Having my name on a bunch of software patents - and, yes, I tried to get my name off them, but was …

>For software Copyright is a far better instrument. Let the one with best implementation win... That's where the cost is: Implementing, testing, shipping, maintaining. Protect that. But this is minimally protectable, and you can copy the idea just not the exact implementation. Copyright does not have a 'doctrine of equivalents' equivalent. It also supports independent creation. Copyright also does not cover functional elements. You cannot copyright an idea, only the expression. So maybe you can elaborate more on why your point makes sense?

From a laymans perspective they also don't seem to work. Apple's multitouch felt like something brand new to consumers and yet other device manufacturers copied it anyway. Facebook entire product line is dependent on ripping off competitors unique features. What's the point?

Anyone who has ever taken part in a software patent litigation ... or in the creation of a software patent, knows intimately that its a bunch of bullshit. The boogieman that software patent advocates raise is that IP theft and free riding will destroy America if we don't have patents. But literally nobody is creating software to get a patent on it, and software patents don't stop anyone from replicating software. Instead software patents are just a way for mediocre lawyers to live parasitically off the tech industry. Imagine a world where we were so worried about bullying that we created a department to monitor all speech on the Internet, and you had to run your speech past lawyers for approval before saying anything. And you could be sued for saying anything by anyone if you didn't get lawyer approval. That would be a world with dramatically less bullying than the Internet today. AND a …

Copyrights for protecting software seems likely to die on the altar of LLMs. It seems likely patents will become more important.

I agree in general, but can think of at least one counterpoint: https://terathon.com/blog/decade-slug.html Actually novel implementation is protected, paid the author's bills, and was dedicated to the public domain recently - no massive corp involved.

I disagree. If patents are to exist there is no reason software that should be an exception. Us programmers are essentially arranging blocks. And if you arrange them in a special way you can get your stylus to follow them in amazing ways. I don’t see why that’s very different than arranging atoms. At the lowest level, software is always represented physically in the medium. It’s concrete.

A teammate put my name on a patent proposal he filed with our legal team. I immediately demanded to have my name taken off of it. No way I would accept having my name associated with that trash. I'm sorry you weren't able to get out of it.

i'm okay with participating in the software patent system for defensive purposes, but agreed that it is very stupid.