• lud@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Software patents are weird but normal patents are reasonable in my opinion.

    • sugar_in_your_tea
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. I’m completely fine with patents over something like a prosthetic or manufacturing equipment. I’m not okay with patents over software or business methods.

      As a kid, I liked law and computers, so I thought I wanted to be a software patent attorney. Midway through my CS program, I decided software patents are completely awful and decided to work on FOSS instead of go to law school. Software patents should all be invalidated.

      That said, I think patents should have a much shorter duration. I’m thinking something like 2-3 years, with an extension to 5-7 years if the patent holder can prove they need the extra protection to bring the product to market (i.e. they can demonstrate active work on it). Maybe certain types of patents can have another extension if it’s a long lead-time product, but definitely not longer than 15 years. Most patents should expire within 7 years.

      • Endorkend@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Software patents need to be shorter.

        Hardware ones I think can be as long as they are, but need loopholes and tricks closed that allow for extending patents on the same thing artificially.

        Best would be to have many different categories with vastly different duration and the durations need to be reviewed periodically.

        Like the fact large parts of x86 is still patent protected is an obscenity.

        • sugar_in_your_tea
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with different durations based on the type of product, but I really need to see some evidence that the current patent length is needed by anyone. First mover advantage is a real thing, so they only need enough protection to get a head start. Patents are just a license to be lazy, so they should only exist as long as necessary to get to the market first.

    • mindbleach
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously. Patent length was chosen before the industrial revolution. It only coincidentally made sense through that period of mechanization. But in computing, twenty-odd years is an eternity.

      In 2000 there were no shaders.

      In 1980 there were no IBM PCs.

      In 1960 there were no microchips.

      Why the fuck would any idea from when Pong was fresh and new deserve absolute control until after the Super Nintendo? There could be Dreamcast games with features that that nobody was allowed to do again until last year.