Letter to the Patent Office From Professor Donald Knuth (1994)

Re:Letter to the Patent Office From Professor Donald Knuth (... by igravious on Saturday June 28, 2014 @06:51PM (#7959641)

With all respect to Knuth, if you really inspect his arguments and assertions they are quite weak or have turned out unfounded.

* emigration? No. U.S.A still has smart minds immigrating

* stifle innovation? No. Innovation still happens, progress is being made

* mathematical/non-mathematical and numerical/non-numerical distinction - Not clearly elaborated

* Limp analogy to to previous edicts (designating PI as 3 and Earth as flat) are category errors

---

We now see that the end result of the current patent set up is that it allows those with questionable morals and/or deep pockets to extract rent from the stuff of thought rather than land or housing as was the traditional way.

Is this right or wrong? Only if rent-seeking is right or wrong. The patent system is working exactly as it should be.

Note: I actually think that some algorithms which are of significant invention/discovery could/should be patented (I mean, why not?) but what happens is that many many many stupid algorithms get patented and also large corporations can defend turf by sewing patents in virtual land that they have traversed. Because the systems surrounding patents is equally broken, patents are broken. The original idea to reward inventors for ideas is still valid. We throw the baby out with the bath-water if we do not acknowledge this.

What say you? :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter to the Patent Office From Professor Donald Knuth (... by xophe on Saturday June 28, 2014 @07:36PM (#7959768)

>>Is this right or wrong? Only if rent-seeking is right or wrong. The patent system is working exactly as it should be.

This is a fatal oversimplification hiding in economist jargon. Is making money wrong? As an economist, the answer is "It depends." From a public utility standpoint, the point of patents is to encourage invention by protecting those who would not otherwise invent. Do you honestly believe that without patfents, the software industry will decrease in productivity?

>>* stifle innovation? No. Innovation still happens, progress is being made

What? Stifling and dead-stopping are two entirely different things. We're talking about the rate of innovation, not whether it's happening or not. Once again, do you think patents are hindering innovation?

>>The patent system is working exactly as it should be.

You can't use this claim as an argument. That's the entire matter at hand.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter to the Patent Office From Professor Donald Knuth (... by AnthonyMouse on Saturday June 28, 2014 @07:24PM (#7959722)

> Is this right or wrong? Only if rent-seeking is right or wrong.

Wait, what? Rent-seeking is wrong. Please let me know if there is anything else you need clarified.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter to the Patent Office From Professor Donald Knuth (... by chii on Sunday June 29, 2014 @10:44AM (#7961289)

while i agree with the fact that rent seeking is wrong, you should present an argument as to why it is wrong, instead of just a condescending statement of the fact.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter to the Patent Office From Professor Donald Knuth (... by AnthonyMouse on Sunday June 29, 2014 @01:14PM (#7961713)

There is no actual dispute about the wrongness of rent-seeking, the only people who might think otherwise are either misanthropic Machiavellian jackasses who are themselves wrong or people who don't know what rent-seeking is. It's like saying "that's only wrong if corruption is wrong." Well no kidding corruption is wrong, does anybody actually want to dispute that or are you just asking for a link to the collected works of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson?

[ Parent | on HN ]