> it seems a pretty silly patent
In software, most of them are.
In software, most of them are.
It's bad enough that the USPTO will rubberstamp everything with the right fees, but that they can issue patents on concepts that are far outside the original intent what patents are for.
Yes, developing software involves "invention" in every sense of the word, but if you can patent algorithms, why can't you patent mathematical formulae or proofs?
35 U.S.C. § 286 Time limitation on damages
Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.
In the case of claims against the United States Government for use of a patented invention, the period before bringing suit, up to six years, between the date of receipt of a written claim for compensation by the department or agency of the Government having authority to settle such claim, and the date of mailing by the Government of a notice to the claimant that his claim has been denied shall not be counted as a part of the period referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Ridiculous patents like this for "ifnot" are one thing, but patents for very useful software functionality and features are another. Don't be so quick to dismiss their usefulness in encouraging innovation.
Look, as soon as it's released, it will be copied by those who already have market penetration in that space, leaving the big USP of "cool software feature" as something useless, and no longer a USP.
Instead of releasing them out, which is what I'd like to do, I just keep them to myself. Something which I would rather not do, but I see no other way of gaining value from them.
Unfortunately, temporary often ends up being effectively forever when it comes to software, and the system has been gamed by lawyers. Sigh.
Good software is rewarded (even more so in today when there's instant distribution), don't worry about your competitors.
For example, a new, innovative, OS going against Windows. In this case and without software patents, Microsoft would just copy the features that make it special, leaving the R&D investment as a waste, unless software patents are available of course.
Edit: Looks like I'm getting downvoted for no reason. Good luck with your collective circlejerk HN. I'm out.
Yeah, there seems to be a lot of that these days. People down-vote for disagreement, as opposed to just spammy posts. It's really kinda sad for a community that should be open to discussion and critical thought.
Perhaps it's because you're using most likely a non-patented browser that fetches a non-patented hypertext format (HTML) via a non-patented application protocol (HTTP) built on a non-patented network stack (TCP) by connecting to a non-patented web server (HN) written in a non-patented programming language (Arc), and you're using this stack to argue that people have no motivation to innovate in software if patent protection is unavailable.
Or perhaps it's because you're trotting out that old argument that software patents can help the little guy compete against big players. But so far the only "little guy" success anyone can point to was Stac Electronics, a publicly traded company for whom a $9.7 million sales quarter was evidence of declining business. That's not little: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-22/business/fi-7159_1_pa...
(I dislike software patents myself and agree with you, though, that, for a variety of reasons, we'd still see plenty of innovation without them.)
I don't support software patents but I have a problem with the whole "it's patenting a mathematical formula" argument.
Essentially, software implementations of algorithms cannot generally be patented either because they are simply an expression of the algorithm in a particular language. The fact that this language can be interpreted by a particular hardware device does not change the situation. The hardware is a pre-existing piece of general-purpose commodity hardware that is easily interchangeable with any number of other pre-existing pieces of general-purpose commodity hardware, up to and including a human being equipped with a pen and paper, and therefore cannot really be claimed as part of the patent.
A physical device which implements the algorithm can, of course, be patented. And a hardware/software combination where the computer is an integral part of the mechanism (e.g., it cannot in principle be replicated by a human with a pen and paper) can also be patented, so Amazon's 'One-Click' patent is safe. However, simply tacking on the phrase, "Written in a programming language," does not take an unpatentable idea and make it patentable.
Clearly you have never prosecuted a patent application. Yes, examiners make mistakes sometimes, and patents issue that shouldn't. But your statement is just nowhere near being true.
The documentary by This American Life about patents had an IP researcher claiming that over 1/3 of all patents ignore prior art, just by comparing identical text between them: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/android-app?destination=radi...