Comment by Mower99 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mower99 | Hacker News Reader

Patents actually incentivize innovation - not hurt it.

Useful innovations are those which help society. Things that enable "standing on the shoulder of giants". Society values those innovations.

Often, the simple innovations are the best ones - yet, the simple innovations are also the ones most easily copy-able.

But, if something is easily copy-able, then one hesitates making those ideas public - for fear of copying and undercutting by competitors. Studies have shown that typically ~80% of R&D ends up as wasted effort (those 23 forks embarked on to realize #21 was the best).

So how can society encourage innovations to be made public? By providing incentives - such as patents - which are a limited time monopoly in exchange for fully describing the idea. Once the limited time monopoly expires, it is free for all - but in the meantime, others can read and understand the innovation - and either workaround (and provide society ANOTHER idea) or improve upon further or simply spark another idea.

Open societies out-proposer closed societies.

> Often, the simple innovations are the best ones - yet, the simple innovations are also the ones most easily copy-able.

Simple innovations are also the ones that are most easy to accidentally create yourself. "The most obvious way to do it". In cases like this patents are frequently a hindrance as a company needs to find a less efficient and more complex way to solve a problem because the obvious solutions is being squatted by a patent troll that demands far too much for the small but critical piece of infrastructure.

Or worse, the patent troll uses various tricks to delay award of the patent until the industry has implemented the technology on millions of platforms and then surprises everybody with mass infringement lawsuits.

The patent process would probably be improved if before awarding a patent they asked a panel of experts how they would solve the problem that the patent solves. If the experts come up with the same solution in a short period of time then the patent is not awarded. Something has to be truly novel to be worthy of patent protection. Unfortunately this is not practical with the current volume of patents working through the system.

These are all generic, idealistic arguments which ignore the fact that things don't work this way in the real world, at least not how they did a couple hundred years ago.

Patenting something today doesn't require innovation, but money and a large team of lawyers. Patents don't encourage innovation but hamper it. Try and start a company today, and a large chunk of your capital will need to be kept aside for legal defense and paying off patent trolls and larger competitors who will bury you in lawsuits for vague, meaningless infringements.

Patents incentivize filing and owning patents. The disconnect is whether a patent actually represents innovation. IME the most innovative things in the software world are not patentable or never patented (algorithms, free software that sets a standard de facto). The things which are patented are stupid “X for Y” where someone tries to either block competitors or extract a tax from an obvious application of technology to a domain.

How "Intellectual Property" Impedes Competition

https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-impedes-c...

-2 points?

Did I say something incorrect or did I simply illuminate some unspeakable truth that strikes against the narrative what ycombinator editors are trying to convince readers of?

Clearly you've never been sued by a patent troll.

The patent system only benefits (1.) rich corporations that can afford the millions of dollars in lawyer fees to litigate patent claims, (2.) the lawyers that receive said fees.

There have been significant changes to the U.S. patent system the past ~10 years. One of which is the ease, effectiveness, and costs of invalidating a patent.

First, spend a couple of hours analyzing the Patent Claims. Often you'll discover that you most likely do NOT infringe at all - or least highly unlikely.

Other times (albeit after having developed a bit more knowledge one-time), you'll assess with decent probability of the likeliness of being able to invalidate the patent - then the tables turn - use this as a threat against the troll. They greatly fear having their $costly patent potentially wiped out. They too are playing the odds, and even a 10-20% probability of having their patent invalidated can go a long ways to dropping the suit against you.

At the end of the day, engineers are overly afraid of patents. If they spent a little time understanding them, they could greatly reduce this exaggerated fear. It's not an insurmountable hurdle - engineers&scientists have more innate abilities then they give themselves credit for. It's more of a matter that this exaggerated fear has been drilled into them. Lawyers are incentivized to perpetuate these fears.

Individuals and small business owners don't have time to learn patent law, nor do they have money to have dedicated legal departments like rich corporations. If I was sued I would not listen to some anonymous stranger on HN. I would get a lawyer. And I would be charged $300-$800/hr by said lawyer. In the patent ecosystem the patent-holding apex whales and lawyer-sharks hunt smaller creatures to eat, and devour whole.

I didn't downvote you, but I really wanted to. It reads like it was written for middle schoolers by a pro-patent think tank. I resented having to spend the time to read to the end to see if there was anything besides "The Electric Company version of Why Do We Have Patents?" I think it's bad form to post like this on a forum of people whose average understanding of the patent issue is pretty sophisticated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com