[neatze]

To me context of software patents; is like patenting a how to use hummer, and not novel innovation of hummer design. More simpler analogy can be applied to wheels, imagine patent where wheels cannot be turned left on any vehicle, because of patent. In context of wheel, I have no issue if someone invents and patents better rubber type and production technology, but patenting how rubber generally can be used on the wheel is simply wrong, it has not benefit to society/humanity.

[Gigachad]

I personally think patents should only apply to significant investments. Anything that could be mostly explained in an elevator trip should not be patentable.

Rounded corners should not be patentable. The latest ARM core design should be.

[touisteur]

But what if what you invent is deeply simple, after you've worked out everything and spent years simplifying? What if it is 10 lines of code but it solves a big industry-wise prod or exploitation problem? The concept might be simple but might necessitate years of effort to find and validate?

After reading constant praise about simplicity here on HN it always sound like cognitive dissonance to then read when patents are mentioned that something 'simple' should not be protected.

[ootsootsoots]

Patents, trademark, and copyright pretty clearly serve to empower the aristocrats.

A good idea will win on its merits or fail.

Legal ownership of ideas just tether us to paying Disney and Google’s of the world in perpetuity as they buy everything up.

We basically live in a state sanctioned system of quota and expropriation of effort. It’s not violent like the USSR, so we look beyond it.

And we spend a lot of energy policing it all.

[aidenn0]

If someone were to patent an analogue circuit, would the software implementation of the same circuit on a DSP be patentable?

[orangepurple]

Hold my beer for a minute while I patent the idea of reproducing analogue circuits with a software implementation of the same circuit on a DSP.