Ideas & Quotes

(If you’re unfamiliar with the issues with the US patent system, click here for a quick explanation.)

As it currently stands, most programmers dislike the patent system.  One reason is the frequency in which “new” technologies appear at the same time:

[S]urveys of hundreds of significant new technologies show that almost all of them are invented simultaneously or nearly simultaneously by two or more teams working independently of each other. Invention appears in significant part to be a social, not an individual, phenomenon.

(Mark Lemley, via The Economist)

In addition, most employees file their patents into company control.  Dying companies, once defined by innovation, can use those patents to stave off death, suing others.  Yahoo is one example:

Yahoo tried and failed, over and over again, to build a social network that people would love and use. Unable to innovate, Yahoo is falling back to the last resort of a desperate, dying company: litigation as a business model.

(Andy Baio, via Kottke; see below for more information of the cost of patent litigation)

What can programmers do?  If they refuse to patent at all, they risk being sued by someone else.

But there is a solution!

There are some limitations, but overall, this is a great step in the right direction.  Defensive litigation protects against patent trolls in the present, and the lack of offensive litigation prevents these patents from falling into the hands of patent trolls in the future.

Bonus:  “How I Beat a Patent Troll”

Drew Curtis demonstrates another solution: “Whenever possible, fight the infringement, not the patent.” (via kenhiatt)

An endnote, near the end of Drew’s presentation, on the cost of defending patent troll lawsuits, even if you’re successful in defending yourself:

• Economic Impact of 9/11 - $123 Billion
• Patent Troll Lawsuits - $500 Billion

This is mainly an introduction to the issue of our current patent system.  Don’t read if you’re familiar with the current issues in the tech world.

A patent is a “copyright” which says “I created this” and gives the creator(s) rights to license its use.  It allows designers to create something new—physical or otherwise—and charge others for using the patented creation.

On one hand, patents encourage innovation.  An inventor can design something and sell it, or sell the rights to use/manufacture.  There is a financial incentive to creating something new.  For example, I could invent and patent…pepperoni.  Then I sell the pepperoni and profit!

On the other hand, patents discourage innovation.  If I incorporate a patented design into my new design, the patent-holder can charge me for its use (or stop me from publishing my new design).  Let’s say my brother takes the pepperoni and invents a pepperoni pizza.  Without my consent, that pepperoni pizza is illegal.  I can sell him pepperoni (or the rights to make his own pepperoni), but unless we agree on a price, no pepperoni pizza.

This is quite sad, because we all love pepperoni pizza.

Obviously creators should benefit from their creations, but we all benefit from fast-paced innovation.  Think of what we might never see without pepperoni pizza!

(This is a facet of the larger moral ongoing debate:  what is stealing, and what is a remix?  How much do I have to change a design to call it something new?  If I create a music video set to my favorite song, do I owe the songwriter?  The current answer is yes…but we may have a different answer in a decade or so.)