Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So, it seems that you and I are definitely in agreement about the rough proportion of novel research done to "figure out how to fit preexisting things together and patch over the areas where the parts mate poorly" in the software field. I'd argue that the latter activity does qualify for inclusion in the development half of R&D, but -because I don't know [0] the relevant legal definition of the term, I won't strongly argue for the position.

The unfortunate thing that kicked off this discussion was that you talked about "...[selling] software IP...". Thanks to active work by copyright maximalists [1] over the past 20+ years, the term "Intellectual Property" applies just as well to plug-and-chug Enterprise CRUD software that sells for megabucks as it does to leading-edge research projects that -like- actually have Key Personnel and die dead if those folks go away. Anyone who is capable of paying attention and has been in the industry for more than a year or three is quite aware that plug-and-chug CRUD is far more valuable than the overwhelming majority of the people who make it.

So, yeah. From that arose the confusion.

[0] ...and because I can't be arsed to go look it up...

[1] My position in brief: copyright and patents are absolutely essential, copyright terms are insanely long, and patents frequently granted when they should not



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: