Ask YC: Why is everyone so negative about patents? | Hacker News Reader

Ask YC: Why is everyone so negative about patents?

4 pointsmixmax12 comments

It appears that everyone in the tech and startup industries have a very negative attitude towards patents, why is this?

As I see it patents are nothing but good for startups. If you have one you have some sort of defense against being run over by others stealing your unique technology. And noone sues a startup based on patent infringement knowing that there is probably not a lot of money to be made if the case is won.

Besides VC's love patents.

So why exactly are patents so evil?

View on HN

Probably the best argument against software patents is the way they are implemented. The patent office is doing a horrible job at determining which patents to grant.

Just look at Amazon's one click patent, or at the thousands of patents granted to patent trolls for things like "lists of media that are customized to a specific user". I kid you not, the last company I worked at was being sued for presenting users with song recommendations because it violated a patent on "customized lists".

The other major issue I see is that software companies don't care about patents. Very few patents are enforced by large companies, because its not worth it. Not to mention, you can't do basically anything anymore without infringing on someone's patent. They've become a sort of mutually assured destruction mechanism that companies build up with the pretext of being able to counter sue anyone who sues them.

The patent office is doing a horrible job at determining which patents to grant.

Absolutely. I've seen lots of good software patents -- patents which are inventive, useful, and benefit the world by being published. The patent which covers rsync is a perfect example -- anything which is worth half of a PhD thesis when it is rediscovered a few years later certainly qualifies as "novel" in my opinion.

I've also seen a lot of very bad patents -- patents which cover "inventions" which were already well known in the field, patents which take a well-understood practice and add a formulaic "over the internet", patents which are written in such a manner as to not actually disclose anything about the invention being patented, et cetera.

The patent system needs to be reformed so as to stop granting so many bad patents; but I absolutely believe that software patents could be a net positive if they were implemented properly.

"The patent office is doing a horrible job at determining which patents to grant."

This could also be because, as Charles Duell, the head of the Patent Office pointed out at the end of the 19th century, "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

...

Okay, so the internet is now telling my that that's probably apocryphal, (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/22779.html)but it still makes for an amusing quote. And I'm not one to let reality get in the way of humor. :-P

In areas where patents are the norm (not web 2.0), they have dramatically raised the cost of doing the business.

Also, on the topic of patents, did the USA switch to first a file? I was unclear if that actually ended up being part of the recent patent reform.

http://philip.greenspun.com/business/internet-software-paten...

...sums up a big part of the problem.

The USPTO is backed up by several years. Even if you have a cookie cutter patent application, it will take several years before it is issued. It also commits you towards a product/strategy direction when it may be better to not file, and stay flexible.

Software intellectual property is typically protected by trade secret rather than patents.

> It also commits you towards a product/strategy direction when it may be better to not file, and stay flexible.

No, it doesn't. Filing a patent application doesn't obligate you to practice it.

Trademarks are use it or lose it.

you're right that there is no specific obligation. however, if you spend $20k+ and several years of partial mindshare on a specific technology, you're much more committed and thus less flexible.

trade secret and trademarks are two different things.

Postgres ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=109387 ) and MySQL ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=118791 ) would both run faster if they didn't avoid patented methods.

This alone doesn't make a very good argument, unless you're arguing against any sort of protected intellectual property.

I mean Ford's cars might get better gas mileage if they didn't have to avoid patents by Toyota. Project Gutenberg would have a lot more free books if they didn't avoid copyrighted works.

I think the poster was looking for solid flaws in the system regarding software. For example, the frivolous nature of things like 1-click (though I think Amazon has had a hard time keeping that from being attacked right and left).

Because the costs of software patents outweigh the benefits. I think that the equation is different for other fields (biotech, for instance) though.

patents are fine for some industries but for software they do more harm than good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com