[econgeeker]

I have yet to hear an anti-patent argument that wasn't just repetition of the "patents are wrong" ideology.

I'm actually neutral on patents in the sense of "what would be best in an ideal world". But the bottom line is this- my work is not free unless I choose to donate it. Thus in exchange for giving you my work, I'm going to require a license. If you steal it, you've stolen it, just as if you stole a car.

But wait-- if you steal my car I don't have it anymore, you say, but if you steal my technology, I still have it, you say.

And yes, that's true, but it is irrelevant. If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property. It isn't that technology can be replicated-- after all, I don't hear you saying software shouldn't be copyrighted or sold-- it is whether you can get your copy without paying me for my work or not.

Just because software or a patent can be replicated, doesn't mean it isn't property and isn't valuable.

Am I knocking down a straw man? Well, you didn't actually make any argument-- you just disparaged people who have a different point of view. So, that forced me to guess what your argument was, and then respond.

I do this so you understand that I am capable of making an argument... I just find the anti-patent people rarely give actual arguments to rebut.

[maggit]

I suspect you are conflating the copyright/anti-copyright issue with the patent/anti-patent issue.

I don't know what "patents are wrong" ideology you refer to. The arguments I see against patents over and over are concrete examples of small companies coming into trouble because they did something obvious, and do not have the legal and financial muscle to handle it, to for example have the patent invalidated because it is on something obvious.

Patents are supposed to help small actors fight big ones, not the other way around. Software patents have come into a bad light because they frequently do the latter.

[coffeeaddicted]

You mix up patents and copyright. You are right with copyright - I copy your code, I know I do that and that's why I'm ok with copyright protection. With patents people don't steal it - they don't even know you own it in most cases. Because software development would grind to a full-stop if you had to check every time you code something for all possible patent violations. Even lawyers have a hard time figuring out which code breaks which patents - software developers simply have no chance doing that on their own anymore. Patents are the wrong protection scheme for software for the same reason they are wrong for example for protecting book authors (imagine "Happy Ends" or similar ideas would be patented...).

[kelnos]

If you want my technology enough to steal it, then my technology has value, and it is property, just as anything else I might build with my own hands is property.

Perhaps, but the market for this technology is completely inelastic. Regardless of the money/effort/time required to develop this technology, you get the exact same monopoly guarantee in the form of the patent. And you can charge whatever you want for a license, even if that price is entirely unreasonable. You can even be discriminatory, and charge different people different amounts. Or, worse, you can refuse to license to some people, or to everyone.

For a technology that took significant money/effort/time to develop, I can agree with patent protection. But most software patents are comparatively trivial.

[Terretta]

For a technology that took significant money/effort/time to develop, I can agree with patent protection.

An odd position, as it penalizes the thoughtfully elegant lateral thinking solution, which is arguably harder to do.

[kelnos]

Does it? If you can come up with the idea -- lateral thinking or not -- in a couple hours, then any number of other people could do so too. In that sense I don't find the idea "valuable" enough to warrant strong patent protection.

Patents are an economic tool, not an "I'm clever so I should get paid" tool. The point is to help people push aside concerns about time and money when developing a new idea. Because if a competitor of equal skill can duplicate your work in a fraction of the time, just because they have access to the results of your R&D, that's a strong incentive not to even bother in the first place. So it's about time and money, not about smart thinking or elegance.

(Regarding patents in general, even this argument falls apart a little bit for me. I think trade secret law is sufficient in many cases where patents are traditionally used.)

[hn_decay]

Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on trivial, obvious, or inevitable "inventions". Your position on multitouch alone is a perfect example, really -- they didn't invent the hardware, didn't make the first implementation, and it had been predicted by mainstream media a decade in advance, but because Apple had the foresight to patent it first (even Microsoft Surface has years on Apple)...invention. Hardly.

There are novel software implementations. That applies to vanishingly few software patents.

[Steko]

Apple didn't patent anything first, they bought the inventor and paid him.

Go ask the guy who made fingerworks whether he is better off with Apple paying him or if Google had just ripped his shit off.

[ZeroGravitas]

I'd rather ask society if they're better off, because that is the argument that you're trying to make isn't it? That patents are a good idea, not that they're a system that it's easy for individuals to game for financial reward.

[Steko]

That's not an easy question. The alternative to patents is either less innovation (see countries with weak IP protection) or massive secrecy.

I don't see either of those as particularly compelling alternatives. Patents need some major reforms but not abolishing.

[nitrogen]

The alternative to patents is either less innovation (see countries with weak IP protection) or massive secrecy.

I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that weak IP protection leads to less innovation. I'd argue that it's equally as likely that the causation is reversed; that is, countries that do more innovating will eventually have stronger IP protection, whether the actual innovators want it or not.

Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. Patent language rarely discloses any information that would be of use to a software developer. Software developers almost never read patents when implementing their own systems, with a few notable exceptions (such as the case where someone wants to implement a well-known patented algorithm).

[Steko]

I think it's trivial to say that weak IP protection would lead to less innovation with simple counterfactuals.

Let's go back a few years and remove all IP protections for media. Does Avatar still get a half billion dollar budget to get made?

"Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. "

This is just arguing degrees. Whatever it's at now, I think the alternative is far more massive secrecy then currently.

[hn_decay]

"Apple didn't patent anything first, they bought the inventor and paid him."

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Se...

[Steko]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other then to distract from the fact that your prior art argument has been torn to shreds repeatedly.

[hn_decay]

Are you always such a boring fanboy?

THAT is the Apple multitouch patent that the industry holds as fearsome. No one gives a shit about the Fingertouch patents.

[panacea]

hn_decay... Regardless of the validity of your comments, you just played the "fanboy"/'Godwin' card. That's a virtual mutually assured destruction move. You won and lost and the debate is now a fallout zone.

[Steko]

Do you always resort to namecalling? Oh wait I guess you do...

P.s. we're talking about prior art for multitouch, the Fingerworks patents seem far more relevant than your hardon for Minority Report and Microsoft Surface.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...

[econgeeker]

Right, you can't argue the facts so just be disparaging. The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008, not "years" before Apple showed the iPhone.

You're absolutely uninformed about even the basic facts or timeline, yet you're happy to make broad assertions and engage in attacks to the person. Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you.

Have a nice day!

[hn_decay]

"The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008"

Surface was unveiled in 2007, with the final hardware design being completed two years prior. The project itself started based upon, humorously, Minority Report.

"Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you."

Yeah you've said that a couple of times now. Kind of funny, really.

[Steko]

Figerworks patents: 1999 to 2005. Keep citing MS Surface like it's relevant.

[kenjackson]

Multitouch has been around long before 1999.

http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

[rimantas]

iPhone was introduced in 2007. According to Jobs it took 2.5 years to develop.