Thread

1. smalltorch · 1790442053 · focus · HN ↗

   Wow, that's a lot of money for a little buzz. I mean what could possibly be such sacred knowledge that a vibration could even be patentable.

   You spin a unbalanced thing in a circle and it creates a vibration. Make it less unbalanced and you get a smoother vibration.

   1. bigyabai · 1790442710 · focus · HN ↗

      Why do people cry foul like they've lost a limb when OpenAI steals Apple IP, but then shirk away from condemning Apple stealing Taction or Masimo's IP?

      The community has to pick a lane. Either IP theft is good and promotes competition, or IP theft is bad and we have to apply the law equally.

      1. amelius · 1790444563 · focus · HN ↗

         The whole patent system sucks. It has nothing to do with reality.

         The aspect of "you are granted a monopoly on a technology for a period of time" is something that is especially bad.

         1. eastbound · 1790447020 · focus · HN ↗

            Before patents, scientists wouldn't share their findings. Patents are an excellent way of making things public domain 20 years later.

            We should have the same with software.

            1. ndriscoll · 1790447448 · focus · HN ↗

               Or just don't protect trade secrets (the entire point of patents is that trade secrets are harmful to society), and require all software to come with source, the right to have someone change/fix it for you, and the right to share your changes/fixes under a right-to-repair umbrella. Maybe retain a limited (e.g. ~5 year) distribution monopoly on the original (so you could distribute patches but not the full thing).

               Source is less important with LLMs now, but it's wasteful and destructive to the planet to have everyone need to use them to reverse engineer things for no reason.

               An economy built around not making knowledge prolific is obviously a bad, inefficient idea, and in the end will be our downfall.

               1. jmalicki · 1790448435 · focus · HN ↗

                  So you're saying you strongly support software patents?

                  1. ndriscoll · 1790453866 · focus · HN ↗

                     Literally nothing in what I wrote would suggest that. In fact the initial "or" contradicts that. There's no need for patents of you just require the knowledge be made available in consumer protection law.
               2. andsoitis · 1790449963 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Or just don't protect trade secrets (the entire point of patents is that trade secrets are harmful to society), and require all software to come with source,

                  That would infringe upon my freedom as a creator of software. No thanks.

                  1. ndriscoll · 1790453911 · focus · HN ↗

                     Consumer protection laws infringe on the freedom of manufacturers to screw consumers, yes. That's the idea.
            2. armchairhacker · 1790447973 · focus · HN ↗

               Why? Open source is doing fine.

               Instead of patents, the government could just pay scientists who make useful things. Sure it costs government money, but so do the lawsuits.

            3. amelius · 1790493957 · focus · HN ↗

               > Before patents, scientists wouldn't share their findings.

               But most of science is funded by the government ... shouldn't the taxpayer get something in return?

            4. onel · 1790507152 · focus · HN ↗

               Fun fact, a lot of software patterns are banned in the EU. Especially pure software patterns.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.