Hacker News Reader

"Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter. People will buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but his name that matters."

How do you know this is cause and not effect? The adaptation of the system to not having government monopolies may have been to go to a name-based reputation system.

It certainly seems to me this would work for software, probably even better than it does for fashion. Arguably it already does.

" What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less?"

Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any evidence that it actually works that way? I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on a patented product where they get a lot of protection that works; I do see a lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on.

Goals aren't results. You've stated the goals of the system, but really, who cares what the goals are? What matters are the effects. The effects in reality do not seem to be a net positive for the "little guys", who can't afford the patent process in the first place, especially now that turnaround time is measured in years. In fact the horrible outcome you describe in a world without patents seems rather similar to what actually happens in this one.... the little guys won't be able to afford the lawyers, and everybody in the system knows it.

> It certainly seems to me this would work for software, probably even better than it does for fashion. Arguably it already does.

Yes, it would work better for software! I'm unsure why you and my other interlocutor considered this an interesting point to make: my post is clear that I believe software patents should be abolished, but not all patents.

> Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any evidence that it actually works that way?

Yes. The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim.

> I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on a patented product where they get a lot of protection that works;

Sure you do. Segway is one. Many of the products by Dyson would be others.

> I do see a lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on.

Please, by all means, provide examples.

> The effects in reality do not seem to be a net positive for the "little guys", who can't afford the patent process in the first place

Tell that to James Dyson or Dean Kamen.

Isn't Segway protected by its uselessness rather than a patent?

Edit: if you believe that Segway's lack of success meant nothing, and that many companies want to build and sell self-balancing scooters but the patent system is stopping them, you should argue that point and downvote, not just downvote. I'm annoyed.

> I'm annoyed.

Rightfully so.

Downvotes aside, it seems the segway has it's dedicated fans.

I think the biggest thing that's wrong with it was the way it was launched, not the article per se.

DEKA is a strange duck. They have some genuinely brilliant people there, working on some genuinely revolutionary inventions -- but they just can't seem to actually bring them to market. Or, they're not interested in bringing them to market.

I've never seen one of their wheelchairs; I've seen some Segways, but they remain more a curiosity and spectacle than a common device; I've yet to hear of the Stirling engine / water purifier being deployed anywhere; and their cybernetics for amputees don't seem to be getting beyond experimental.

I really don't "get" them. The best I can figure is that everyone (influential) there is happy just to be working on these puzzles, and they don't really care if anyone uses them or not.

Honestly, I think you deserved your downvotes. The segway is clearly not useless; the market has shown that. Just because something isn't a runaway success doesn't mean it wasn't a success.

> The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim.

The logic of that is not right.

The presence of both patents and innovations does not prove that innovation depends on patents. It only proves the sort-of negative: if both patents and innovation exists, then patents do not imply the absence of innovation -- i.e. patents do not completely destroy innovation.

Various other things help innovation happen. And I expect more detailed evidence shows them to be the important factors -- that is the gist of Boldrin and Levine's work, so that is probably a good source to pursue on the matter.

Louis Vutton's name _is_ a government monopoly, and they've sued everyone from Britney Spears to Darfur charities to protect it; they even boast about how aggressively they protect their IP on their website. http://www.louisvuitton.com/info/fake/index.html

Problem is that people buy Louis Vutton bags as a sign of conspicuous consumption whereas ACME's expensive and ingenious widget is a commodity, so government protection on the name alone would be insufficient.

I can think of a ton of ways to make money with a time machine that don't involve selling it.

Sure, you go back and file a bunch of patents

http://www.cheapass.com/products/boardgames/cag034.html

> Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter.

Have you heard "nobody got fired for buying from IBM"?

> What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less?

How does it change with patents? They produce and patent a prototype. "a large company" starts making their own copy. If the guys sue from their garage, the "large company" sends in their own lobbyists and 1k$/h lawyers - the garage guys lose.

"Van man 1, Microsoft 0"

  The Australian inventor whose company, Uniloc, 
  was awarded $US388 million

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/van-man-1-m...

Oh... so this guy basically patented the evil method of associating registration code with specific hardware configuration. But he should have used it for good and sayd: "No Microsoft, I will not allow you to use this technology at all."

IMHO it would be a good idea to patent all evil business practices and then disallow companies to use them :)

Like patenting the patent trolling? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/10/halliburton_patent/

The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent inventors to advance human knowledge.

It would make it easier for them, since there's no legally-privileged cartel locking them out.

What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less?

Because building things is fun, and because they get to use whatever they build. And because it takes time for the larger companies to copy them.

The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.

Everything in life eventually boils down to math and/or thinking. What makes math special is how very clearly the fact of "standing on the shoulders of giants" is recognized, but this pattern applies just as well to everything else. What makes business process special is how clearly unjust it would be to tell people they can't use their own thoughts, but of course all other inventions are just as much people's thoughts.

The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent inventors to advance human knowledge. What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less?

It's much, much more complicated than that.

Some large companies are bureaucracy with poor incentive structures. So innovative tech passes by them. Their size also slow them down a lot even when they want to adopt the new tech. They cannot focus as intensively as a small corporation can.

Beside, not everybody will necessary see the usefulness of inventions. That where entrepreneurs come in. They risk their money, invent better marketing techniques, make it cheap and efficient, and so on. Inventors do important jobs, sure. But who will market the inventions and risk capitals and so on?

Makerbot Inc is making lot of money with open hardware while also doing some R&D to improve their products. They're making it big without patents. Arguably, patents would actually impedes the growth of small hacker enterprise like Makerbot Inc.

The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.

Have you ever look at the history of patents and their economic consequences? Patents doesn't disclose secrets or whatever consequences you imagine. It shift technological research from secretive inventions to easily reverse engineered inventions, but doesn't increase them. They are more deadweight costs rather than incentive.

Patents are the problem. However, nobody ever brother to look into the history of patents, much less question their assumption.

If I had built a working time machine in my garage, I'm pretty sure mass production would not be my next step.

>Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter.

How does this not apply? How about AutoDesk, Apple, HP, Dell, Sony Vaio? All those names create a different and unique mental image and perception. The name matters just as much in software as in fashion. And are you actually referring to the movie Primer as evidence?

> How does this not apply? How about AutoDesk, Apple, HP, Dell, Sony Vaio? All those names create a different and unique mental image and perception. The name matters just as much in software as in fashion.

And in the world I propose where software patents don't exist, it would matter even more. But the GGP didn't talk about banning software patents, he talked about banning all patents. If you must respond, please try to respond to the actual thrust of my argument.

> And are you actually referring to the movie Primer as evidence?

I made an allusion to it in a fictional example to illustrate a point. You sound like you're itching to argue for some reason.

The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent inventors to advance human knowledge.

Pull the other one. It has a bell attached!