Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Paul Graham on Patents

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the stuff-to-read dept.

volts writes "The always interesting Paul Graham has a new essay, 'Are Software Patents Evil?'. "A few weeks ago I found to my surprise that I'd been granted four patents. This was all the more surprising because I'd only applied for three...""

5 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Patents are not what they are supposed to be. by IntelliAdmin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its funny. The founding fathers of the USA wanted to have a patent system to protect the little guy. The little inventor that creates a new and novel item. That way a big bad company cannot steal it from him, and he never makes a dime. Now it seems that it is just used by slimy lawyers to use patents as part of an extortion scheme to shake down big companies. Alternatively a way for big companies to keep anyone from ever entering their territory. The sad part is I think it will only get worse - not better.

    1. Re:Patents are not what they are supposed to be. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The founding fathers of the USA wanted to have a patent system to protect the little guy.

      I don't think that they had "protecting" anybody in mind. What they really wanted to do was to entice people to publish their trade secrets so that their innovations wouldn't be lost to the public when the inventors died. Perhaps unfortunately, the chosen means to this end was by granting time-limited monopolies.

      The problem is that the enticement part has become the all-consuming focus of the patent process, rather than the disclosure of useful trade secrets part. Now a lot of people think that patents are a form of property right a sacred as the rights to their favorite pillow, and the patents themselves most often have obfuscated claims that reveal little if anything that isn't obvious from a quick look at the protected products themselves. They extrapolate from the "protection" side effect of the way patents were implemented and mistakenly assume that that was the primary goal all along.

      The inventor now gets far more than the original intended benefits (because he can now often shake down a large company for the profits to all of their business), without having to give up much of anything in return. Much like agricultural market subsidies, patents have become little more than a wasteful government entitlement program.

  2. Yes by pieterh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are.

    It does not take a long essay to answer this.

    And BTW, Paul Graham is wrong when he says, "if you are against software patents, you are against all patents".

    All patents have the potential for evil. But software patents are guaranteed to do evil.

    Question: why are there so few new software standards coming out and why do they take so much longer to produce? Answer: because every new software standard is a recipe for patent ambush. Implemented, use it, or use products based on it, and you will, if you make money, be sued.

    Yes, software patents are evil because in the name of promoting innovation in a field, they actively destroy it.

    --
    My blog
  3. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If software were really no different from physical systems, 99% of software patents would be invalid because they consist solely of obvious (indeed, pre-existing) inventions with the words "using a computer".

    How is the one-click patent not invalidated by the prior art of millions of human shopping experiences in which a customer says "One of those please", or a vending machine in which every item has its own button? Nobody would allow a patent on a type of vending machine based on how many times you have to push a button.

    And if a one-push vending machine would not be patentable, why is a one-push webpage?

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  4. Breath of fresh air by bsandersen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My first reaction to the (lengthy) article was simply, "it is a breath of fresh air to read something thoughtful and insightful on software patents." As part of full disclosure here, I should mention that I have one (6,865,655) and participated in the arcane and sometime frustrating process. That said, the author's point that "fixing" the system might not be the right thing to do, either gave me pause. He might have a point.

    After participating in several start-ups, I can also attest that the number of patents held directly affects your valuation. The author alludes to this, "A patent seems to change the balance. It gives the acquirer an excuse to admit they couldn't copy what you're doing. It may also help them to grasp what's special about your technology." Right or wrong, it is one of the external measurements made by business today of a start-up's worth.

    Software is the most complicated thing man has ever created. It isn't surprising that the Patent Office struggles. The question is, as software professionals, will we choose to help or just stand by like "art critics"? Software engineers usually see a bad system and want to immediately "chuck it", re-write it, and go again. We can't do that here. We need to do the thing we all hate most: on-going maintenance. We could help if we engage and participate. Perhaps more thoughtful discourse like this will help us get started. My 2-cents.