Of course, the software side is just as likely to be missing something — some important software R&D; that might not have happened without the prospect of a valuable patent.

Of course, the software side is just as likely to be missing something — some important software R&D that might not have happened without the prospect of a valuable patent.

Maybe I’ve misread your “two cultures” post. Am I looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope? I take it to say that we at TLF generally ignore the cost of lawyering. I actually think that we are trying to “marry up” the law-and-policy “side” with the innovation “side” (in varying degrees, of course – we’re all different people with different priorities).

An interesting, complicating overlay to the whole question is the collapsing together of “innovation” and “invention.” (Credit to Mike at TechDirt for recognizing this issue.)

Mr. Marti and commenters here talk about all the ideas they come up with for fixing various problems. They’re smart and innovative ideas, no doubt, but the question in patentability/invention is whether they are novel, non-obvious, and useful. Granting that they’re useful, would others competent in the field regard them as having that creative Thomas-Edison-like spark of brilliance? Or are they just the best fix for a given, admittedly complicated problem?

In my opinion, too many things are regarded by the patent system as rare flashes of brilliance when they’re actually just good, smart solutions. There should be fewer patents granted, and less use of the patent system (with its costly lawyers) to maintain competitive advantage.

I may have just opened a whole new can of worms. Many of our friends on the technical “side” (including commenters here) may have come to regard themselves as “inventors” – creators of patentable subject matter – when they’re better regarded as innovators who fix problems in really smart ways. I mean you no insult, friends.

I’m most interested in whether we are really so steeped in Washington, D.C. and think-tank culture that in the course of arguing for reducing the role of lawyers, we’re ignoring the costs of all those dang lawyers!

Maybe I’ve misread your “two cultures” post. Am I looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope? I take it to say that we at TLF generally ignore the cost of lawyering. I actually think that we are trying to “marry up” the law-and-policy “side” with the innovation “side” (in varying degrees, of course – we’re all different people with different priorities).

An interesting, complicating overlay to the whole question is the collapsing together of “innovation” and “invention.” (Credit to Mike at TechDirt for recognizing this issue.)

Mr. Marti and commenters here talk about all the ideas they come up with for fixing various problems. They’re smart and innovative ideas, no doubt, but the question in patentability/invention is whether they are novel, non-obvious, and useful. Granting that they’re useful, would others competent in the field regard them as having that creative Thomas-Edison-like spark of brilliance? Or are they just the best fix for a given, admittedly complicated problem?

In my opinion, too many things are regarded by the patent system as rare flashes of brilliance when they’re actually just good, smart solutions. There should be fewer patents granted, and less use of the patent system (with its costly lawyers) to maintain competitive advantage.

I may have just opened a whole new can of worms. Many of our friends on the technical “side” (including commenters here) may have come to regard themselves as “inventors” – creators of patentable subject matter – when they’re better regarded as innovators who fix problems in really smart ways. I mean you no insult, friends.

I’m most interested in whether we are really so steeped in Washington, D.C. and think-tank culture that in the course of arguing for reducing the role of lawyers, we’re ignoring the costs of all those dang lawyers!

Patents and the Software Industry

Fun With Greg and Tim

A Response to Greg Aharonian

No Evidence?

Innovation is free. Software patents are not on the innovation itself, but are rewards on the time and capital investments needed to turn the innovation into a working product. What irks free software people (myself included) is that most software really is obvious, we just haven’t gotten around to writing it yet. Very little really deserves the award of “innovative” (I think many of Apple’s products do, and psychoacoustic modeling requires so many man-hours of non-fun gruntwork to get right that I might give it a pass).

I sometimes suspect that the patent system is flawed because it’s so 19th century; no one back then could really have imagined a civilization in which so many people were so highly trained and yet had so much lesiure time that they’d damn near be tripping over each other coming up with cool new ideas.

I also have a book at home of ideas that I might actually implement some day.

Time/manpower is much more of a limiting factor than lack of ideas. A lot of effort goes into deciding which innovations not to implement.

Innovation does indeed feel cheap in the software world. Personally, I always find it hard to read pro-software-patent arguments because they always seem to be speaking about a world that’s very different from the one I inhabit.

As to TLF, I read it regularly and I wouldn’t say that TLF comes across as “indifferent” to the cost of lawyering. We, the readers, certainly hear plenty about the cost of regulation, and I do recall Tim equating (software) patents with regulation at one time.

Having said that, it does seem that more of the posters here have a “lawyer-centric” than “technology-practitioner-centric” viewpoint. Now I’m off to follow the “meet your contributors” link to find out whether that impression is, in fact, correct.

I’m a lawyer, but regard lawyering as an impediment to innovation which is why I (occassionally, at least) object to so many Internet regulations. I’m confounded to think that TLF comes across as indifferent to the cost of lawyering.

I wonder if Mr. Marti could provide an example to substantiate a charge that, frankly, hurts.

Yes, but Tim should ask himself whether his own standard of non-obviousness helps inform patent policy discourse. He should also ask himself why he criticizes the rise in patent lawyers who apply scientific backgrounds to patent policy- they’re doing professionally what Tim does as an amateur.

Innovation is free. Software patents are not on the innovation itself, but are rewards on the time and capital investments needed to turn the innovation into a working product. What irks free software people (myself included) is that most software really is obvious, we just haven’t gotten around to writing it yet. Very little really deserves the award of “innovative” (I think many of Apple’s products do, and psychoacoustic modeling requires so many man-hours of non-fun gruntwork to get right that I might give it a pass).

I sometimes suspect that the patent system is flawed because it’s so 19th century; no one back then could really have imagined a civilization in which so many people were so highly trained and yet had so much lesiure time that they’d damn near be tripping over each other coming up with cool new ideas.

I’m a lawyer, but regard lawyering as an impediment to innovation which is why I (occassionally, at least) object to so many Internet regulations. I’m confounded to think that TLF comes across as indifferent to the cost of lawyering.

I wonder if Mr. Marti could provide an example to substantiate a charge that, frankly, hurts.

Speaking personally, I completely share Mr Marti’s view.