[yccs27]

Ignoring the HN-pleasing "Patents are horrible" (to which I agree btw), the patents are very specifically about the opposite of independent volume control: They are about setting up groups of speakers which can be controlled together.

[akersten]

Sure. Replace "independently" with "dependently" in my comment. That distinction changes nothing about the novelty of such a system.

The volume knob on your stereo from 1960 controls both the left and right speaker volume, at the same time. Woah.

[yccs27]

Sorry for having "someone is slightly wrong on the internet" syndrome, of course it does not change your point about an overly broad patent.

[DangitBobby]

How could such a simple and obvious concept be patented?

[throwawayboise]

Yes, I think there is value in the patent system but the concept of what qualifies as "novel" and "non-obvious" seems to be way off.

[bborud]

The patent system is, if you strip off all the fluff, a mechanism for ensuring that inventions are communicated to a larger audience. At least that was the original intent.

And then the world changed. A lot.

It is easy to forget that because we live in a time where this has ceased to be a problem. There is no lack of invention and creativity. Those who invent things have trivial access to communicating their idea to a global audience. Inventing something and then not communicating it one way or another isn't that common anymore. And if you make something and try to keep the secret sauce secret, there has never been a time where we collectively have been better at rapidly reverse engineering or re-inventing.

I think patents provide no value to society. And I've spent a lot of time thinking about this for a handful of areas. Including software and pharmaceuticals. It started with me thinking patents were a good idea - and then someone asked me questions that didn't have easy answers that could easily shown to be unambiguously true.

I've spent time discussing with people who were involved in designing new, patented drugs, and when you bore right down into it the argument tends to boil down to "patents are important because much of how the industry works is tied to how patents work".

You end up in circular arguments.

Yes, the economy of drugs would change if there were no patents. For the most part, that would be highly desirable. Not least because it would tie up a lot less money in work that produces few to no benefits for public health. Like developing new patentable versions of high volume drugs without actually making any progress in a medical sense. And it would be nice if we could reallocate resources to invest more in developing the kinds of drugs that are highly unattractive today, but are critically important. Like antibiotics. Or drugs that affect predominantly poor people in developing economies.

Sure, it provides value to those who have patents AND, much more importantly, the funds required to defend them. Patents protect incumbents - not the underdog challenger. Let's at least be mature enough to admit that. And if you are not a well funded corporation and you think your patents protect you from well funded parties who want to use your IPR, you are, at best mistaken.

I doubt the patent system has societal value. But I also doubt that this is something we can get rid of. Because monied incumbents are the only ones who stand to lose. And they own the politicians.