Hacker News Reader

I agree that #1 and #4 are problematic, and to a lesser extent #6.

#3 sounds good, but how do you stop people from submitting code written in Brainfuck or TECO or something?

Regarding #3 I think they want the patent holder to prove he is actually using the invention for a (commercial) benefit. If you invent a copy protection scheme they want to see you actively sell it to third parties or actively use it in your own product. I think that makes sense to be honest, people shouldn't be able to sleep on an invention until they find a suitable company to sue for high profit margins.

Edit: This is in reply to points about software patents only.

The classic drug pipeline includes pure research companies that would be NPE's.

Isn't it rather possible that the right answer for software is not like the right answer for drugs, and that it takes an expert in a particular field to propose a sensible reform (assuming one is needed in that field)?

A lot of the questions about what patents tend to do seem to have different answers in different fields: http://inventors-against-patents.org/faq.html#is_abolition_o...

US healthcare has an abysmal cost-to-benefit ratio in comparison with most of Europe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com