In an ideal world, big companies would look one another sheepishly, join forces and just bully their way through lobbying to get rid of software patents.
>>2
Yes, but their software patent counsellors would strongly advise against that (since their payrolls would be at stake).
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:26
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:31
I hope Google fights this. This patent is just retarded. TAOCP is fucking prior art for this bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:31
>>10
Remember I mentioned this for an 'ideal' (for a given value of ideal) world.
Please also note that if the law (explicitly or implicitly) require me to hire rat exterminators, and that I finally get the law to explicitly not mandate rat exterminators, then I can fire all of them no matter what they've been advising all this time.
Big companies have legal counsel other than patent lawyers. Those can advice on the legal matter of outlawing software patents. Their payrolls are not at stake. If there is an opportunity window to get rid of software patents a simple cost-benefit analysis can tell you if it's worth it to go ahead and bankroll lobbyists and lawyers to then fire the software patent lawyers, and those would have little say in the matter.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:35
I'm going to patent doubly-linked lists and sue all of you!
C++0x standard library's unordered_map and unordered_set use chaining. Is this the end of C++?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:41
>>13
In the real world, the loudest one wins. Lawyers usually have big mouths and a way with people. Sure, any accountant can come up with a cost-benefit analysis for software patents that concludes that software patents are a waste of time and money. The question is whether he gets to speak in front of the shareholders, or the lawyer does.
Speaking of which, have any of these analyses been published (so that I can quote them in the future)?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 12:51
>>16
I mentioned an analysis of the benefits of software patents (right now) AS COMPARED TO the cost of getting rid of software patents (with, say, lobbying). That would be quite different than an analysis of the cost and benefits of software patents on their own (what do we gain from our patents, what do we lose from our legal costs + the patents of other). Since getting rid of software patents isn't on the horizon for now, there's not a need for an analysis (and I wouldn't take one seriously if I knew of one).
Here's my very own analysis for you:
(little software patents benefits - little software patents costs) / HUGE LOBBYING COSTS WITH NO GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS = not worth it
I can't wait until we get scalable nuclear fusion energy production technology working. It will be the great enabler of the post-scarcity, libertarian socialist utopia and we will finally have a populace educated enough to abandon authoritarian measures such as patents.
>>17 Since getting rid of software patents isn't on the horizon for now That's subjective. And it's for now.
Buying politicians doesn't cost that much. Hell, with 5M USD, you could probably push the change in, say, the EU legislation, if you use the money wisely and not just throw it around. Of course, it'll take a lot more money and effort to do it in the US as well. But hey, once you're done, you won't have to worry about software patents ever. A one-time cost always outweighs a perpetual periodic (and possibly varying) cost.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 13:02
>>19
What if another company lays down double the amount but in the other direction? There's a need for consensus between the big companies. And right now patents are also used strategically not to bring revenue in, but to slow down development/access to market. See Oracle suing Google about the Android JVM.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-27 13:03
In college I thought I invented combining hash tables with link lists. I got super excited and showed my professor. He laughed and said its a common practice. Upon exiting his office I had a sudden wave of paranoia that he might have just lied to me to steal my genius idea. Then I went home and Google put me in my place.
>>21
All of the low-lying fruit has already been taken. To innovate now, you must find ways to apply Jewish mathematics to model external phenomenon as novel internal computational states that can be utilized to perform meaningful work.