freesoftwaremagazine.com — Asking “what’s wrong with software patents?” stirs up controversy and divides the IT industry into two camps like no other. I’m going to look at [software patents] from a different angle, one based more on economics and less on emotions.
Oct 31, 2006 View in Crawl 4
jellygraphOct 31, 2006
It stifles innovation, that's why.Programming is a language of logic. You can't patent a mathematical formula or a physics equation. In fact, I would argue that patents should not be enforcable unless you can _prove_ that a competing product was only able to develop their technology by reverse engineering yours. Otherwise, if they were able to find a different implementation to solve the same problems your product solves, or happened there by accident, it should be game.The way it is at the moment, and the way they want to continue to propose it, is about as nasty as it gets. You can patent almost anything, and it usually gets passed, because the person assessing it doesn't know much about technology.
babblingOct 31, 2006
As you have pointed out, the software industry moves so fast that the current patent lifetime is far too large. What you didn't mention is the effect this will eventually have. This will artificially slow down the software industry because companies with patents will no longer have any incentive to innovate (no one can compete with them) and companies without patents will not be able to innovate. (it would be illegal for them to do so!)
bensladeOct 31, 2006
The whole software patent thing started when the patent office refused to patent "business methods" in software but was then forced to allow these patents by a court ruling. I think that has resulted in a "fine, you want software patents, here's your ****ing software patents" attitude at the patent office. Ie., if the courts forced the Patent Office to allow software patents, they're going to dump those patents back in the courts' lap.Also, there's a management infrastructure problem: There's no negative feedback mechanism to prevent patent examiners from granting bad patents. I don't think they're dumb or malevolent, just incredibly overworked. They could probably spend weeks researching just one potential patent. I bet they have a pile of a few hundred sitting on their desk at any given time.If nobody else cares about the patent examiners' totally unreasonable workload, and if nobody penalizes them for rubber stamping patents, why should they kill themselves to do a good job?Ben SladeChevy Chase, MD
ponddiggerOct 31, 2006
Software patents are applied to things that someone created, which is different than applying a patent to something that nature created, like the air we breathe. I think it is ridiculous to apply patents to something that nature created, like the human genome, but patents have been granted to parts of the genome.I think there is also a problem at the US Patent Office, because some software patents have been granted for things that are really rather obvious, like one-click shopping. It's as if the people who work at the patent office were hired right out of grade school and they don't really know what they are doing.
andronOct 31, 2006
And of course there are the patent offices who know that they should not allow patents that are 'obvious' or have prior art, and yet the willfully ignore them passing patents they know to be illegal.An Australian Patent office issued a patent for the wheel, no really, they did.Of course why believe me, how about the BBC:<a class="user" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1418165.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1418165.stm</a>or New Scientist:<a class="user" href="http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn965">http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn965</a>Not only do we need to decide whether patents are beneficial but we also need to take into account the inaccuracies of implementation.Currently the only real way to overthrow a false patent is to challenge it in court, which is an expensive procedure. Personally I believe that the patent office or the patent holder should foot the bill for this, or alternatively forced to pay cost plus a significant fine if they are found in possession of an illegally granted patent.If someone can face prosecution for infringing a patent, I don't see why companies should not face prosecution for holding patents that are not legally valid. I personally believe trying to claim license fees for false patents is fraud and should be treated as such.The problem is we can't tell how many companies are being ripped of by false patents, we would need to know the patent is fraudulent, and if we knew that no one would have paid to license it. Right now it looks like the best way to make money is to file loads of patents, don't worry about if they are yours or not, the patent office won't then threaten to sue anyone infringing the false patent. (I'm off to go get a patent on that idea, however there may be significant prior art, but who's going to worry about a technicality like that)
raindog469Oct 31, 2006
Funny that babbling would take someone to task for editing a quote and then post a version with a bunch of "..." in it.
chodaNov 4, 2006
"Does this patent application further science or technology in some new way? (Yes/no)If the answer is no, the next step in that flowchart is DENY IT."Apparently if the answer is yes, approve the patent quickly so as to severely limit the amount of people / companies able to use the new idea. Limited only by the patent holder's greed, assuming they are even willing to license out the idea.