| HN Mirror

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 5427 days ago

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.

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 5427 days ago

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).

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.

wbienek 5427 days ago

Your mixing ip protection with software patents. Avatar is protected by copyright. Nobody disputes the need for that. Even hardware patents are often fine. To "patent" the idea that (and this is one of many examples" ) you can buy something with only "one click" is silly. There are probably patents on filling list boxes, ordering checkboxes in thee columns, goofy crap like that. This is why HN people (many of them programmers like me abhor software patents. )

Patenting a specific very complex algorithm -specifically- might be ok, but general ideas are not.

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

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

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.

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 5427 days ago

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.

Perhaps, but it is entirely pertinent. Many of these pro-patent positions, I suspect, are entirely rooted in the feeling of belonging to a certain community. See Gruber's bizarrely hypocritical piece which mirrors that public sentiment.

I believe that software patents are overwhelmingly farce, whether they support Microsoft in attacking Apple, Apple against Samsung, Samsung against Apple, or any of various IP ventures against App Store developers. It is not a position that varies based upon the actors.

The pro-Apple lobby, however, has a position that essentially holds Apple's patents as legitimate and righteous to enforce, but everyone else's as illegitimate for various reasons. It is farce to criticize lodsys and others for entirely legal IP protections -- as the system supposedly encourages -- while supporting Apple and their like behaviors. Whether a company is open to counter-attacks is irrelevant to the legitimacy of patents.

Virtually everyone who interacts with HN relies upon Linux (for instance as the foundation of their startup). Linux infrgines on countless Microsoft patents. Thus far Microsoft has treaded lightly, but I don't think it's tough to imagine how sentiments would change if they started laying the hammer down, shutting down every cloud host, etc. The simple love of a gadget has many supporting an incredibly dangerous position.

But sentiments are changing. I argue for the exercise of it, but there is no doubt that dramatic software patent changes are coming due.

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

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.

econgeeker 5427 days ago

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!

"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.

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

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

kenjackson 5427 days ago

Multitouch has been around long before 1999.

rimantas 5427 days ago

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