Weird Corollaries of the Way Things Work Now

[jducoeur]

Number 3,293: finding out from LinkedIn that you have your name on six software patents.

Seriously -- the most recent of those I didn't even know was still in the works until I went to update my profile just now. It's a bit jaw-dropping, because (a) the company (Convoq) has been out of business for a dozen years now, and (b) it's a somewhat dangerous patent. Unlike many software patents, this one isn't pure BS -- we were well ahead of the game in 2004, and pioneered a bunch of techniques that were new at the time.

Now I'm wondering whether it's been used against any of the players in the web-meeting industry. One of our headline features (Meet ASAP) still doesn't exist anywhere that I've seen, and I'm wondering if that's because this patent has prevented anybody from implementing it.

Sigh -- I hate, hate, hate the software-patent game. I wish Congress would get up the nerve to just obliterate the entire system: it's nothing but sand in the wheels of the software industry, making the rich richer and screwing the little guys. Unfortunately, as a senior engineer, you rarely have much choice but to play the game...

Comments

Re: So...

[jducoeur]

I suspect we are far enough apart on this that we won't bridge the gap

That's probably true.

Producing the product involves a very large up-front outlay, and large uncertainty due to externalities like regulatory approval.

Which is what I just said -- the cost of entry is enormously high. You can't just build a better mousetrap: you have to spend a good fraction of a billion dollars to get that mousetrap to market because of the FDA. That being the case, patents are necessary.

Benson was decided in 1972, so "relatively recently" means 47 years (if I've done my math right). That's something like 75% of the lifetime of electronic programmable computers, so I disagree with this claim as well.

You're entirely free to disagree, but anything in my lifetime is "recently" compared to the overall existence of the patent system. And it wasn't just about software, it was a change in the fundamental understanding of what is patentable.

You also need to tell me why I can't get a patent on my program if I write it in a compiled language but I can if I create a custom chip with that program burned into it.

I'm not saying that the latter should be. And yes, I'm well aware of the chains of reasoning involved here, but the ability to patent algorithms in the *general* case is, IMO, where the system fell off a cliff.

And yet, the number of software start-ups continues to climb.

I'm dubious about that assertion. Most folks I know who are paying close attention to the industry consider the startup world to be in significant trouble, because of the growing concentration of power into the giants. And much of that power comes from their gigantic patent arsenals. The assessments I've been seeing for the past few years are that startups are getting less ambitious as a result.

I don't think you've thought this through, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Dude -- I've spent 20 years thinking about this. 20 years of observing it from the inside, being forced to write these stupid patents. 20 years of worrying about companies being put out of business by this idiocy. I've thought about it a lot.

We're done here -- I think we're unlikely to come to an agreement. Suffice it to say, I think that implementing your ideas in a way that isn't easily abuseable, and results in benefits that are actually worthwhile, is unlikely. I'd love to believe that you're correct, but as I said -- I'm skeptical. You're welcome to your optimism, but there are a lot of devils in those details. And for the time being, the system as it stands is destructive...