Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

1. Software patents might have helped Ric Richardson's startup survive and grow, but who's to say they haven't cost other developers the chance to survive? Look at what he's doing to other companies now.

2. Is it fair that Richardson's firm should have a monopoly on license checking for 20 years? Just think about that - we're talking about the rights to the broad, basic idea of a license-checking mechanism being allocated to a single person for 20 whole years. What good is it to society to allow what amounts to a highly profitable IP land-grab?

3. Should the patent have been approved in the first place, when what seems to be prior art existed in the '80s? (Based on the X-Plane dev's research.) A bankrupt patent is not a very good argument for Richardson's case.

4. Tightening the standards for issuing patents could conceivably allow developers to launch products and try implementing new features without a particular fear of stepping on patent landmines. That will be good for proliferation and innovation.

5. Patenting and licensing a technology is not the only valid business model in tech. I don't think it's "what the tech business in the US is all about". It's not the only, or best, way.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: