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.
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.)