[HN Gopher] Patents in Open Source: the important parts of real ...
___________________________________________________________________
Patents in Open Source: the important parts of real cases
Author : tgamblin
Score : 76 points
Date : 2021-06-03 18:09 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (google.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (google.github.io)
| dsanchez97 wrote:
| I know that software patents and licenses are a murky field, but
| I was wondering if anyone knows of any licenses or ideas that fit
| a situation I am in. I can't go into much detail but this is a
| general description of my situation:
|
| I am working on a startup idea that has a component that I would
| like to 'defend'. I am trying to improve a process for developers
| and I think this new component is a big piece of solving the
| problem. The component is a unique/new part of a pipeline, but
| there are already established companies working on pipelines to
| solve the same problem. This component executes on the client
| side, so it can not be kept as a secret process that happens
| server side. I know that once it is viewed by competitors, they
| could reimplement the idea without directly using the 'source
| code' and add it to their pipeline/product. I want to be able to
| distribute my project to potential users and allow them to use it
| freely while also preventing competitors from copying the ideas
| into their own products.
|
| I know that patents were originally created to incentivize
| innovation by preventing established competitors from simply
| copying ideas/processes from new competitors, and I feel that I
| am in that situation.
|
| One idea I had is to separate the unique component into its own
| library then give my own project the right to license/distribute
| the library, but I do not know if there are any off the shelf
| licenses that support that.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _I want to be able to distribute my project to potential
| users and allow them to use it freely while also preventing
| competitors from copying the ideas into their own products._
|
| 1. If your product is truly great and you build it well,
| chances are your own momentum will carry you into building a
| great moat. Most SaaS companies, with novel technology, have
| very few similarly sized competitors. Your time is best spent
| building your company as technology rarely "makes" the company.
|
| 2. If a startup steals your idea and grows fast enough for you
| to notice (with enough VC money or something) they will just
| ignore you until they are big enough to pay you off. While you
| are spending money on lawyers they will be spending money on
| customer acquisition.
|
| 3. If a large company steals your idea, they will either out
| lawyer you or counter sue with whatever patent library they
| have.
| dsanchez97 wrote:
| Definitely agree that a great product creates the most
| momentum and biggest moat! I figured this thread would be a
| good place to have a discussion and hear some other peoples
| experiences (and doesn't cost me lawyer fees).
| ohazi wrote:
| > One idea I had is to separate the unique component into its
| own library then give my own project the right to
| license/distribute the library, but I do not know if there are
| any off the shelf licenses that support that.
|
| > I know that once it is viewed by competitors, they could
| reimplement the idea without directly using the 'source code'
| and add it to their pipeline/product.
|
| These two things appear to be in conflict. If a competitor
| could easily re-implement the idea after seeing it work, then
| why do you care about exclusive rights to the library
| containing your implementation?
| dsanchez97 wrote:
| I think that the fact that it is easy to re-implement once
| seen is what is interesting. From my understanding, the
| patent system was designed to protect ideas that once in the
| 'public eye' could easily be copied by companies with more
| resources.
|
| A hypothetical example is that a small toy maker comes up
| with the idea for the Big Wheel
| (https://www.amazon.com/Original-Big-Wheel-Inch-
| Tricycle/dp/B...). They patent the design for the concept and
| begin manufacturing the Big Wheel. Once on the market, a big
| toy manufacturer could easily begin producing the exact same
| product because they have the resources to, so the fact that
| it is easy to reimplement does not mean that it is
| contradictory for the inventor to want a patent. The patent
| on the 'invention' of the Big Wheel would be the only thing
| the small inventor has to protect themselves.
|
| I know that the world and community has benefited from open
| source and freely available software and that there is a bad
| history of software companies using the patent system in
| debatable ways, but there are also cases where it can look
| like big companies take advantage of the free and open
| ecosystem in ways that disincentivise future innovations.
| bawolff wrote:
| Patents do sound like the thing you want (assuming nobody has
| "done" it before), but you should talk to an actual lawyer.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> but you should talk to an actual lawyer_
|
| This. a good lawyer will cost money.
|
| It's worth it.
|
| I did pretty much exactly that, last week.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| Any tips on selecting one?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I have a friend who is an IP lawyer, but I live on Long
| Island, NY.
| breck wrote:
| If you've got a good idea, just build it. Don't put any energy
| into trying to restrict the freedoms of other people.
|
| Forget everything you've read about patents. Licenses are for
| losers. There is no such thing as intellectual property, only
| intellectual slavery. It's a sham system that allows the
| ovarian lottery to persist far longer than it should. The
| public domain is the only game that matters.
| beervirus wrote:
| What horrible advice. Intellectual property exists _even if
| you choose to close your eyes and jam your fingers in your
| ears._
| breck wrote:
| It really does not. The term makes no logical sense. You
| cannot have property rights and copyrights and patents.
| They are fundamentally opposite ideas.
|
| It would be like if the tobacco industry called cigarettes
| "cancer reducers" and we just all went along with it. Now
| imagine the tobacco industry controlled every books,
| television and news producer. That's what's happened with
| the information industry.
|
| If you say otherwise you're either lying or not thinking.
|
| Now, if you want to make money and don't believe in ethics,
| I think that's a perfectly defensible position. But if you
| have morals, public domain is the only right thing to do.
| kazinator wrote:
| Can you design an experiment which detects whether a black
| box contains intellectual property?
|
| If physics cannot detect it, how real is, it, really?
|
| If it's just a social construct, then it's only real to the
| extent that people agree that it's real, and it's real only
| to those people who agree.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| Property in general is a social construct, not just
| intellectual property. When I say that something is my
| property, that refers to social/legal recognition of my
| rights over that thing. Even if that thing is tangible,
| there is still no black box experiment that can determine
| whether that thing is my property or not.
| musingsole wrote:
| To echo this, every story I've ever heard of patent or IP
| protections making or breaking a company come across as
| classic exceptions that break the rules stories. These rules
| are made for the behemoth companies of older eras who have
| become institutionalized. The patents are how they negotiate
| their niche with the other institutions.
|
| Which is to say, unless you're an institution or know how to
| play on their field, patents are useless to you and your
| customers.
| dsanchez97 wrote:
| Yea I spend 99% of time actually working on the product, but
| I have been also thinking about this recently as once you
| choose a license it has long lasting consequences and is hard
| to change (i.e. Elasticsearch). Figured this thread would be
| a good place to have a discussion though.
| breck wrote:
| I'd say go public domain.
|
| SQLite did. Eats more and more of the DB world every year.
|
| The web is public domain. Don't need to explain that.
|
| So is tcp/ip.
|
| the great ones are public domain. GPL et al are a clever
| hack to weaponize copyright laws against themselves, but at
| the end of the day the solution we need is an amendment
| repealing Article I, Section 8 clause 8.
| bawolff wrote:
| That's really only because elastic was opensource,
| benefited greatly from that, and then changed their mind
| when it was no longer convinent.
|
| I assume you are not making it open source if you are
| considering patenting it. Much of the complications of the
| elastic search case wouldn't arise in the proprietary
| software case.
| corroclaro wrote:
| Sometimes I am grateful that I live in Europe where software
| patents are _not_ a thing.
|
| Ish. A shame the US courts chose to interpret the laws as
| licensing software patents.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-03 23:00 UTC)