Hacker News Reader

Comment by neilsimp1 | Hacker News Reader

I mean, it's unfortunate, but can you blame him?

Here's how I'm inclined to reason about it:

It depends on whether he would consider the filing's "invention" to be within a reasonable definition of what should be patentable.

If yes, then he's just playing his part in our society's overall machinations for technical progress, and there's nothing really blameworthy about the filing.

If no, then he's being deeply selfish: He's capitalizing on the government's unjustified encroachment on our individual liberties, via the patent system, for his own personal gain.

Yes.

Why? I'm genuinely curious why you blame him for patenting his work.

Because it would be nice if someone, somewhere would do the right thing rather than whatever stupid nonsense benefits them personally the most.

It's a dog eat dog world.

Someone like Nils Bohlin and Volvo for the three-point seatbelt patent?

Why is the right thing to do work for no compensation?

It is the right thing when you know that mathematics isn't patentable.

Everything is mathematics from the right perspective.

Because the whole patent system is broken and everyone who partakes in it shares blame.

This is an absolutist position that permits no subtlety. But the patent system is a subtle incentivization which seeks to balance a number of forces (in particular, it incentivizes people to invent new things that they can profit from, while also avoiding trade secrets).

> This is an absolutist position that permits no subtlety.

Where is the problem with such positions?

Simple: you are unlikely to affect any change by taking an absolutist position. Beyond making it look like you're inflexible, patents have extensive pre-existing legal support, so it's really unlikely anybody is going to change their mind just because you feel strongly.

It's better, when you're arguing on the internet, to limit yourself to reasonable arguments that people are receptive to, and working to convince people.

I used to feel very strongly about patents (that they were "wrong") but, over time I've come to believe they are the least unreasonable protection for IP that also encourages long-term sharing. Trade secrets are worse because society as a whole doesn't get to benefit.

If he didn't patent his work someone else will and collect the royalties resulting in 0 additional freedom. There is nothing gained by not playing.

If he publicly discloses it then (theoretically) nobody else can patent it.

If you want to keep others from patenting you work, you need to patent it yourself.

No you just need to publish it, then it becomes prior art.

Would you still feel this way if this was just a run of the mill patent by intel?

Of course.

It's fortunate and we should praise him. I understand backlash against patent trolls, but this is pure bullshit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com