Hacker News Reader

Comment by xirium | Hacker News Reader

Don't bother obsfucating. A good programmer could make equivalent functionality without seeing a line of code. As an example, if you're familiar with a spreadsheet application then you can code the core functionality without reference to the original source. Is your script more complicated than a spreadsheet?

View on HN

actually one part of it is a datasheet and another a form designer like in an IDE. I'm sure a good programmer would be able to re-create them. but they would probably resort to some Ajax kit. I try that and for lots of reasons wouldn't work or would be so heavy that it would become useless. So instead I spend over 3 months (which is a lot for JS) and wrote everything from from scratch. I guess my only hope is that the entire application becomes so good (which is mostly backend stuff) that even if someone has the JS they couldn't create the rest.

I know that everyone ("everyone") hates software patents.

Personally, I don't see what the difference is between patenting something made out of atoms that accomplishes a task in a new way, and patenting something made out of bits or memes that accomplishes a task in a new way.

If (a) you've come up with something new; (b) you're not morally opposed to software patents; (c) you have ~ $5k ; (d) you'll be able to detect infringers ; (e) the infringers will have deep pockets, then a software patent might be the right tool for the job. You can slap "patent pending" on long before the patent is issued, and collect licensing fees from legitimate companies that want to use your technology.

...all of which gets us back to the core point:

What is it that you hope to accomplish by obfuscating / patenting / whatever ?

A moral victory?

A competitive advantage for a few months?

Other?

Your answer to this question will dictate how you proceed.

The problem with patent is that large companies go out and copy what ever they want and then turn around and patent it. I wouldn't mind if some small potato took my code. Of course I wouldn't like it. but.. it would be really painful if a larger company did it. And they do. There is not much inovation with large companies. the good ones buy smaller compaines but some just take what they want. from open source or where ever they get their hands on.

So yes i would be for patent if it wasn't such a bad system where if you have moeny you could patent even things that don't belong to you.

That makes sense. I think you're better off using copyrights than patents. No application process, and typical friendlier court procedures.

With a patent, you need to prove in court that your idea was novel.

With copyrights, you just need to prove that you wrote your code first.

of course it can reverse engineered and of course it can be recreated but why at least not make it a bit harder for them by obsfucating the code. Good programmers wont bother copy your code anyway. Its those who will try to copy your code byte by byte you wont to discourage and obsfuctating is a good obstacle for these people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com