Tradition has held that these are ideas, not inventions, and thus
obtain value precisely because they can and should be freely shared
(which is the ultimate aim of patents anyway).
Ideas may also require intellectual labour. But one may not receive
the protection of the government for them to give temporary advantage
over competitors. Ideas are a collaborative venture, protocols being
the very epitome of this - since a "protocol of one" is a bit like a
birthday party for one... a bit sad and pointless.
If one wants to make money, by all means invest time in pursuing
patentable inventions, but do not presume that mere ideas (most of
which are "nothing new under the sun") should be afforded the same
protection.
The problem we have today is that the patent system is derelict. The
goalposts have shifted to allow almost all and any silly idea to
obtain a patent and the system itself is weaponised for extraction. It
has not shown any will to reform, so abolition may be its ultimate
fate.
I’m interested in what “traditions” you’re talking about here? Honestly, it is not even clear to me what you’re talking about when you say “these” in your sentence. Certainly tradition hasn’t held that Rust memory management is an idea and therefore not patentable. Same with new models in ML? Maybe there is some tradition for protocols, but even those are generally patentable but required to be licensed via FRAND.
Your post seems to entirely misunderstand the patent system. “But one may not receive the protection of the government for [ideas] to give temporary advantage over competitors.” This is just flat out wrong. The purpose of a patent is literally to receive the protection of the government for your ideas in order to give you a temporary advantage over your competitors via a government granted monopoly on an idea. The bargain that’s struck is that the patent owner gives the details of their patented idea to the world so that anyone can eventually practice it or build off of it in exchange for a limited exclusionary protection in commerce.
Pretty sure that it's not for ideas, but for specific implementations of ideas, patents being criticized as abusive when they are not specific enough ?
One example I saw just today :
Thomas Savery getting a patent on "make, imitate, use or exercise any vessells or engines for raiseing [sic] water or occasioning motion to any sort of mill works by the impellent force of fire,", which I assume subordinated Thomas Newcomen during the patent's duration = all of his life to Savery, despite Newcomen's engine being much more advanced & commercially successful... (at least he didn't end up destitute, like some of the previous steam engine inventors !)
This seems to be splitting hairs on what an “idea” is. Is a patent on the use of water heated into steam to drive an engine different from the idea to use steam to drive an engine? I don’t really see where you draw the line here, and the idea to use steam to drive an engine was definitely new at the time so why shouldn’t it be patentable? And also note that your linked story does not implicate the US patent system (which addresses the problem you’ve identified: your patent only lasts for 17 years, not for your or your competitor’s life) but seems to be reliant on the British patent system as it was in the late 1600s.
You can argue that the patent system in the US is partially broken because of how broadly patents are granted nowadays, but that does not support the GP’s contention that there is some kind of distinct line that can be drawn between an idea and an invention, which is why the patent system is what it is now. And, again, your own link underscores how far we’ve come in understanding that unlimited monopolies on technologies/ideas are bad and how limiting patents durationally can help with that. Note that one of the requirements for a patent to issue is called “enablement” which basically means that your patent MUST describe the invention with sufficient particularity that a person with ordinary skill in the art could make and use your invention.
lol, after your last phrase I'm confused about what we are even arguing ?
(Also, I don't think that in that case the patent expired because its holder died, more likely it came to a term (after being renewed ?) after 35 years (which I agree is a tad long), otherwise my source wouldn't have put it in this way ?)
I'm sorry I can do nothing more to help with your misunderstanding of
my good faith post. Please do the necessary research with regard to
the history and purpose of designs and patents law.
> So you have no examples or explanations for what “traditions”
I have plenty. Now, I do not wish to be rude Abduhl, but I find your
"question" a little disingenuous, and your expectation that I act as
your personal tutor on well documented matters a tad entitled. This
isn't my full-time job, and I come here mainly to look for interesting
and unusual viewpoints. Have you done even the most cursory research
into the history of patents as I indicated? Do you need some reference
material or links to get started?
How about reading some lecture notes and essays (some of the finest on
the formation of copyright, patent and trademarks) on the site of
Havard law professor Lawrence Lessig [1]
I'm skeptical rust memory management is such a big invention by them and would bet some money the ownership model already existed before in papers at the very least. And even if not just imagine having to pay Dahl or Alan Kay to implement OO in your language, which was by every possible metric more innovative than rust's memory management.
Even if it would have stopped java from being a thing it's just not worth it.
Those things got invented anyway though, without being patented. The right question, in my opinion, is whether there are important software innovations that would have been significantly delayed, or kept secret, or never discovered at all, if software patents weren't a thing.
And if so, do they outweigh legal costs and chilling effects of patent trolling, and the inefficiencies of people having to engineer around patented ideas.
Intellectual property is a fairly artificial concept. It's quite "big government" when you think about it - government grants a monopoly on the application of an idea. It is only worth preserving if it makes the country richer.
This cuts both ways: it's also easy to "surround" software patents with new innovations that are required to be competitive in the marketplace. Then both parties cross-license and you're good. Yes the lawyers get paid but the cost is pretty low compared with software engineers, and the societal benefit is that these innovative move into the public domain.
I don't understand your point, do you mean that this cannot happen in other fields?
I imagine that this is the case for most stuff in the world. Ideas are not usually unique but it's the great execution of the idea that present the real challange.
Some examples:
- Rust memory management
- New models in machine learning that enables amazing results
- Protocols