[FpUser]

I think that the patents in it's current state (in the US at least and in the software area in particular) are outlived their usefulness. It was an artificial construct to begin with with the goal that small people can invent things and rip some benefits. Now it is a large scale tactical and strategic weapon amassed by large corporations. If followed to the letter small person/company can not do f..k all without breaking some obscure patent's clause. If enforced to the letter the players that are not big enough would not be able to create any meaningful software. And the cost of filing a patent has risen to the point that small person can not really get meaningful patent (speaking from personal experience of trying to get not software related patent in the US).

[pnw_hazor]

Welcome to the big leagues. Patents are big part of every mature industry. Software isn't special.

You should see how fierce the patent wars are in the automobile industry, medical devices, electronics, materials science, adhesives, brake pads, throttle cables, fasteners, tooling, construction/building materials, to name a few.

[type0]

> Software isn't special.

The difference is that software is special compared to electronics, chemistry etc etc You can't be vague in those fields but in software implementations you can as much as you want. Maybe we should start issuing patents in hairdressing as well.

[pnw_hazor]

You need enough definiteness in a disclosure to enable someone of ordinary skill in the art make the invention.

The specific data structures, programming languages, program/application architecture, are generally unimportant (unless they are the invention).

Gadget patents are the same way. They don't have to claim particular fasteners, coatings, materials, dimensions, or the like, unless they are necessary for the invention.

[FpUser]

I do not want into "big leagues". I said that the patent system no longer serves its original purpose and it is virtually impossible to write any meaningful piece of software without violating some patent.

[bdowling]

> impossible to write any meaningful piece of software without violating some patent.

Even if that were true, the existence of a patent shouldn't necessarily stop someone from infringing that patent. If a startup infringes someone else's patent and makes a profitable business doing so, then they have access to enough money to either fight the validity of the patent or pay a royalty. If the patentee is a non-practicing entity, then it would usually rather have some royalties than fight a lawsuit challenging validity, so there should be plenty of room to negotiate. If the patentee is a large company that wants to exclude competitors and refuses to license, the startup may have patents on improvements that the it could use as leverage in addition to the threat of a lawsuit. Such a dispute might end with an acquisition, which might be a nice exit for the startup.

The exception to this strategy would be patents that are likely difficult to challenge (e.g., foundational patents on new technologies or some drug or chemical patents). Most patents (including software patents) don't fall into that category.

[bdowling]

> the existence of a patent shouldn't necessarily stop someone from infringing that patent

I should clarify that I'm not suggesting that anyone knowingly and willfully infringe any patent, because there may be liability for doing so. I'm only suggesting that some entrepreneurs worry about possible infringement far more than they should.