Hacker News Reader

Comment by kuschku | Hacker News Reader

> This is going in circles. You cannot patent something without disclosing it. So, either Qualcomm has a patent, and it isn't secret, or they don't have a patent (nor can they ever, after 18 months) and the argument is moot.

Yes, but then software patents should require you to release a full reference implementation with full documentation under a free (BSD, MIT) license as soon as the patent runs out.

View on HN

If we were going to enforce the same transparency that non-software patents give then they'd release the full reference implementation right in the patent.

Exactly — but for all practical measures, it does not differ if they release it in the patent, or only when the patent runs out.

Currently, they don't release it at all.

Additional regulation I'd like to see: Any neural networks trained based on data of users have to be completely public domain. If Google wishes to train recaptcha, they should either pay for people to train it, or give back to the public the value that the public created.

It does matter, because if the publish it in the patent I can start planning to build something with years before the patent expires, or time improvements I make on it for that expiration.

This to me is the sticking point. The biggest benefit to society for patents is: you get the formula (but can only use it once the patent expires). I would imagine that no one short of lawyers has ever bothered to read expired software patents. They are literal drivel and until they are useful to have disclosed, they should probably not be patentable, in my opinion.

patents should require you to release a full reference implementation with full documentation under a free (BSD, MIT) license as soon as the patent runs out

Why not as soon as the patent is granted?

Because that bill would be even less likely to pass?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com