There are novel software implementations. That applies to vanishingly few software patents.
There are novel software implementations. That applies to vanishingly few software patents.
Go ask the guy who made fingerworks whether he is better off with Apple paying him or if Google had just ripped his shit off.
I don't see either of those as particularly compelling alternatives. Patents need some major reforms but not abolishing.
I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that weak IP protection leads to less innovation. I'd argue that it's equally as likely that the causation is reversed; that is, countries that do more innovating will eventually have stronger IP protection, whether the actual innovators want it or not.
Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. Patent language rarely discloses any information that would be of use to a software developer. Software developers almost never read patents when implementing their own systems, with a few notable exceptions (such as the case where someone wants to implement a well-known patented algorithm).
Let's go back a few years and remove all IP protections for media. Does Avatar still get a half billion dollar budget to get made?
"Massive secrecy is the current state of things even with patents. "
This is just arguing degrees. Whatever it's at now, I think the alternative is far more massive secrecy then currently.
Patenting a specific very complex algorithm -specifically- might be ok, but general ideas are not.
THAT is the Apple multitouch patent that the industry holds as fearsome. No one gives a shit about the Fingertouch patents.
I believe that software patents are overwhelmingly farce, whether they support Microsoft in attacking Apple, Apple against Samsung, Samsung against Apple, or any of various IP ventures against App Store developers. It is not a position that varies based upon the actors.
The pro-Apple lobby, however, has a position that essentially holds Apple's patents as legitimate and righteous to enforce, but everyone else's as illegitimate for various reasons. It is farce to criticize lodsys and others for entirely legal IP protections -- as the system supposedly encourages -- while supporting Apple and their like behaviors. Whether a company is open to counter-attacks is irrelevant to the legitimacy of patents.
Virtually everyone who interacts with HN relies upon Linux (for instance as the foundation of their startup). Linux infrgines on countless Microsoft patents. Thus far Microsoft has treaded lightly, but I don't think it's tough to imagine how sentiments would change if they started laying the hammer down, shutting down every cloud host, etc. The simple love of a gadget has many supporting an incredibly dangerous position.
But sentiments are changing. I argue for the exercise of it, but there is no doubt that dramatic software patent changes are coming due.
P.s. we're talking about prior art for multitouch, the Fingerworks patents seem far more relevant than your hardon for Minority Report and Microsoft Surface.
You're absolutely uninformed about even the basic facts or timeline, yet you're happy to make broad assertions and engage in attacks to the person. Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you.
Have a nice day!
Surface was unveiled in 2007, with the final hardware design being completed two years prior. The project itself started based upon, humorously, Minority Report.
"Well, where I come from, that means you lost buddy, and I have no further need to rebut you."
Yeah you've said that a couple of times now. Kind of funny, really.