'm not going to lie, the patent office was the last place I expected a "think of the children" argument. And, just like every other time I hear that argument, I immediately feel that I'm being lied to and manipulated for somebody else's gain.
No, I don't think I'll give it a rest. The patent system drives a business model where companies can produce no products, but instead buy patents and sue people. That's a grievance that people should petition redress of. Sorry, Kappos, until that business model isn't profitable, I'm going to keep bitching, in line with my first amendment rights.
In light of this compelling argument, I have changed my stance on software patents. Mission Accomplished, Mr. Kappos!
None of his comments even address the problem of patent trolls. When legitimate tech companies such over patents, the obvious defense is to sue back. There is hope that they will realize the futility of the patent war and either do binding mediation or simply decide the war has to end.
Retaliatory defense doesn't work against trolls, who have nothing to defend. Even if the troll company folds for whatever reason, you can just pass the patents to another shell company and start again.
For the IBM lawyer and others saying that the patent system doesn't need reform because there were patent lawsuits 100 or so years ago, please cite an example of the trolls that Rockefeller, Edison faced.
Retaliatory defense doesn't work against trolls, who have nothing to defend. Even if the troll company folds for whatever reason, you can just pass the patents to another shell company and start again.
For the IBM lawyer and others saying that the patent system doesn't need reform because there were patent lawsuits 100 or so years ago, please cite an example of the trolls that Rockefeller, Edison faced.
I think part of the problem with patents for software is precisely the point that has been made again and again -- software is much closer to mathematics than any other type of patent. If you have a large group of people who are smart and tackling the same software problem, then the nature of the problem itself will often funnel them all toward similar solutions. I mean, there is a thing in software engineering called refinement which is the process of reducing a software requirement specification into working code. In some cases, this can even be done mechanically with CASE tools. Since the optimal code for achieving a particular goal is often a logical (or near logical) necessity of the goal itself, it's hard to see what innovation is really being protected by software patents. It seems to me that where the innovation is actually occurring is in the very act of noticing that a problem needs solving in the first place. But that is not what is patented.
EDIT: Just to clarify my last few sentences. Software patents seem to reward the wrong thing. It seems to me that the innovation occurs in the very act of specifying the requirements for the software. In a sense, the software that best implements the requirement is less a creative invention and more of a discovery. Now, I agree that there should be some kind of reward/prize/compensation for companies that choose to pursue unusual goals but I'm not sure that patents are it. Favorable market position may be reward enough.
EDIT: Just to clarify my last few sentences. Software patents seem to reward the wrong thing. It seems to me that the innovation occurs in the very act of specifying the requirements for the software. In a sense, the software that best implements the requirement is less a creative invention and more of a discovery. Now, I agree that there should be some kind of reward/prize/compensation for companies that choose to pursue unusual goals but I'm not sure that patents are it. Favorable market position may be reward enough.
Historical Patent Activity: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.ht...
From the OP: "The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation," Kappos said. "It's natural and reasonable that innovators would seek to protect their breakthroughs using the patent system."
Or maybe...it is natural to file patents as fast as possible to protect ourselves from an increasingly broken system?
It'd be nice if companies could be restricted on the number of patents they could file per year. Let's say a company with 1-10 people can file 1 patent per year. 11-100 people => 5 patents per year. 101-1000 people => 10 patents per year. 1001-10000 people => 50 patents per year.... Then maybe companies would only file their most important "breakthroughs."
Of course, this system would mean that we would have fewer patent prosecution lawyers, and maybe even fewer examiners.
From the OP: "The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation," Kappos said. "It's natural and reasonable that innovators would seek to protect their breakthroughs using the patent system."
Or maybe...it is natural to file patents as fast as possible to protect ourselves from an increasingly broken system?
It'd be nice if companies could be restricted on the number of patents they could file per year. Let's say a company with 1-10 people can file 1 patent per year. 11-100 people => 5 patents per year. 101-1000 people => 10 patents per year. 1001-10000 people => 50 patents per year.... Then maybe companies would only file their most important "breakthroughs."
Of course, this system would mean that we would have fewer patent prosecution lawyers, and maybe even fewer examiners.
Those who profit from patents will always support them.
The best way to undermine patentability is to publicly disclose the invention in advance, thereby creating prior art that no one can patent.
To me, the simplest solution would be "CantPatentThis.com" where you disclose your ideas/sketches. Think GitHub for ideas, not necessarily working code.
Thoughts?
The best way to undermine patentability is to publicly disclose the invention in advance, thereby creating prior art that no one can patent.
To me, the simplest solution would be "CantPatentThis.com" where you disclose your ideas/sketches. Think GitHub for ideas, not necessarily working code.
Thoughts?
Sure, but it defeats the purpose of what the patent is getting at--rewarding an inventor and innovator for creativity in application of new principles. The whole intent of a patent is to give the holder a monopoly on the technology for a given time period so as to encourage innovation. The other shoe is a trade secret--publishing trade secrets would ensure literally no economic rents to the innovator.
Probably a better set of reforms that would solve a host of problems: * 5 year patent length limit * Nontransferability of patent (can't sell IP, say) * No software patents. If it's written in code, get a copyright.
Probably a better set of reforms that would solve a host of problems: * 5 year patent length limit * Nontransferability of patent (can't sell IP, say) * No software patents. If it's written in code, get a copyright.
There is Halfbakery (http://www.halfbakery.com/editorial/about.html), which I tend to avoid but have occasionally seen in Google search results and/or mentioned in online discussions.
Yeah, software patents should be given a rest - an eternal rest.
> He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken
Innovation happens in spite of the sick patent system. Not because of it. I.e. if not for the system, innovation could have been even faster.
> Indeed, Kappos suggested that the volume of patent litigation in the smartphone industry was a sign that the patent system was working as intended.
This is lunacy. He suggests that the point of the patent system is increased litigation? He should look in the constitution more often.
> He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken
Innovation happens in spite of the sick patent system. Not because of it. I.e. if not for the system, innovation could have been even faster.
> Indeed, Kappos suggested that the volume of patent litigation in the smartphone industry was a sign that the patent system was working as intended.
This is lunacy. He suggests that the point of the patent system is increased litigation? He should look in the constitution more often.
Having been shaken down a few times in business myself, I learned to call this threat "The Sword of Damocles."
To an extent your likelihood of a shakedown is tied to your market share, but not necessarily.
As a rational person your instinct that your work was developed independently and/or earlier or other well-known work is prior art is irrelevant to the parasites because they are not interested in facts, only money. You can only hope they don't try to kill the host.
Without naming names and amounts since settlements are bound by secrecy, I'd like to hear some (hopefully successful) battlefield stories of handling the dreaded troll letters and blind-side lawsuits?
To an extent your likelihood of a shakedown is tied to your market share, but not necessarily.
As a rational person your instinct that your work was developed independently and/or earlier or other well-known work is prior art is irrelevant to the parasites because they are not interested in facts, only money. You can only hope they don't try to kill the host.
Without naming names and amounts since settlements are bound by secrecy, I'd like to hear some (hopefully successful) battlefield stories of handling the dreaded troll letters and blind-side lawsuits?
The money quote, "Rather than engage in this empirical debate, or even acknowledge its existence, Kappos acted as though it was self-evident that stronger patents always create a larger incentive for innovation."
And, of course, we have copious illustrations of how he is wrong (and how he is right). So perhaps we should spend the time to determine if patents "always create a larger incentive for innovation" or not.
And, of course, we have copious illustrations of how he is wrong (and how he is right). So perhaps we should spend the time to determine if patents "always create a larger incentive for innovation" or not.
> do we demand today's innovation on the cheap via a weaker patent system that excludes subject matter, or do we moderate today's consumption with a strong patent system so our children enjoy greater innovations?
Moderate today's consumption, what does that even mean? Save your innovations for the children? No, thank you, I don't want to slow down progress so that your friends can make more money.
Moderate today's consumption, what does that even mean? Save your innovations for the children? No, thank you, I don't want to slow down progress so that your friends can make more money.
He's asserting that the objections to patents are from consumers: Let me have this stuff without paying inventors (patent holders). (This would be bad because it reduces the incentive for innovation).
In my experience, the objections to patents are from innovators: Let me invent without paying people who have been trying to landgrab the intellectual frontier. (This is good because it reduces barriers to innovation).
In my experience, the objections to patents are from innovators: Let me invent without paying people who have been trying to landgrab the intellectual frontier. (This is good because it reduces barriers to innovation).
This is an idea my colleague suggested:
Form an alliance of companies that boycott people who abuse patents. All these companies pool in their patents and form a super patent alliance. Given a large number of patents, anyone who want to fuck around with patents gets black balled from the Super Patent Alliance.
Form an alliance of companies that boycott people who abuse patents. All these companies pool in their patents and form a super patent alliance. Given a large number of patents, anyone who want to fuck around with patents gets black balled from the Super Patent Alliance.
That's how Intellectual Assholes... uh Intellectual Ventures got started. They are now probably the number one patent troll worldwide.
Reminds me of the DEA insisting that it's worth spending billions to 'defend' citizens from marijuana.
[deleted]
Ignorance is bliss... or in his case a massively overpaid job that doesn't need to exist.
What a prick.
What a prick.
Transcript of the actual speech: http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2012/kappos_CAP.jsp
He doesn't seem to understand what's going on or why we're angry.
He doesn't seem to understand what's going on or why we're angry.
He is either corrupt or incompetent (or both).
>"innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.
Nice non-sequitur.
Nice non-sequitur.
Patents are evil. They are simply a way for predatory one percenters and lawyers to steal from society.
Look at the fashion industry. Thriving and innovating, with 0 patents.
Trademarks Yes / Patents No
Look at the fashion industry. Thriving and innovating, with 0 patents.
Trademarks Yes / Patents No
> [Kappos] argued would allow the patent office to weed out low-quality software
I wonder how he would define "low-quality software"
I wonder how he would define "low-quality software"
This sounds to me like he's protecting his own income. The American patent system is the envy of the world. I Loled.
Honestly? Give it a rest? I'd usually try to write a more objective comment, but in this case it's pretty simple.
Not. Bloody. Likely.
Not. Bloody. Likely.
"Our patent system is the envy of the world"
I'd really like to meet the people who sit around envying a patent system. I mean, seriously, how many people can there be that understand patent systems to the detail required to separate the US one out from other first-world nations (since this comment really is a jab at contemporary nations), who then sit around envying it?
I'd really like to meet the people who sit around envying a patent system. I mean, seriously, how many people can there be that understand patent systems to the detail required to separate the US one out from other first-world nations (since this comment really is a jab at contemporary nations), who then sit around envying it?
Well, I guess I know who's part of the problem, then.
Let's get rid of this clown.
The chief is an idiot.
What terrible news.
Metric X is high, therefore disputed policy Y is boosting metric X.
If more people understood the inanity of this line of argument, the world would be a much better place.
The head of the USPTO isn't even willing to have an intellectually honest debate on the subject. It's pretty clear that change is not going to come from within.