TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Software Patents Have Got to Go

103 点作者 bakbak超过 14 年前

9 条评论

iwwr超过 14 年前
Not just software patents, but intellectual "property" in general.<p>Boldrin &#38; Levine: "Against Intellectual Monopoly" <a href="http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm</a>
评论 #2052305 未加载
评论 #2052461 未加载
评论 #2052417 未加载
tgflynn超过 14 年前
US patent law (as well as copyright law) derives from Article I section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."<p>The question is do patents actually promote the progress of science and technology ? I suspect that they do not because while they create additional monetary incentives to pursue innovation at the same time they restrict the free flow of ideas which is the driving force behind scientific and technical progress.<p>The free exchange and use of information is probably the source of the exponential progress in "information technologies" that Ray Kurzweil has discovered. It seems likely that impediments to the exchange and use of information, such as patents, can only reduce the rate of exponential growth.<p>Perhaps if patents had never existed our technology would be far more advanced than it currently is.<p>If it were ever possible to prove conclusively that patents impede rather than promote progress, they would become unconstitutional in the US.
评论 #2053309 未加载
评论 #2052731 未加载
cletus超过 14 年前
This isn't anything new. Pretty much anyone who knows anything about software is against software patents except for a few with a vested interest.<p>The patent system was originally created to protect investment and foster innovation by providing exclusivity but requiring disclosure to further research by others and of course there is a time limit.<p>The problem is that ideas (which is what software patents and business models come down to) have next to no cost (unlike, say, new drugs that have substantial R&#38;D costs, trials, etc).<p>Lawyers have gotten very good at perverting this system [1]. I remember reading about Intel's system bus (I think in relation to Nvidia producing chipsets without a license). Basically parts of the system were patented, some copyrighted and the rest was a trade secret. Combined it meant Intel basically didn't have to disclose anything but could still go after those who reverse engineer.<p>Once I used to support pharma-patents but I'm changing my mind on even that. I believe the high cost of health care in the US is in large part to the protections and monopolies suppliers have. The counterargument is that many of these things wouldn't exist without these protections but I think the pendulum has swung too far.<p>Something like two-thirds of the budget for a new drug goes on marketing [2].<p>Worse, we're starting to see copyright trolls [3] who are basically producing reams of crap in the hopes that someone inadvertently infringes on that so they can be sued.<p>So IP is horribly broken, not just for software.<p>[1]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Overlap_with_copyright" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Overlap_with_co...</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing</a><p>[3]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll</a>
评论 #2052772 未加载
评论 #2052735 未加载
Synaesthesia超过 14 年前
The instant I saw it was John Dvorak I closed the tab.
评论 #2052219 未加载
评论 #2052159 未加载
评论 #2052436 未加载
tkeller超过 14 年前
&#62; Basically, Allen got an omnibus patent that covers all these characteristics<p>No. He didn't. And regardless of whether software patents need to go, ignorant media coverage certainly needs to go.
评论 #2052391 未加载
评论 #2052528 未加载
dean超过 14 年前
It's depressing to see a respected and influential software industry icon resorting to patent trolling like this. I expect it from lawyers and corporate-raider types, but was surprised to see Paul Allen doing it.<p>To cherry pick a quote from Dvorak's article: Paul Allen says he has a patent for a "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information...".<p>On the other hand, corporations love a monopoly, and I guess Paul Allen wants to be involved in another one.
评论 #2052332 未加载
Jach超过 14 年前
I flagged this since we don't need a new one of these articles every day...
EGreg超过 14 年前
Now that's what I'm talking about!<p>Patents were originally intended to encourage investors in a time when bringing a product to market could take years.<p>In the software industry, that assumption is, to put it mildly, totally off. Therefore, in the software industry, granting someone a 17 year monopoly on an idea just encourages another, destructive type of strategy that hurts the entire industry: PATENT TROLLING.<p>Seriously, it is a legal strategy to describe something to the government, wait a few years and then go after the people who actually BUILT IT (even if they came up with it independently, as long as they can't prove they came up with it before you described it in a patent application).<p>That's BULL CRAP. You didn't do anything except write some paper. If you're good at it, you don't even need a lawyer. And you get to collect money from the hard work of others.<p>On the other hand, I feel that if you DID write a patent, AND you tried to make it work, AND you are succeeding, you SHOULD be able to prevent your competitors from just copying what you did. But not for 17 years. For two years at most!<p>It is in this latter sense that the patent system is great. I'd get a provisional patent over an NDA anyday. Because it's more legally enforceable. Say a company meets with me and I tell them the idea. First of all I don't have to require them to sign any NDA. Secondly, suppose they say, "nice idea, we are going to do it ourselves". I can tell them, "I have a provisional patent, and I will sue your ass in 2 years." Or I can tell them NOTHING, go ahead and convert it to a real patent (probably $5k out of my pocket) and go sue them 2 years later. Not 17 years later.<p>This, I don't mind. They wanted to screw me by stealing my idea, they got burned. This will encourage companies to NOT screw individual investors and actually decide if they want to wait 3 years before making this, or work with the inventor.<p>With NDAs, there is no way to prove anything. I spoke to Bobby, and they signed an NDA. Then, Charlie Inc. comes out with my product. I didn't make Charlie, Inc. sign anything, and Bobby doesn't have the $5 million dollars to pay me, and I can't prove he told anything to Charlie, Inc. OOPS.<p>That's what software patents should protect against. That's it. They currently do, but we don't need 17 years of that kind of protection!
maeon3超过 14 年前
Software Patents should be allowed, however the rules on them need to be heavily modified so that the real spirit of the patent can reward resourceful hard working innovators.<p>Patents were meant to protect programmer, however since programmers tend to work for big businesses and the big businesses absorb all the rights to the code, the software patent is only protecting businesses. I propose a change.<p>Software patents should have timeouts that increase and decrease depending on the amount of genuine innovative breakthrough contained in the code. If I make a new website that does something people like that never has been done before, then I get so many cents for anyone else using it for so many weeks (something like this would need to be strictly enforced).<p>Now suppose some programmer created a new bit of software that takes Human DNA as input and outputs a list of instructions on how to reverse aging on that version of the human genome. In this case the software patent would be Longer, with more of a payoff for others who copied it and used it inside the time frame.<p>Software Patenting isn't evil, it was meant to protect US, the programmers, it is just a completely broken system so that it isn't helping at all.
评论 #2052394 未加载
评论 #2052402 未加载