Most people, including myself, cannot actually read patents. Being told that the summary is irrelevant does not help at all. What are we supposed to do, ignore the patent because we don't understand it?

If you're a programmer, you can read software patents.

If you're a mechanical engineer, you can read mechanical patents,

If you're a farmer, you can read farming patents.

See how that works? The language is dense, and you must read carefully, but the patents I have actually read are not particularly difficult to understand.

> If you're a programmer, you can read software patents.

Here I can bring in a different definition of "can". I could if I wanted browse different software patents, but that just puts me or my company in more legal trouble especially if sometime later I happen to develop something similar enough to a patent I've previously read that I get sued over it. It's not a good idea to just read patents blindly if you have any interest in building stuff that might get popular.

Though I suppose it's probably safe to read the Linked List patent, which is one of the clearest and silliest I've ever seen: http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...

Rabble rabble rabble. I hate this attitude: I don't understand software patents, and I'm not going to take the time to learn about them, therefore they need to go.

If your post had been informational rather than insulting, he probably would have taken the time to read it and learn.

You really are defensive of this whole Balmer thing. Do you have a vested interest in software patents like this or something?

(I was talking to you yesterday about "understanding the world around me")

No, I don't. I just get annoyed at all the misinformation that gets repeated about patents in general and software patents specifically.

The discourse around HN is generally of a pretty high level, and it's disappointing to see people just blindly accepting the party line: software patents bad, I don't know how to read a patent and that's ok, and anyone who disagrees is just stifling innovation.

>The discourse around HN is generally of a pretty high level

Yes, I agree. The people here are generally very intelligent.

>it's disappointing to see people just blindly accepting the party line: software patents bad

...Have you considered that they've applied this intelligence to the topic? They've all come to the same conclusion because it is the most logical one? I wouldn't be so quick to jump to "everybody is stupid because they don't agree with me" on this. Maybe you're the one who is wrong about it.

Well, that may be. But almost all of the posts you see around here decrying them are just steeped in ignorance. Titles like "Microsoft has patented <whatever the title of the patent is>. Software patents have to go." When the reality is that they have merely applied for a patent (not gotten one granted), and it's actually something really narrow if you read the claims.

Stuff like that does not fill me with humility and make me think, hey, maybe these folks are right and I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Because I do know what I'm talking about. There are defensible arguments for why software patents may not be a good thing... but you don't see them here. You don't often see anything well-reasoned, just a bunch of groupthink.

>Because I do know what I'm talking about.

What makes you more qualified to comment on them than anybody else? Do you work in patent law?

If so, how does that qualify you to speak to their implications in the software world (since that is where people have a problem with them; not the wording, or the format, or the location of the building, just the effect on the community).

> Do you work in patent law?

Yes. As for the effect on the community... well, are you just talking about the way that patents make software developers feel? Because obviously developers would know more about that than I do. But it's also not a particularly relevant question--patents are what they are, and the way they make you feel doesn't really matter.

>are you just talking about the way that patents make software developers feel?

No, I (and I think I speak for the majority of people against overly-broad software patents) am against the effects of those patents.

>the way they make you feel doesn't really matter.

This is absolutely untrue. People being upset about this stuff is how it gets changed.

Well, maybe so. But I stand by my disappointment at the lack of knowledge about patents around here. We don't understand patents, but we're mad as hell about them!