This has been posted here before, but some people might not have seen it yet:
Parasites.
I'm proud that there is "a relative dearth of patent applications for the video game industry, especially considering how technology-dependent the video game industry is, and given its size in terms of annual sales."
Before issuing a condemnation, I try hard to think about it from their point of view -- the laws of the land set the rules of the game, and lawyers are deeply confused at why some of us aren't using all the tools that the game gives us.
Patents are usually discussed in the context of someone "stealing" an idea from the long suffering lone inventor that devoted his life to creating this one brilliant idea, blah blah blah.
But in the majority of cases in software, patents effect independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement.
Why should society reward that? What benefit does it bring? It doesn't help bring more, better, or cheaper products to market. Those all come from competition, not arbitrary monopolies. The programmer that filed the patent didn't work any harder because a patent might be available, solving the problem was his job and he had to do it anyway. Getting a patent is uncorrelated to any positive attributes, and just serves to allow either money or wasted effort to be extorted from generally unsuspecting and innocent people or companies.
Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. Its basically mugging someone.
I could waste hours going on about this. I really need to just write a position paper some day that I can cut and paste when this topic comes up.
That software patents don't work can be shown from the simple fact that no software "inventor" tries to sell his patented idea to a big company.
If I invent intermittent windscreen wipers for cars then it's worthless to me unless I also intend to make cars and without a patent I can't try and sell my invention to a car company because they can simply copy it.
When have you heard of an inventor with a software patent selling that idea to a large software company?
I think SW patents are largely broken, but not for the reason you cite. In the past few years, I've interviewed a number of SW candidates who own their own patents and expressed interest in selling them to whichever company ended up hiring them. This struck me as a smart way for candidates to increase their value to potential employers, many of which have been trying to beef up their patent portfolio in recent years...
I have a list of patents I have 'invented' and were filed by previous employers and this has got me jobs - but on the basis that I 'understand about patents', not because they specifically wanted them (since I don't own them)
The problem with filing the patents personally is that it's expensive to do and astronomically expensive to defend them. That's the real problem with patents today - they have become a May Day parade of tanks used to impress the enemy with how powerful you are.
> The problem with filing the patents personally is that it's expensive to do
You can get a patent for under $1000 and that patent is likely to be worth significantly more to a company whose looking to build their portfolio for defensive measures.
> and astronomically expensive to defend them
Agreed, but I'm sure these individuals had no intention of defending their patents. Unlike trademarks, patents don't become invalidated if the owners fail to go after infringers.
> they have become a May Day parade of tanks used to impress
> the enemy with how powerful you are.
I think an arms race is a better analogy than a parade. Most (though not all) companies pursue patents because they feel they need to in order to avoid annihilation -- not because they want to show off.
Filing a patent just to have a patent is a few $100 - even less if you only file provisionally and hope the new employer doesn't understand the difference!
But if you want a patent to be of value, then it needs professional drafting and filing in multiple countries with specialist lawyers who understand for instance why Taiwan is different. That and translation and renewal fees costs $10-100K
Having a US-only patent does have value even if a corporation would often want to expand its scope after acquiring the patent.
Regardless, the objections you're raising now aren't specific to software patents. Your initial comment was that software patents are different from hardware patents because individuals don't try to sell them to companies. Individuals can (and do) acquire patents and make money by selling them to companies.
Parasites.
I'm proud that there is "a relative dearth of patent applications for the video game industry, especially considering how technology-dependent the video game industry is, and given its size in terms of annual sales."
Before issuing a condemnation, I try hard to think about it from their point of view -- the laws of the land set the rules of the game, and lawyers are deeply confused at why some of us aren't using all the tools that the game gives us.
Patents are usually discussed in the context of someone "stealing" an idea from the long suffering lone inventor that devoted his life to creating this one brilliant idea, blah blah blah.
But in the majority of cases in software, patents effect independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement.
Why should society reward that? What benefit does it bring? It doesn't help bring more, better, or cheaper products to market. Those all come from competition, not arbitrary monopolies. The programmer that filed the patent didn't work any harder because a patent might be available, solving the problem was his job and he had to do it anyway. Getting a patent is uncorrelated to any positive attributes, and just serves to allow either money or wasted effort to be extorted from generally unsuspecting and innocent people or companies.
Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. Its basically mugging someone.
I could waste hours going on about this. I really need to just write a position paper some day that I can cut and paste when this topic comes up.
John Carmack
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745