undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfreejazz2y ago0 comments

I'm not sure you are getting my point, so I will repeat myself. The challenge in patent law is to come up with an actual law that delineates good patents from bad patents. This is an extremely difficult task, if not impossible. So, simply stating, from the sidelines "bad patents shouldn't exist" doesn't actually help anything, because it provides no way for the law to filter out bad patents.

My point being, I don't think you or others here appreciate that challenge, and instead just do things like you are doing here, where you ignore the questions I pose to you, and instead ask me to defend these patents. I never said either of those were good patents or should be patents... so why am I being asked to defend them?

The crucial question is... can you provide a better delineation between good and bad patents besides just facially calling them good or bad? It doesn't appear to be that you can do that. Given that you know more about the technology than lawyers do, how is it that you suppose attorneys make this delineation?

As a matter of convenience, I'm not going to respond if you don't answer my question, because it will be clear to me that you are not reading or engaging with my posts because this will be the third time I've posed this issue to you, when you've completely ignored it the first two times in order to step up onto your soapbox while repeating the categorical fallacy I accused you of.

0 comments

AlbertCory2y ago

So, as I understand the deal here: if I come up with an actual law, then you will tell us whether the patents I named should survive or not? Is that the bargain?

Or are you just going to critique what I say?

freejazzOP2y ago

There's no deal. You keep avoiding my questions. It's very simple.

If technologists can't come up with a delineating line between valid and invalid software patents, how do you propose a judge to do so?

You sit here and say good patents are okay, but bad patents must go. So I ask you again and again, define a bad patent... no response. You ignore and you flip the conversation to ask me about already existing patents. They aren't the issue, the issue is coming up with a way to filter them out...

AlbertCory2y ago

> If technologists can't come up with a delineating line between valid and invalid software patents, how do you propose a judge to do so

I didn't say a judge should do it. I said the Congress should do it. And what Congress should do is a political question, not a legal one, which is why our opinion is as valid as yours.

As for 'just answer my question': I think you mainly want engineers to say something concrete so you can critique it. So how about if you tell us: what are some examples of good software patents?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsfreejazz2y ago0 comments

0 comments

AlbertCory2y ago

So, as I understand the deal here: if I come up with an actual law, then you will tell us whether the patents I named should survive or not? Is that the bargain?

Or are you just going to critique what I say?

freejazzOP2y ago

There's no deal. You keep avoiding my questions. It's very simple.

If technologists can't come up with a delineating line between valid and invalid software patents, how do you propose a judge to do so?

AlbertCory2y ago

> If technologists can't come up with a delineating line between valid and invalid software patents, how do you propose a judge to do so

I didn't say a judge should do it. I said the Congress should do it. And what Congress should do is a political question, not a legal one, which is why our opinion is as valid as yours.

As for 'just answer my question': I think you mainly want engineers to say something concrete so you can critique it. So how about if you tell us: what are some examples of good software patents?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse