Ask HN: What are some examples of software patents used for good? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: What are some examples of software patents used for good?

44 pointsDysiode50 comments

In light of all the cross suing, most recently the Apple/HTC lawsuits, and stuff like Lodsys' trolling app developers it's hard to imagine software patents being more than tools for greedy companies.

In the interest of not falling prey to sensationalism I wanted to find out if there's more to the story than just "software patents are evil."

View on HN

One positive example I can think of is that Stanford's computer-music research center, CCRMA, was funded for years from the royalties they got by licensing synthesis techniques they invented to synthesizer companies like Yamaha. In that case, the incentives seem to roughly line up as intended: significant new computational technique was invented and patented, and researchers who did so get royalties to fund more research in the area.

Though even there, it mostly looks good if you look at the patents with a higher bar for innovativeness. Inventing something like FM synthesis entirely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation_synthesis) is a bit different from patenting the Nth variation on some well-known synthesis algorithm.

I think a problem with this kind of question is that it requires thinking about counterfactuals. You can't say "this patent is good" without thinking about what would have happened if it had not been granted.

MP3?

It allowed the Fraunhofer Institute to capitalize on their audio research.

Whether that is good or bad is debatable, but at least it's no trivial patent.

Indeed, the MP3 patents and a small number of similar ones are the only good examples of nontrivial software patents. They are, sadly, a tiny fraction of all software patents.

Regarding whether the MP3 patents were a good thing or not, that is as you say debatable. It made developing the technology profitable, but it also created barriers to interoperability - for example, it is problematic for open source operating systems to support MP3s, and they are forced to do various workarounds of dubious legality. Compare this to the situation on the Web: Anyone can write a web browser, without having to pay anyone else.

Well my first encounter with software patents was with the Diffie-Hellman and RSA patents. Followed promptly by the Lempel-Ziv compression patent and then the MP3 patent. Can't say that I enjoyed any of those encounters :-)

I bought a new pair of wireless headphones a few months ago. I'd always heard that wireless audio was a really dumb idea because of the sound quality, but I really wanted to get rid of that cable.

After some research, I discovered that there's a particular Bluetooth audio codec called apt-X, which has essentially wired sound quality (and certainly way better than the awful default Bluetooth audio). No cables, no dongles (my mac supports apt-X out of the box).

This represents a genuine (patented) innovation - none of the other wireless audio solutions are as good. I can't help but wonder if the people behind it would have bothered if they couldn't patent the codec.

I don't know if that makes the patent system worth it for software. I suspect it doesn't. But I know at least one example where it led to innovation that may not have happened otherwise.

I find this question very ambiguous. Either software patents (or patents in general) are a good idea or they are not a good idea.

Asking whether good things have been done with proceeds from licensing software (or other) patents is a different question entirely, and inevitably leads to the answer: yes. (Of course some patent holders have used the income to do good things!)

Care to explain why you disagree instead of just downvoting?

I cannot speak for the HN readership in general of course, but I suspect the downvotes come from folks who don't believe you've added anything to the conversation. It is perfectly reasonable to say 'this is an ambiguous question' if you follow up with 'I chose to interpret it this way ... and my response is ...' or 'The definition 'good' here isn't well understood, does good mean socially good or corporately good, or good as in you won't go to hell if you do it good?'

So yes, the question can be interpreted in many ways, when I read it I felt the OP was trying to find examples which support the claim that the software patents are 'good' where good means they provide a net benefit to the community.

That being said, software patents are an emotional topic here and sometimes that overwhelms the conversation.

I appreciate your reply. I do think I was trying to add to the conversation, if only by pointing out that the question itself was not as well posed as it could have been. Perhaps I should have gone the extra mile and offered an opinion based on one (or both) readings of the question.

It's an interesting question, but of the several responses so far the only one that actually tried to provide an example is getting voted down. My guess is that is going to happen to any answer that provides any example of a software patent being used for good is going to get a bunch of down votes, making any discussion pointless.

Do you mean _delirium's response? That one seems to be solidly in the black by now.

Yeah. It was greying out when I posted, but now it's back alive.

No, shii's with Red Hat.

It's a bit naive to try to judge patents in terms of some dichotomy between good patents and bad patents. In principle, patents aren't really good or evil. They're just part of running a business. That said, the patent system itself can have good or evil effects on society.

Patents in general are "bad" in my opinion, but they can be used for good. Just like guns may be considered "bad" in general, there are legitimate uses for them, and they can be used for good.

The OP even says "used for good".

Not all companies are like this. I work for a company that believes enforcement of patents stifles innovation. And looking for the next innovation and gaining a first mover advantage is much more important than spending time and resources protecting past ones.Plus the end user is much better off in this market. We will patent to protect ourselves from other companies, but not enforce it on others.

However this needs an idealistic leader and wont work large scale across markets so while it annoys me when I see these spiderwebs of who is suing who, I really put the blame at the fault of the patent system. I don't know what the answer is but it seems something is seriously broken.

Let me first say I hate most patents, but they are alowing patents for stupid things, like a rectagular touch screen phones. Or maybe the patent lenght should be shorter, so as to give an advantage, and incentive, but not to halt progress.

Yet, It seems that Google's secret sauce search algorithm made lots of cash for Stanford to help continue to educate and incubate more ideas like this. Without Googles edge of a protected formula, the relatively "non evil" company may not have grown to offer us free services like google voice, gmail, google docs, and a free OS.

That's not a patent, it's a trade secret. The difference is that if I independently invent a search algorithm that happens to be the same as Google's, they don't have the right to sue me.

I personally find secrecy just fine.

The good patents are the silent ones, the ones broken by people who have never known of the patent, who describe it in some other but equally unique, novel and non-trivial way. Along the same lines, Red Hat (and others, even self-employed full time open source coders) may talk about implementing something useful, but not make reference to the patent. I'm sure we're heard of something that was patented for OSS, but not as a patent, as a program feature.

The best patents in any area are those kinds of novel inventions that people will look for to solve a problem, not after accidentally breaking them.

Undoubtedly a number of lawyers' children have benefited from their family's greatly increased income. Otherwise, I can't think of anything.

How about the Google Pagerank patent?

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999

It explains the primary algorithm behind Google Search. I suppose it could have been kept as a trade secret all these years, if not for the patent system.

It might have, but it is very likely it would have been published in an academic paper anyhow (like it actually has).

And in any case, no one actually reads software patents (lawyers tell you not to!), so even if it was patented but not published or otherwise documented, no one would have known about it.

While the PageRank patent is definitely not a trivial patent - unlike the vast majority of software patents - it still isn't an example of a patent used for good.

I agree that the algorithm would have been published anyway, since it was part of Page's PhD work, I believe. But I disagree that the patent hasn't been used for "good."

Google has been a huge net positive in the development of the Internet in the last decade+. All of this development is the result of Google's dominance in search. The PageRank algorithm was where that began. Yes, things might have turned out the same without the patent. Or maybe Yahoo would have integrated the algorithm and cut Google off at its knees, and we'd all be stuck using hotmail with 2MB inboxes. I think it's unfair to simply dismiss the beneficial impact of the patent on the algorithm that started Google.

>> "it still isn't an example of a patent used for good"

What do you mean by good, then? It has generated lots of cash for Google and thus provided lots of jobs.

It would still generate and provide the same even if it was not patented.

Unless you believe that it was Google patent on page rank algorithm that prevented all other companies to get better at doing search.

Patents are always good for the patent holder. The question is whether or not the patent is good for society, and justifies the patent enterprise in the first place.

To this, the only major point of consideration should be: Without patent protection, would this technology have been developed anyways?

For the vast majority of patented software, the answer is yes. Probably including pagerank and mp3. The patent process brings no value to society and therefore shouldn't be enforced by society.

In the case of drug discovery & development, the answer clearly different. Patents make sense.

An interesting view that I got from someone who patents technologies working at a big company, was that software patents tend to protect yourself (the company) from getting sued by other patent trolls!

No, software patents cannot protect you from patent trolls.

Patent trolls by definition do not produce any actual products. They only sue. Any patents you have are therefore no defense against them.

A worrying development is trolling by proxy - a real company selling its patents to a patent troll. This allows the real company to extort money through its patents, without the risk of a countersuit, since the patent troll is doing the actual suing.

I believe he is talking about the kind of mutually assured destruction that keep companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, and IBM from suing each other. They all hold a ton of patents, and while they may infringe on each others patents from time to time, they keep it to a minimum and nobody pursues it due to the possibility of retaliatory patent action where both parties lose. Much like the Cold War.

Yes, perhaps that's what he meant, and he said "patent trolls" by mistake.

In any case, that is not really a case of patents being put to good use. They might help you specifically, as a defensive measure, but only because of all the bad uses of patents overall.

Yes, that's what I meant, and I used the wrong term. :)

I agree; it merely illustrates the flaws in the system that we have.

Redhat?

Redhat does not rely on patents or licencing. I wouldn't even be surprised if they did not hold a single patent.

Are you insane? Redhat has tons of patents. They have a position of not offensively using these patents against the community, "a promise" as it was termed when I took a tour of their North Carolina facilities a few years ago. Here[1] is a link to their patent policy and reasoning behind it.

[1] http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html

Red Hat has approximately 160 US patents.

Which patents in particular?

Amazon 1-click. Prior to its invention, online purchases involved a laborious 10, 20, or even 100 clicks! It's too bad there isn't a Nobel prize for online shopping. The inventors deserve some recognition. </sarcasm>

Honestly (and depressingly) I think the best examples of software patents used for good are the software patents written to protect from exploitation... by the software patent system- i.e. Creative Commons, GPLv2, BSD Licence, ...

The GPL, BSD, etc. licenses are licenses, not software patents.

I can't think of a good software patent. It's not a software patent, but there was IBM's attempt to patent patent trolling which was a rather keen bit of legal satire. I think it actually failed in the face of all that prior art, but I might be confusing that patent application with another one.

You guys are right, sorry. Total absent-minded mistake.

To be fair, I can't really answer the original question either.

I don't really like the i4i case, though it's probably at least closer to an answer. Microsoft got what it deserved because it partnered with i4i, then screwed them. There should have been non-patent means of getting justice in a case like that, though, so I can hardly count that as something good about software patents.

these are hacks as such on the copyright system, not the patent system

If I write a great piece of software, patent it, then run a business selling it, then that patent does me (and my family) a lot of good. I worked hard to create the software, and I should reap the rewards.

If software patents didn't exist, maybe I wouldn't have based my business on that software in the first place because I'd worry that somebody else would notice that it's profitable and use it to run their business. Patents are necessary to encourage people to innovate, though obviously some patents (that probably shouldn't have been given in the first place) have stunted innovation.

The request was for an actual example, not a hypothetical scenario. Also, you seem to grossly misunderstand the function of software patents. You don't patent a piece of software; you have a copyright that provides the full and appropriate protection of law. In contrast, software patents apply to general processes, use cases or algorithms, as opposed to specific implementations.

> If I write a great piece of software, patent it, then run a business selling it, then that patent does me (and my family) a lot of good. I worked hard to create the software, and I should reap the rewards.

Your non-trivial software is already in violation of scores or even hundreds of existing patents. You should get as many software patents as possible to cover your ass.

> Patents are necessary to encourage people to innovate

[looks around] In software, this is not the case.

Software patents are a good idea in theory, but in practice, the baby needs to get thrown out with the bathwater.

That's the theory of why they might be good in principle.

I think the original poster was asking for real examples of how they have been good in practice.

So what did they do before (software) patents? How do you explain that other countries without software patents still produce great software?

My opinion is that patents stop innovations rather than encourage them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com