Skip to main content

Senslessness of software patents...

Why I don't support them:

1) Patents in software tend to be granted for trivial, non novel solutions that any competent engineer with a few minutes or hours to think about the problem will emerge.

2) Innovations in software and hardware engineering are much more difficult to reverse engineer making them more stable when subject to attempts to copy. Reverse engineering much of software code (algorithms) is rendered impossible depending on how the code is implemented or made available for end use. The innovation is in the secret of the algorithm(s) which is locked in the implementation, as long as that is kept away from prying eyes it is a *defacto patent*. Reverse engineering such tech. is either very hard or impossible (especially for web services) so again lessening the need for formal patents in the space.

3) Once granted a trivial patent is like a hammer that prevent others from right to apply trivial methods and forces money into licensing deals instead of paying for more *innovation* in the form of R&D on new products and services.

4) Once granted and later defended or used to defend, large bulks of money go to lawyers...who in no way contribute to building innovation which can change human lives, it's wasted *human* investment.

5) In industries were patents don't apply there is rampant innovation (take fashion) and no shortage of competition or players willing to invest time to create new ideas (in clothing) ...if something is copied fine, they just innovate some thing new for the next season. We need that type of rapacious innovation to take hold in technology, and eliminating patents in the space (to some ironically) would do that.


Links:

Ted talk on fashion and innovation by Johanna Blakely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646402192953052.html

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

Waking Out: A proposal to emerging ethical super intelligence safely.

The zeitgeist of Science fiction is filled with stories that paint a dystopian tale of how human desires to build artificial intelligence can go wrong. From the programmed pathology of HAL in 2001 a space odyssey, to the immediately malevolent emergence of Skynet in The Terminator and later to the humans as energy stores for the advanced AI of the Matrix and today , to the rampage of "hosts" in the new HBO series Westworld.

These stories all have a common theme of probing what happens when our autonomous systems get a mind of their own to some degree and no longer obey their creators but how can we avoid these types of scenarios but still emerge generalized intelligence that will leverage their super intelligence with empathy and consideration the same that we expect from one another? This question is being answered in a way that is mostly hopeful that current methods used in machine learning and specifically deep learning will not emerge skynet or HAL.

I think this is the …