I used to think they were entirely useless, but since then I've learned of many instances where a much better technology is developed because the first iteration is patented.
For example, the Wright brothers biggest contribution to aviation was suing everyone using wing warping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war) which greatly advanced the adoption of the much more advanced ailerons.
Software patents have a similar effect, for example Cisco's patent on Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol led to the development of the more secure and more capable Common Address Redundancy Protocol (https://jacobfilipp.com/DrDobbs/articles/SA/v14/i05/a6.htm).
We tend to invest heavily in whatever we can get working first, but it's rarely close to an ideal way of doing something. By pushing every developer to find a newer, better way of doing something, patents prevent stagnation and lead to more advanced technologies.
The wright brothers patent was not on wing warping, it was on controlling a vehicle in the air. In short the Wright brothers did not invent the aeroplane they invented how to control a aeroplane.
"We wish it to be understood, however, that our invention is not limited to this particular construction, since any construction whereby the angular relations of the lateral margins of the aeroplanes may be varied in opposite directions with respect to the normal planes of said aeroplanes comes within the scope of our invention."
Some people (Curtis) felt this claim was far too encompassing and should not be enforced. But I don't know, These guys just spent a decade working out an entirely new discipline, aeronautical control. And you don't think they deserve exclusive exploitation rights to that discipline for the next 20 years?
> And you don't think they deserve exclusive exploitation rights to that discipline for the next 20 years?
20 years is the midpoint between the Wright Brother’s flight and operational jet fighters. They won the race but it was very much a competition. If Orville and Wilbur didn’t cross the line first then Maxim or Langley would have. They all built on George Cayley’s work.
So no, I don’t think the first one to file a plausible patent should get exclusive rights. It should at least extend to contemporaries. And we should consider the cost to innovation when breakthroughs are artificially constrained for what amounts to multiple technological generations.
The Wrights were about 5 years ahead of their time. The Wrights went about it as an R+D project and calculated what the design must be, while the other developers were doing seat-of-the-pants designs which worked about as expected.
Wright accomplishments that were crucial to making a working airplane:
1. First propeller theory, which got them a propeller that was 90% efficient rather than the 50% efficiency of contemporary propellers. The theory has only been slightly improved today.
2. First 3 axis control system, copied by everyone else. Yes, ailerons are a better system, but it's the same idea.
3. First aviation engine with a power/weight ration double anyone else's.
4. First research and development project where the problems of flight were identified and then prototypes developed to solve each of the problems.
5. Extensive use of a wind tunnel to determine the optimal cross-section shape of the wing.
6. Use of calculations to determine the size and lift of the wing, and how much power was needed from the engine.
All airplane designs trace their lineage back to the 1903 Flyer, not anybody else's airplane.
Very much this. The incentive to create and invent is often largely financial, however that incentive need not be constructed as “winner takes all” rather we should lift each other up in our mutual accomplishments.
Unfortunately in my own ruminating on the topic the only practical alternatives seem to be one or more variations on the scary boogey man of socialism.
> The incentive to create and invent is often largely financial, however that incentive need not be constructed as “winner takes all” rather we should lift each other up in our mutual accomplishments.
The Wrights definitely were in it for the money.
The government project was the Langley Prototype, which cost 20 times more than what the Wrights spent, and fell into the Potomac like a sack of wet cement.
> the scary boogey man of socialism
For good reason. Socialism's track record is pretty bad. They're always running out of other peoples' money.
Certainly socialism is a heavy and dangerous solution to most problems, the critiques of it are many, and of the many most are fair.
I say boogeyman not to imply it is without problems but rather to say that in the problem spaces that it is often deplored the incumbent alternative is often categorically worse for all those who do not directly benefit from it, which is usually a supermajority at a minimum. Thus, to make the incumbent more tolerable a caricature of an idea is brought forth to scare those who would otherwise support an aspirational idealist into backing the known “lesser” evils.
However the track record for developed countries communally sharing "intellectual property" is much much better. Universities, open source, and public domain all have some crossover with the ideals of socialism.
Yes, communism has repeatedly failed spectacularly.
The softer socialism of public welfare has worked (so far) for many countries including the US. Although I'm skeptical about the future given modern demographics and our governments' choices to appease a majority. The governments of most developed countries smell socialist to me. I'm from New Zealand and most private income/property is taxed up the wahoo to pay for our social welfare programs: it doesn't take much squinting to see my own society as broadly socialist.
Somehow I see people in the US complaining that the Chinese are beating the US at capitalism (regular complaints of price undercutting and monopolistic behaviours) - what's weird since the Chinese are supposed to be pinkos.
As I see it, fully voluntary socislism where people share and cooperate because they just feel like it, works exceedingly well. It also naturally regulates itself as people will just abandon stuff that looks iffy and work extra on stuff that is well run, fair, etc
When you force people to pitch, share, cooperate, etc, things start to don't work out so well and you start getting people that takes advantage of a system that mandates others to work for a cause no matter what, as well as people that will do whatever they can to not do their work.
Ideal socialism is voluntary, just like ideal free markets.
I wonder whether your axiomatic belief is that we should all have freedom? Therefore you love the idea of free markets? I wonder if some of your "free market" comments would be better written in terms of freedom rather than economics.
Game theory and evolutionary stable strategies show the issues of cooperation versus defection.
Voluntary cooperation fails because power is required to enforce fairness/contracts and then the powerful can defect. That is independent of socialism or free markets.
Also authoritarianism and socialism are different things, even if history shows correlation. Socialism is a deeply tarred word, with radical differences in meaning (approximately equal to communism for many, or democracy for others).
If authoritarianism is a stable outcome, then it can be an outcome of free markets too.
Re your other thread: calling China a free market seems extremely odd, and basing any argument on that 'fact' is even odder. Edit: perhaps "Socialism is coercive cooperation" is similarly nonsensical.
Free markets are a component of capitalism just as they are a component of market socialism. China is a planned economy which stands in contrast to a market economy. But China has taken bits and pieces from many systems to create something that works for them, a hybrid that's probably specific to China alone. It's just capitalist enough to be able to interface with big wallets around the world, but we can all agree China itself is very far from being free market capitalism.
Hybrid system, actually. No 100% pure system survived, ever. Be capitalist, communist, or technology philosophy bound. The GNU project tried to expand Unix with ITS editors (Emacs), utilities, ITS'like freedom and Lisp (Emacs and Scheme, again).
For a while the most used editor for Unixen wasn't vi or a vi descendant (vim), but Emacs, an editor alien to Unix. Knowing Vi was almost something 'mandatory' in order to manage servers' configuration under any Unix like OS, and ed on hard emergencies where even the terminal wasn't reliable enough.
Windows needs WSL2 and POSIX compat to be relevant today. Win32 itself doesn't run on top of a DOS like VM having almost a 95% of control of the machine, but on a VMS'like kernel with objects a la IBM.
MacOS itself it's just a Macintosh like UI made from NeXTStep scraps, a Mach kernel and pieces from a FreeBSD useland.
There aren't many pure socialist countries like there aren't many (any?) pure capitalist countries. Most of Europe operates in mixed mode, half socialist. Some countries are very bad (and against) at implementing any measures that directly benefit the lower classes (as opposed to the typical capitalist "trickle-down economics") so they vilify anything that has even the faintest smell of socialism.
> They're always running out of other peoples' money.
I wish people would stop parroting this as some sort of deep insight. Capitalists don't run out of other people's money but they do collect all of it. Ask the capitalists who sink other people's investments with no recourse. Ask the capitalists who get funded from people's pension funds, with "interesting" IPO strategies. Don't turn a blind eye for the sake of a remark which was witty a few decades ago and sounds just ignorant today.
> Capitalists don't run out of other people's money but they do collect all of it
No, they don't "collect all of it". Musk's trillion dollars was created, it was not "collected".
> which was witty a few decades ago and sounds just ignorant today.
Countries that turn to socialism are always running massive deficits paid for with inflation. American states and cities that lean into socialism are all having major problems with running out of money and raising taxes.
They didn't patent the equivalent, the entire discipline of flying. They patented "angular relations of the lateral margins of the aeroplanes may be varied in opposite directions with respect to the normal planes of said aeroplanes"
On my part, I'm not entirely sure what a lateral margin is, so I just answered somat's question which is about the entire discipline of controlling a plane.
I don't think patent law should be concerned with what inventors "deserve" in some moral sense. I think their purpose should be socially practical.
The socially practical effect of working patent law is that it incentivizes inventors to publicly document their inventions by offering limited exclusive rights to the invention. To that end, an overly broad claim to hypothetical inventions which are not actually documented in the patent is detrimental and instead stifles innovation.
> I don't think patent law should be concerned with what inventors "deserve" in some moral sense.
"Deserve" in itself is a meaningless word, a tribal signal. It's interesting to figure out what different people actually mean by "deserve" when they say it (followed the procedure, fulfilled the agreement, expended a sufficient amount of effort, suffered, were responsible in some way for its existence, is alive, has not taken from others, is loved) but there's nothing really there to base anything on. It's a political word.
The real world equivalent is "is entitled to."
edit: it doesn't help that the philosophical area that focuses on what people "deserve" is called "desert." It's one of the cases where where English sorely needs Spanish-style accent markers. "Desért."
What someone "is entitled to" is of course also largely a political phenomenon, a social construct. Just like the idea of what someone deserves it supposes a principle according to which that can be said. For example, ideas of what people deserve according to moral principles often precede legal principles that entitle them to that. But it is only in terms of those moral principles that someone can deserve that, and in terms of those legal principles that someone can be entitled to it.
The fact that some innovations succeeded despite having to tiptoe around patents is more of an example of survivorship bias.
When we get something working first, there are probably some optimal partial solutions there. Working around the patent means having to do some things inefficiently while being able to provide better efficiency or cost of the overall system.
In my work, I all too often see that the obvious optimal solution we come up with turns out to be patented and we are spending time on finding least bad worse solution. (unless our patent lawywers manage to pussh through a patent for the same thing with different wording, like measuring period instead of measuring frequency)
In some cases it is not possible. For example, 3D printing was held back for 20 years just because of sleeping patents.
> Cisco's patent on Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol led to the development of the more secure and more capable Common Address Redundancy Protocol
This seems like a success story in spite of software patents, not because of them. Just because they were forced to develop a new protocol in order to avoid getting sued for using Cisco's doesn't mean that they wouldn't still have improved on what Cisco had if they'd been allowed to use and modify it freely. The lack of lawsuits hanging over everyone's head certainly hasn't prevented innovation from happening in FOSS.
This sort of benefit in software can be realized with much shorter terms. A 5 or 10 year term would accomplish pretty much all the same benefits. 25 years is just way too long for software.
Why do you think it always only takes 5 years to develop some superior technology? 5 years seems like a short enough time frame that a company would rather just wait out the patent than invest heavily in R&D in the off chance they come up with a viable alternative (that now of course THEY can only protect for 5 years)
Having people create new technology to avoid arbitrary legal hurdles instead of adopting existing and perfectly functional technology doesn't seem particularly efficient.
The intent of the patent system is to encourage publishing innovation in exchange for rights to it for a period of time, and then everyone gets to use it. IMO the biggest problem has been granting patents for inventions that at least in retrospect seem non-novel or obvious. I get that there's a grey area there at some point, but "one click ordering" is one that comes to mind. Just because someone hasn't done it exactly like that before, should not make such a simple idea patentable. And I think patents should be on specific implementations, not general ideas. If I can implement the end-user experience of one-click ordering without substantially copying Amazon's underlying technology, that should be fair to do.
>the biggest problem has been granting patents for inventions that at least in retrospect seem non-novel or obvious.
I don't agree that that's the biggest problem. I think the biggest problem is that patents are abused to stifle competition by refusing licenses or putting untenable fees on them. No one would have cared about Nintendo's D-pad patent if they'd just put a reasonable license fee on it. On the other hand, a patent like MP3 I would argue is quite legitimate, but putting a patent on a coded just makes interoperability more difficult. If MPEG had charged licenses for decoding chips and explicitly allowed software implementations, that would have things so much more smoother.
It would be better to allow codec patents only on the encoder. Once you have encoded data, there is only one valid way to decode it so everyone should be able to implement that. That is, the general decoding mechanism at least - you could still have novel implementation details.
That's one problem. 25 years is also a really long time in fast moving fields like software, microchips, etc. And the format the invention is "published" as is essentially a legal document, often largely written by lawyers for a target audience of patent clerks and other lawyers, not a technical specification written for engineers and scientists. And the is an incentive to omit or obscure details important to actually replicating the invention.
Why can't the market work it out on its own? People will buy superior products.
Governments mucking around with things like patents only distorts markets in ways that make them inefficient, and ultimately worse. Anyone who thinks the government's intervention improves things hasn't been at the business end of the government.
Well if the best examples you could come up with are:
* from 100 years ago, one that would happen anyway because tech progresses, patents or not
* one that that wasn't correct one as they didn't patent VRRP (which was another open source competition to it), they tried to patent troll it
and both of them were "proper use", not "we will try to make our patent as wide as possible so we can stifle any competition"...
I think the claim of being entirely useless, at least in most spaces is very valid. There are some techs that take years and millions (medical drugs come into mind), but vast majority of patents are just stifling technical progress, and especially on software side
That's confusing copyright with patents. The right to publish Newton's books is separate from being able to apply the knowledge which a patent protects. Note that math equations cannot be patented.
A patent was meant to give a solo genius a way to treat their idea as something tangible, at a time when logistics was much slower and the world revolved around the physical.
Maybe they try to develop it themselves, maybe they sell the idea to a big corporation that has the resources to implement it. Either way, genius begets profit, and the world gets genius ideas... in theory anyway.
But a genuine idea back then needed a long time frame to actually do something with it. 20 years seemed reasonable at the time.
The world is less logistically constrained these days. Make it 5 years, no renewals.
A patent is meant to encourage people and companies to share the details of their inventions, instead of keeping them secret. In return the inventors get protection for a certain number of years.
>The modern purposes of patents seem to have shifted a long way from that
I'm not sure if that's true, or if it's more that 1) we hear more about the more egregious stuff and/or 2) something was lost in translation with that stated purpose when the world went digital.
That, and we're also past the need for geniuses to keep grinding in a cave, in hopes of landing a patent.
People are far more empowered today, many more can work near the bleeding edge, and funding can be arranged in different ways than holding on to a patent.
Solo geniuses don't have the money to operate the patent system, it doesn't work for them. All they can do is sell for cheap or else get bogged down. When they invent as an employee they outright don't own it. That's a moral outrage. And that's what the patent system is to individuals.
Good luck publishing in Costa Rica. When you're not privileged you're likely to be on the losing end. So what use is it? Better keep your invention a secret, like most do, and let the next generation display themselves as the inventors. That's the alternate reality the system actually supports.
The whole system should be scrapped. Publishing is easy nowadays, just do it. Then you'd have the rights of you can prove you're the first. Anyone that wants to use can/must give you a known amount of royalties, depending on whether the invention is a unique enabler of a class of products, or just an optimization. Which it will become over time. If you don't want that, keep it a secret and build company around it.
"Solo geniuses don't have the money to operate the patent system"
Very true, a friend patented a design, that he had developed over a decade, and tried to license it to established players in the astronomy field. They looked at his pitch and just implemented it anyway. Without buckets of money there's little a solo inventor can do.
I don't think patents are inherently evil, however they certainly can be used for evil.
But The basic idea is sound. If you invent a novel mechanism and publish it the government will grant you exclusive economic exploitation rights to that mechanism for the next 25 years. After that it is now fair game.
It is an attempt to solve the real problem that it is much harder to be first than second, the guy in first place has to spend all that time and effort to develop the thing, and the guy in second just has to copy the guy in first. To rectify this social injustice the patent system was developed, where the government would grant and enforce economic exploitation rights of the mechanism to the inventor.
> the guy in first place has to spend all that time and effort to develop the thing
The problem is that patenting something doesn't require one to put a lot of time and effort - just to produce few pages of text and diagrams. So it might be sufficient for somebody to have a general idea.
The problem often stems from the Patent Offices getting caught flat-footed with new tech. When the patent officers don't know enough about the field they are reviewing it is easy for things which are "obvious to experts in the field" or "overly broad" to slip thru and cause major headaches for everyone.
It does not help that things fundamental to the new tech, even though they took real effort to develop, are now exactly those items that are now "obvious to experts in the field" and "overly broad" And then have fun trying to distinguish real fundamentals from items in the form of (existing invention "with a computer") Or whatever the hot new tech of the day is.
A good example(old enough to not matter any more) is the how the Wright brothers invented something fundamentally new, their patent was on how to control an airplane, The problem is, once you see it, it is obvious how to control an airplane. Birds do it, Why should such an simple thing be protected? But conversely. This is a discipline that took the Wrights many years of hard and meticulous work to figure out. Is it morally correct to say "No, we are not going to grant you exploitation rights to this thing you invested so much time and effort developing"?
> But The basic idea is sound. If you invent a novel mechanism and publish it the government will grant you exclusive economic exploitation rights to that mechanism for the next 25 years. After that it is now fair game.
No. it is no way shape and form, good. 25 years is eternity in tech. The impact of the tech is not all that much related to investment either. You are just stifling any competition in the market
> It is an attempt to solve the real problem that it is much harder to be first than second, the guy in first place has to spend all that time and effort to develop the thing, and the guy in second just has to copy the guy in first. To rectify this social injustice the patent system was developed, where the government would grant and enforce economic exploitation rights of the mechanism to the inventor.
It has completely wrong structure for that. First, the duration. Second, the way you can patent vague idea, not actual concrete implementation. It is not used to stop competition from just copying your product, it is stopping anyone in market to compete.
Patents are a deal made between innovators and governments. I especially dislike this term "intellectual property" because it tries to turn that deal into a right. That feels benign because the little guy innovator depends on rights. But what really happens is that it turns patents into a sacred object. They're not.
While it would be a bad idea to do so, mere legislation can set the terms of a patent to any length down to zero or out to forever. It's not a right. It's a deal meant to be beneficial to society in return for the government enforcing a limited term monopoly.
I don't know anything about pharma, but having worked in tech and had my share of patent lawyer meetings, it sure doesn't seem like software patents are necessary at all. That said, a patent system has a lot of free parameters that you can dial to reduce the cost. At the silly limit, if patents were only good for 24 hours, the cost to society would be ~zero (though also the benefit would be zero), so it's hard to call that "evil" in the sense of definitely causing a lot of harm. The question becomes whether/when you can set all the free parameters to something worth having.
Our demand for perfectionism prevent any progress. I would consider shortening patent length that can help everyone. With all the improvements in the world we could afford shorter window.
I would recommend that great academic (but very digest) book titled "Against Intellectual Monopoly" to understand why the answer is most certainly "no" (though, their answser is closer to "yes" for pharmacetical patents).
They're a nice idea poorly executed. If they would last something like 5 years instead of 20, and only be assignable to individuals, not companies, and non-transferable, they could work as intended.
I think of them as legalised marijuana. It is not good for you, but if it were made illegal, there will be criminal organisations providing the service. Without patents, we would be mired in NDAs dictating which company can talk to which other company about what technology, and quite possibly several open-source developers passing away in mysterious circumstances.
So I see it as unavoidable evil. The patent system makes it lawful evil as opposed to chaotic evil, which is strictly speaking an improvement.
Software patents may be what saves the field. Currently copyright as an IP protection for software has been rendered near meaningless by AI. If I can get one AI to reverse engineer Photoshop, and another to implement the produced spec, I have a copyright-clean version of Photoshop.
Patents protect the idea of a particular program. And in the post-AI world, it's the idea that holds the value, not the implementation. Implementations are cheap now.
Another alternative to preventing the entire software market from collapsing is to revive the Whelan v. Jaslow copyright standard, under which the abstract "structure, sequence, and organization" of a program is eligible for copyright. But programmers would bristle at that almost as much as robust patent protection for software. Until, that is, the money comes in with mouths to feed and mortgages to pay...
Most large open-source projects banning AI contributions have been doing it for social and technical reasons, not legal.
As for the copyright infringement angle, it’s well and truly too late for that to be a meaningful problem, socially and politically. It’s easily in “too big to fail” territory now—any striking down of the “fair use” exemption claim would kill the entire industry dead, because every one of them would have to throw away all their models and synthetic data and start again, and that’s geopolitically untenable. They moved too fast for judiciary to regulate them, and I think the window of opportunity for legislature to regulate them closed no later than 2024.
You are wrong about why open-source projects are banning AI contributions. While vibe-coded slop is obviously a pain, many are banning even their own well-known contributors from using A.I to write large parts of code due to legal concerns.
I'm sure the patent/copyright trolls care a lot about the "industry." It is still the early days but eventually they will come on knocking.
I believe Graeber perfectly predicts the problems, in 2019, with vibe coding creating immediate "value" from production, but failing to produce true value through maintaining the system (like one continually washes a cup to give it value over time).
> (like one continually washes a cup to give it value over time).
But it doesn't give value, it prevents value loss.
I don't know why people are telling themselves maintenance work is virtuous. It's waste. It's necessary waste, and doing the work may be virtuous, but the work itself is pure waste. Fighting entropy.
EDIT:
I wish we talked more about the need for low-maintenance patterns and products. In this industry, many of us already recognize this instinctively, but we often misattribute the problem to "complexity". Think of e.g. rather substantial niches and common practices among developers, like static site generators, no-build-step development, or on the backend side, the popularity of header-only libraries in C and C++. All these tend to be labeled as reducing dependencies, but that's just the means - what they do is they minimize independently rotting parts. The build system isn't bad because it's complex - it's bad because you have to constantly babysit it. Conversely, a static site once rendered will open ~forevermore, and so will a piece of C/C++ code that relies on single-header libraries.
Similarly, the popularity of containers is in large part this. All the mess isolated in a self-contained bundle that is preserved against rot, at least for a while. Inside, there's nothing to maintain - it works until it's not needed, or until the "outside world" changed too much, at which point you throw the thing away and get a new one. Etc.
> But it doesn't give value, it prevents value loss.
It keeps thing operational. Software changes because requirements changes, the context it is used it changes, or just the iterative nature of it where features are rolled out over time so that users can immediately start getting some functionality if not all that was originally planned (MVP).
Maintenance work is neither virtuous nor waste. Its just nature of the things we build.
I agree however with the part on more talk about low-maintenance patterns and products. IMO its often the trade-off between velocity vs quality/technical debt. So it happens, industry is favoring more and more towards velocity for delivering features that often add little value to the users, just because $$$, competition and maybe the grind culture.
> the work itself is pure waste. Fighting entropy.
Would you not say that this is essentially labour holding up the value?
And I agree about low maintenance products being necessary, the example of the static site is good because the files could be described as becoming a stateless transformation of data!
If would be interesting to see 5 billion LLM's working together, each with random mutations (temperature ig). Would we essentially be looking at a society through a petri dish? Ofc 5 billion is quite a lot of compute.
FWIW I don’t at all think it’s wrong for people to pick up on whether this would make him a good representative of Clacton were he to win (which isn’t going to happen and he surely thinks it is not).
Part of Clacton is relatively well off; part of the wider constituency (Jaywick) is genuinely deprived on a national scale, and they really do need an MP that bothers to understand them and that they can relate to.
Farage is absolutely manipulating and exploiting them for his own benefit; he uses their concerns to give himself a way to play on the national stage but he is a pretty terrible MP (though he’s not the only politician to forget they have a local constituency).
But if Binface could win, I don’t think it’s at all wrong to question whether the man under the bin is going to be good for them.
His job, I think, is to expose Farage’s lies and insecurities.
I do wonder if Farage will decide to drop out before the vote.
Farage, more than most people, seems to strongly dislike ridicule and to lose a good deal of his vote to a comedy candidate would significantly damage his long term political prospects. If the polls look really bad for him it might be better to cut and run.
If that happened it would be difficult for the Count as I assume he would win the seat, but having to be a reasonably behaved MP is an onerous task and one that he might prefer not to take on.
