Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Compulsory licensing may help in some areas, but the way things are going in the computer industry I don't think it would be enough. Even if you only charge $0.05 per unit, that can still be a big problem.

How many ridiculous software patents do you think something like a common smartphone must infringe on. If you infringe on 100 patents ("ability to tap on icon", "drag gesture to move things", "method for turning down volume", etc.) that's a $5.00 cost per phone. A low end phone may only cost $200 unsubsidized. If you only make $30 per phone, that's over 15% of your profits.

The core issue still exists. None of this would be as much of a problem if software patents were required to be much better defined and extraordinary, were granted faster, could be invalidated with prior art or independent invention, didn't last as long, and there was some sort of damage limit.

Right now, if the iPhone infringes on some patent that objectively covers 0.02% of the software on the phone, the patent holder can still go after tons of money. The damages aren't tied to the utility.

If Apple won the slide to unlock patent, and (due to the scope) could only win $0.001 per Android device sold... would they have still done it? What if (again, due to scope) they couldn't get an injunction on something so small?




You raise an important point: the patent system absolutely must only award patents to significant, legitimate innovation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: