Why didn't we patent the spreadsheet? Were we stupid? (1999)

http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm

by hugs • 13 years ago

115 128 13 years ago

I don't personally have a problem with software patents in principle. You've come up with a brilliant idea, you spent time and money to implement it, and you want to make sure you receive the credit for it. I get that.

I was born well after VisiCalc was released. I look back on those years, and wish I could have experienced how "open" things were. It seems like the culture was completely different when it came to new ideas for the most part. Also when it came to sharing ideas. Things were different.

In recent years I've become less and less of a fan of software patents. Only because they are being used to hinder development of new services because they may somehow relate to a very generic idea that someone had. If you're going to get a patent, and will not abuse it...go for it!

Stupid, no. Just happened in a completely different universe...

angersock2• 13 years ago

"You've come up with a brilliant idea, you spent time and money to implement it, and you want to make sure you receive the credit for it."

Hint: the marketplace is the way to get that credit.

tokenadult• 13 years ago

The marketplace sometimes rewards thieves more than creators, which is the historical reason for laws that regulate intellectual property rights. You may disagree with current laws (I personally think the current term of copyright protection is much too long), but I have lived somewhere where enforcement of intellectual property rights was weak at one time, and that was not good for innovation there.

AFTER EDIT: Both of the first two kind replies to my comment ask for some more details about what I observed overseas. Early 1980s Taiwan was the land of "Rolex" watches sold on street corners, pirated United States bestsellers in English-language bookstores for tourists, and general violation of patent, copyright, and trademark rights. Every country in the world seems to go through a stage of copying rather than innovating in its economic development. Eventually, as Taiwan democratized, it became apparent that international trade relations would OF COURSE be helped by meeting treaty obligations to protect intellectual property from other countries. Moreover, it was discovered that there are plenty of creative, inventive people in Taiwan, who created more and invented more as gradually domestic individuals and companies received greater legal protection of intellectual property rights. Innovation is hard to sustain where copying is the path to quick riches. But innovation becomes a more reasonable path for investment of personal time and effort if being first to make something new allows some LIMITED time (I'm with everyone here in desiring intellectual property rights not to extend too long in time) to enter the market and see what consumers think of the innovation.

tanzam75• 13 years ago

The marketplace rewards all sorts of things that are not related to the brilliance of the idea. Access to capital, management expertise, skill of execution, plain dumb luck, etc.

Therefore, the marketplace encourages companies to take a fast-follower approach. Let someone else spend the money to come up with the idea, and then pounce all over it.

The goal of the patent system is to encourage the idea itself, by giving a monopoly to the inventor. In this way, fast-followers have to compensate the inventor for the invention by licensing the patent.

Alternatives to patents -- prizes, research grants, compulsory licensing, etc. -- are also designed to separate the value of the idea itself from the rough-and-tumble of the marketplace.

nilved• 13 years ago

If you have the best implementation of that idea, won't you get credit for it anyway? Patents, like everything else designed to inhibit innovation and the flow of ideas, are bad for society.

Arelius6• 13 years ago

You've come up with a brilliant idea, you spent time and money to implement it, and you want to make sure you receive the credit for it.

The problems is that 9 out of 10 times, that idea is derivative of some other idea(s). And you just have to hope that the original idea(s) either aren't patented or have since expired.

wmf• 13 years ago

Or you can cross-license your improvement in exchange for the prior art.

DanBC2• 13 years ago

I was born well after VisiCalc was released. I look back on those years, and wish I could have experienced how "open" things were.

You might have missed the "look and feel" reference in the post. Lotus (makers of another spreadsheet, "1 2 3") sued other companies over the look and feel of software that was "too similar" to 1 2 3. Two companies went out of business.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software#.22Look_and_fee...)

NoPiece2• 13 years ago

I agree with you about patents, but overall, I don't things are worse or less open now. Visicalc wasn't patented, but it was a commercial, $99, closed source product. The open source movement is much bigger and stronger now. Linux and Github would have been mind blowingly awesome in 1979. They are mind blowingly awesome now!

kaeruct• 13 years ago

Github isn't open source (nor free software)

CamperBob22• 13 years ago

If only there were a different form of intellectual property, one that grants a limited monopoly over the embodiment of a creative work rather than legal ownership of the idea behind it. Oh, wait. There is. It's called "copyright." And it's (more than) strong enough for the job.

throwawaykf024• 13 years ago

Right, and somebody simply reverse engineers your creative work and re-implements it, completely bypassing any protection provided by IP. As long as you make something that cannot be hidden away in the cloud or protected as trade secrets, your work is always vulnerable to reverse engineering, and it's surprisingly cheap to get it done. Forget software, even fabricated chips get reverse engineered on a regular basis.

saidajigumi• 13 years ago

I don't personally have a problem with software patents in principle. You've come up with a brilliant idea, you spent time and money to implement it, and you want to make sure you receive the credit for it. I get that.

That's certainly one principle. But literally implemented "principles" are often toxic when it comes to public policy. I largely think that's due to a failure to think through the effects on the entire system. The principle is emotionally appealing, but ends up having undesired or even disastrous primary- and/or side- effects in the real world.

In the patent case, we have a Mexican Standoff[1] in that virtually every player is vulnerable (violates one or more patents knowingly or unknowingly) and the only defense is stockpiling more armaments (patents) and shooters (legal staff). The risks and barriers to entry to small players are high. And that doesn't account for the actions of parasitic agencies like patent trolls.

That said, things are largely more open now in practice. The level of interchange of ideas and code is far, far greater now than ever before. That culture didn't die or go away -- it exploded right along with the rest of computing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff

loup-vaillant• 13 years ago

You've come up with a brilliant idea, you spent time and money to implement it, and you want to make sure you receive the credit for it. I get that.

You're thinking at the individual scope. When making a policy, a given individual doesn't weight much. Even all inventors put together don't have much moral weight, compared to the rest of the population.

So, patents rewards inventors. That's an advantage. But it's a little advantage, for there are not that many inventors to begin with. There are also the costs associated with the implementation of patents (patent bureau, patent lawyers…), which may be significant, but not much in my opinion. So, on first approximation, we can ignore those aspects, because there are bigger effects, that affect society as a whole.

On the disadvantage side, patents restricts what people can do, and they kill competition. (Of course. They were designed that way. But it's still a disadvantage.)

On the advantage side, patents are an incentive for inventors to invent, and for companies to fund them. The inventions then benefit everyone (starting with rich people, but still).

Now, all we have do do is measure which weight the most. See how patents actually affect society, and decide if it's a net benefit, or a net loss. Either way, try and think about policies which may have more advantages, or fewer drawbacks —or both. Patents are far from the only way of encouraging innovation, after all.

You can see that it's much more complex than the "reward the inventor" principle. Principles are good, but they're often not enough. When you look at actual consequences, you see that sticking to easy to understand principles is not always the best thing to do. Especially when deciding for an entire country.

wnevets• 13 years ago

Programs were thought to be mere mathematical algorithms, and mathematical algorithms, as laws of nature, were not patentable.

And thats the way it should be now. I dont think you should be able to patent math, dna or the air we breathe

dsego• 13 years ago

So if it is on paper it's not an invention, but if you apply it on a piece of metal it suddenly is? A piece of code in C is applied math, but a mechanism with cranks and pulleys is not?

Arelius6• 13 years ago

Personally I think all patents are stupid. I mean clearly they are more fundamental to some industries (health) But I think once we figured out how to do research without patents, the world would be a better place with zero patents.

bostonpete• 13 years ago

Yeah, I agree that the "math" argument is too simplistic. There are plenty of algorithms, numerical models, etc, which can require massive capital expenditure to develop -- not because they're hard to code, but hard to devise. The same rationale for why we should have patents on mechanical devices applies to these efforts (some argue all patents should be abolished, but they seem to be in a small minority).

The problem is with the protection of "inventions" which are obvious or non-innovative, not with patents of one type of invention over another.

geebee• 13 years ago

Maybe so. Keep in mind, mathematics is not considered an acceptable background for admission to the patent bar. This is because abstract laws are not patentable. Admission to the patent bar is largely based on studying physical or biological sciences, not math.

This becomes a problem, though, when math essentially does become patentable, because it means we've barred people with the best background to review these patents from the profession that reviews them.

All in all, I think eliminating software patents is something that should be seriously considered. Maybe just use copyright? It's not an easy question, so I don't mean to be glib here. But eliminating them should at least be considered as one viable option. The current situation is really bad.

forgottenpaswrd2• 13 years ago

"A piece of code in C is applied math, but a mechanism with cranks and pulleys is not?"

Software patents is not even about code. Almost nobody that patents software makes code public accessible. With a patent you are supposed to make public the plans, in exchange of the monopoly.

The idea of patents was that anybody could replicate the work reading the plans, so society advances when the author of the original work dies.

With software patents the code is not there, so it becomes monopolies for abstract ideas, the more abstract the better.

johnward2• 13 years ago

seeds we plant...

lumberjack• 13 years ago

What difference is there between devising a mathematical method, a business method and a mechanical engineering method to accomplish something?

I am just trying to understand the rational behind what is and what isn't patentable.

Is it perhaps a question of applicability? Profitability? Enforceability? Is it a question of a difference in values held by mathematicians v. inventors?

stonemetal• 13 years ago

You can't patent F=MA but you can patent a weapon such that you drop large rocks off of cliffs to bonk people on the head. The patent covers something that uses natural processes and mathematics but not the underlying mathematics or natural process. In software this means something like quicksort could be patented(if it passed the nonobviousness clause) but the mathematics behind it recurrence relations, divide and conquer, big O analysis, etc. would be unpatentable.

If there is a difference between mathematicians vs. inventors it is an understanding that a mathematical description of a thing and the thing itself are two different things(one of which is patentable).

nateabele• 13 years ago

It's amazing how many things we take for granted that likely wouldn't exist if it had been possible for companies to acquire software patents in the 70's and 80's. I wonder how much of the Free & Open Source software that the internet is built on would never have even been written (or written but not made public) for fear of infringement.

Puts somewhat of a new spin on the debate about it today.

bad_user• 13 years ago

It does make one wonder, what innovations aren't happening today because of software patents?

Qantourisc• 13 years ago

Many, because doing so would infringe on some patent. For example your product might not work without rounded corners. (For example sell-rolling phone, not that I can think of a use for it, but still you get the idea.)

DanBC2• 13 years ago

Just a few examples of concepts where patents played no role in those days: word wrapping, cut and paste, the word processing ruler, sorting and compression algorithms, hypertext linking, and compiler techniques.

Well, some people tried:

Hyperlinks:

(http://eupat.ffii.org/patents/effects/hyperlink/index.en.htm...)

British Telecom in the 70s and 80s filed patents in the US on the concept of cross-references in hypertext. In 2000 BT discovered one of these "Rembrandts in the Attic" (US 4,873,662) and decided to use it for squeezing money out of internet access providers. Litigation is beginning in 2002-02.

(http://www.cptech.org/ip/business/hyperlink.html)

(http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2000/06/23/bt.html)

JackFr• 13 years ago

Also: Wheels on luggage. Cameras in phones.

Aldo_MX• 13 years ago

I'm not against the patents, but I think there should also exist a revenue limit, and whenever a patent reaches either the time or the revenue limit, get invalidated automatically.

frozenport• 13 years ago

Revenue is impossible to compute. For example, can Windows OS sales be attributed to a patent on MS Office?

cmsmith• 13 years ago

Oh I'm sorry, we haven't actually made any revenue on that patent because it's owned by our subsidiary 'PatentCom' which charges us a license fee of $1/yr to use it.

johnward2• 13 years ago

I don't think revenue would work. I say just make it a very short period of time. enough for the inventor to get a jump start and then open it up to benefit all.

nova2• 13 years ago

I am against patents in general, and specially in software, but I can see there is no way to change the system the way politics and lobbying work.

So maybe we should try another approach, something every government likes: taxes. Let's add a tax on patents please. (Maybe copyright too, specially of old (>10 years) works.) A big yearly tax for every patent you own.

It's the only way I can imagine to put some slowdown to the cancerous growth of IP.

guelo5• 13 years ago

And yet they had plenty of incentive to invent the spreadsheet. Patents grant a government protected monopoly in order to encourage people to invent. If people have the incentive to invent anyway then it is better for society to allow competition, since competition benefits consumers much more than monopolies.

dangoldin2• 13 years ago

I might be completely wrong but I think you can make the argument that back then the challenge was in the implementation since there were so many technical difficulties and there was no need to patent an approach since it would be difficult to replicate. Now with modern tools it's pretty easy to replicate most software so getting a patent makes more sense.

I don't think software patents should be granted but clearly there's an incentive to patent as much as you can.

eterm2• 13 years ago

Is it actually easy to replicate most software or does it just appear that way until you try?

gnaritas11• 13 years ago

Patents grant a government protected monopoly in order to encourage people to invent.

No they don't. The patent system was developed to encourage inventors to make their inventions public knowledge for the public good. It was never about encouraging invention, the limited monopoly was the means to and end, unlocking trade secrets for the public good. You've confused the means for the motive.

sillysaurus23• 13 years ago

I think this is correct. For example, the Wright Brothers' sole motivation for inventing the airplane was to patent it and make money. Without patents, they would've either kept it secret or not done it at all.

guelo5• 13 years ago

The basis for patents and copyrights is this clause in the constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

blah32497• 13 years ago

If you can keep something secret, why would you bother patenting it?

I think that the most important secondary effect is that it puts all inventions on a more of less level playing field.

Inventions that can't be kept secret due to practical limitations(like the cotton gin, or the steam engine) are just as valuable as inventions that can be hidden (computer programs, chemical processes, etc.)

ggchappell2• 13 years ago

I'm afraid that point doesn't work so well here. After Lotus brought out 1-2-3 a few years later, VisiCalc didn't do so well. VisiCorp was dead less than 2 years after the release of 1-2-3. One could argue that a patent would have kept VisiCorp alive. (Admittedly, part of the failure of the company was due to litigation with the authors of VisiCalc.)

guelo5• 13 years ago

So what? Consumers preferred 1-2-3 to VisiCalc, that's how markets works. Society doesn't have to guarantee anybody a market share if their products are inferior.

jhdevos• 13 years ago

Exactly. Innovation in the field of spreadsheet programs would have completely stagnated by keeping it limited to a company that was clearly done innovating. Their lack of further innovation would only have been greater with a monopoly.

6ren2• 13 years ago

  If I invented the spreadsheet today, of course I would file for a patent.

I can't help feeling bad for VisiCalc, getting killed by Lotus 123, and they in turn by Excel. Similar to Apple (almost) getting killed by the PC (they invented the Personal Computer - even the term was appropriated by their competitor).

When you invent something really useful that's never existed before... don't you deserve something awesome in return? But I guess they did make some serious money; and consumers benefited from the better implementations (which is why they switched). Ownership would have prevented this particular progress.

I still feel bad for them though.

bendoidic• 13 years ago

“Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.” - Thomas Edison, king of patents

Implementation, partnerships, marketing (visibility), and growth are all just as important as being first. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings in academia, where the ultimate goal is simply to be published first and recognized most.

6ren2• 13 years ago

Thank you! A contrast with academia is a good way to look at it.

Also, one might say Bricklin et al did get the academic reward of being recognized as first; but that ethically, whoever helps people most deserves the greater reward (through implementation that meets their needs; word of mouth that reaches them; ease of adoption; 3rd party support; constant improvement etc).

msteinert• 13 years ago

When you invent something really useful that's never existed before... don't you deserve something awesome in return?

This probably feels like the ethically correct outcome when you've invented something interesting, however it runs counter to free market economics. Being first can provide a competitive edge but it isn't the only factor.

erichocean2• 13 years ago

This is timely, my startup is working on an invention that does for business computing what the spreadsheet did for number crunching, and yes, we're patenting it.

Mostly because our competitors are all multi-billion dollar companies and we need something on our side when the inevitable law suits start flying, and the copiers get revved up.

sigh It annoys both of us founders to no end, but I don't see another option given the legal environment in the US today.

dnautics2• 13 years ago

there used to be a SIR - "statutory invetion registry" but the obama administration got rid of it.

You should consider licensing your stuff through one of the companies that works to ensure that your stuff is in the commons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation

erichocean2• 13 years ago

Thanks for the link! I hadn't heard of them before.

grimtrigger2• 13 years ago

Nevertheless, patenting software is encouraged by law, and I find it my duty to the shareholders of the companies I've been working for to take advantage of this protection.

What a cowardly cop out. If you believe in software patents, I can understand getting one. But to say "I must do X because X is profitable" is ridiculous.

sillysaurus23• 13 years ago

Offtopic, but would you quote using * asterisks? Quoting like that makes it almost impossible for mobile users to read.

grimtrigger2• 13 years ago

updated

jlgreco4• 13 years ago

Frustratingly, italics on the chrome browser on android seem to not work. I usually give it a combination of '>', quotation marks, and italics.

victorf• 13 years ago

I disagree that "cowardly" is the appropriate adjective and suggest "pragmatic" instead.

xkiwi2• 13 years ago

I immediately come up with an idea to patent stupidity, so no one is allowed to be stupid or they have to pay a fee.

gonnakillme• 13 years ago

Presumably you yourself have an unlimited license? ;)

xkiwi2• 13 years ago

that's not my point. I hope people really have a deep through before they do anything.

But, I have more interesting to troll and patent trolls. Both are fun and worth doing.

mathattack• 13 years ago

Personally, I think that the fact that software patents started being granted so late in the history of programming (which was in full swing 30 years earlier in the 1950's) will cause all sorts of problems for the software industry.

He was very prescient with this concluding comment!

microcolonel2• 13 years ago

Who cares? Why use a violent monopoly to encourage something which was already profitable, and at the expense of similar work later on?

Who cares what somebody in the software industry thinks the government ought to be doing with their monopoly on the initiation of violent force?

To the people citing the U.S. constitution here, this isn't about america, it's about pointing guns at people for doing something like what you're doing.

dm2• 13 years ago

Are there any arguments against a "Mandatory Reasonable Patent License Fee" law that requires patent holders to license their patent? Maybe have it kick in one year after the company offers it to the public or other companies.

If anyone had a dispute then they could set up a special court or process for determining a reasonable fee (not difficult) for the patent license.

The same could be done with some services and utilities.

This would result in a win-win for all parties involved; the patent holder would receive incentive for the invention, the patent licensee would receive revenue from offering a superior product/service or at lower cost, and especially the consumer who receives a better product and would have more choice of higher quality products.

This would also result in companies doing less "favors" and "ass-kissing" to each other in order to keep license deals.

It seems like this would be the best of both worlds because the patent holder would receive incentive for the invention and t

clueless123• 13 years ago

For the same reason, a bunch of stupid patents for stuff like "touch screen paswords" where granted where plenty of prior art existed, Basically, at the time of first invention software could not be patented, so when patents finally where allowed, no previous patent existed.

My bad for being too far ahead of my time :(

jebblue• 13 years ago

You couldn't patent what already existed in paper form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet unless you referenced the patents for the spreadsheet which existed before computers and the patent office agreed it was an improvement on the original patent.

Why didn't we patent the spreadsheet? Were we stupid? (1999)

Related Stories