digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Patent reform coalition aims to abolish software patents

arstechnica.com — A coalition of patent reform advocacy groups has launched a new project that aims to challenge the legality of software patents.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nickerbocker, on 02/28/2008, -5/+103Patenting software never really made sense to begin with. It's like patenting a math formula.
    • lanchon, on 02/28/2008, -4/+22Unfortunately sense went out the window a long time ago. It's not about making sense but making money, it's about ripping you off little by little, and as much as you can take it. If you expect sense from the executive, legislative or judicial branches I'm afraid you'll be chronically disappointed and frustrated.
      • CoolWind, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1a little too gloomy
      • dannystaple, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1It may be gloomy, but it is realistic. Better you buy what you need knowing how little you can actually trust the corporations selling such things, than you slavishly buy everything they output and are exploited by very cynical organisations. A very recent example is the iPhone. I do not trust companies, only use the ones that appear to currently be most useful to me. Only a fool would actually trust a company.
    • ffingers, on 02/28/2008, -16/+45As a patent attorney, I find things like this disheartening. I wrote and had a paper published during law school that addresses this myth behind software patents and how they are fundamentally understood by most people who complain about them. Yes, some software patents are junk. Yes, some of them should have never been granted, but that is where the problem lies. It lies with the USPTO, not software patents themselves.

      How many of you who are so adamantly against software patents know the history of their development. From the landmark Arrhythmia case to State Street Bank. You can't patent an algorithm. That still stands as is cited in Office Actions all the time. In fact, almost every software patent I have encountered gets a Section 101 rejection for non-patentable subject matter because it wasn't drafted correctly. If the application is drafted correctly and is examined correctly, a multitude of problems alleged by all these groups would be cured. However, people want blanket solutions like abolishing software patents.

      Software is an invention like any other. Would you say circuit patents should be abolished. I mean logically speaking, they are merely a design of well known elements to create something new. Just like software, it's code arranged into something new. I was a programmer, I can understand people's distaste, but it's not for the right reasons. The issue is with the examination process, not software patents. That is what needs to be addressed.

      I hope you don't digg me down and you consider what I am saying. If you would like me to clarify things, I will. Just let me know. I am not attempting to be confrontational, but rather hope that some people will see passed the propaganda and look at the real issues rather than opting for a blanket solution .
      • oldhick, on 02/28/2008, -5/+14I like your circuit board analogy. You put together some thoughtful points that I shall consider.
      • norman619, on 02/28/2008, -19/+6Sorry but it is you who does not understand what software is. Software is just a bunch of algorithms to make your computer do what you want it to do. Just like the algorithms used to crunch numbers. You sound more like someone who is not too happy that a great cash cow may be taken away.
        • ffingers, on 02/28/2008, -7/+19Yep you got me! You are one of those people that can't quite understand how the patent system work. Most people don't. I don't take it personal. It's confusing and frustrating. You do know that patents is one of the things that allowed the US to separate itself from British dependency? No, look it up. Listen, I know what I am saying isn't popular. You can assume it's because I am a lawyer. I prefaced what I said in support of full disclosure. The point is, software is a viable, patentable invention so long as it is regulated and dealt with accordingly. It's a different beast than anything being patented currently. But that doesn't mean it should be abolished. It just needs its own standards and processes.
          And I don't understand software. Sure, you can tell yourself that. When you file an application for a software patent, you aren't patenting the formula, you are patenting the method by which to do it which is why software patents and business method patents were tied for a long time. And back to my circuit analogy, a resistor is nothing more than a material to cause a resistance, yet you come up with an inventive way to set those up, you could get a patent. All the resistors do is affect current, just like the algorithms affect the computer. Why can you patent the arrangement of one into a novel invention, but not the other?
          • javaroast, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3One could argue that that the beginnings of the American economy were built on a laissez-faire attitude towards intellectual property... specifically to ideas that were created outside the US. As you said look it up. You are proposing better standards and processes to fix the current mess.... but I don't see any specifics, just some vague arguments in support of software patents. There is no denying that the current state of affairs is out of hand. Patents are being granted for murky ideas for the sole purpose of stifling innovation and locking out competition. The patent laws that were designed to help the little guy are now becoming a barrier to the little guy. Until I see a specific plan to fix the patent system in regards to software, I'm for writing it off as a 20 year experiment that didn't work out. Software is already protected under copyright laws and that's plenty enough. You can't patent a novel and I believe that software falls closer to a book than an invention.
          • dannystaple, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Innovation is definitely being (or in the EU threatening to be) stifled in software, and only the threat of all patent enforcement wars (corporate Mutually Assured Destruction) is actually giving any balance in the system between the big guys. If you do not have the patent catalogue of Sun, MS and IBM, you are essentially walking on very, very thin ice to bother with software at all. I am sure you know how difficult it is to do a patent check and be absolutely sure before trying to release something. Only the big companies, and vipers nests of patent trolling lawyers actually benefit from this system. The citizens of the state generally do not (okay they might, eventually, maybe in 50 years time when it is all useless and obsolete anyway if anyone remembers it). I would like to see an example of a software patent that does not stifle innovation.
        • oxdeltaxo, on 02/28/2008, -13/+3It's not because your a lawyer, you truly don't understand how software is constructed. All software is a shopping list of functions which when you break it down they are nothing special. Anyone can sequence the procession of information they just have to learn.
          • HonoredMule, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11The problem lies in the lack of alternatives. If software can be patented, then essentially, competitors are not allowed to write software to do similar work at ALL (because the formula is typically THE straightforward path from one set of input to one set of output, and most of what we do starts with the same input. If you patent a (the) method of decoding DVDs then no one who's not your customer will be able to legally decode DVDs. There IS no other method...the format itself is defined (albeit subtly) by the steps to compose and decompose it from raw data. My DVD decoder can't differentiate itself by using different chemical reactions or compounds. Logic isn't flexible that way.

            Software patents don't patent methods, they patent ideas. Anyone who works around them does so by introducing extraneous steps just so that they can differentiate their a->delta->b method from the patented a->b method, and still treads treacherous legal ground, because the delta is more like a detour than a fundamental difference in the process.
          • HonoredMule, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7...or to put it much more simply, would you patent a book? That's what copyright is for...the protection of an idea's manifestation. And software is fundamentally and clearly EXACTLY that: the manifestation of an idea in fully-thought-out form (just like a book).
        • ffingers, on 02/28/2008, -6/+14Stop alleging I don't understand software. I used to program, I have a computer engineering degree and have programmed in a plethora of languages. These arguments are baseless. Attacking my credibility does nothing to further your argument. Back to my circuit analogy, anyone can learn how to arrange a bunch of resistors, all that have to do is learn.
        • dude187, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11Your calling both types of patents fundamentally the same, while they are in no way similar. I can construct a physical working circuit by closely following the patent application that details the actual implementation of the circuit.
          With software patents you cannot implement their "invention" from the patent alone. The patent describes what they want to implement and the very high level representation of how some of it works (the parts being patented), but in no way patents a specific implementation. That means that anybody who implements an idea similar to the one patented in any implementation they choose can be hassled by big_company_x's large patent lawyer team. Software is sort of a blackbox once it is compiled, and judges have no idea about the process generally. What this boils down to is whoever has the most money can patent the most ideas and simply milk money out of the people who do the most work. Take a look around at the big players who are being milked by the patent troll companies as we speak.
          Something is seriously wrong and the ostrich algorithm (sticking your head in the sand) is not the solution.
        • ffingers, on 02/28/2008, -2/+7Alright this is my last response as I can't respond to everyone, although I have tried thus far. I agree they aren't the same, currently. But they are more alike than you think. For example, a diode and a short FET are functionally the same. If you disclosed a diode, you wouldn't be able to get a patent and would likely be found infringing if all you did was use a shorted FET. Patents are constructed to one exact form but are constructed to be as broad as possible. Should the broadness include any possible way to do the same thing, no. But if it's substantially similar, then yeah. In my opinion, so long as the patentable part is explained such that it is very apparent as to what to do, even if it's using well known techniques, but in a new way, it's fine. It's only when broad generalizations are allowed, which once again...should be caught BY the USPTO. If doing a certain thing is so well-known, it should be no issue to find prior art. If your the first person to optimize a set of code by using a specific implementation of a memory stack, why shouldn't you be able to market that? That is the economic way, that has nothing to do with patents.
          • HonoredMule, on 02/28/2008, -4/+5But software that achieves the same product is ALWAYS substantially similar (at least concerning the method of implementation). Differences only exist in UI design and similar abstract criterion.

            It's why most popular programming languages have huge libraries of completely reusable drop-in code. Every software program does 90% of what every other software program does, and in exactly the same way.
          • dannystaple, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1But ffingers, if you copyright software, you are already able to market and make money from it. Is that not enough? A competitor may make similar software, but if will not be an exact replica and will have to compete in the market on price, innovation and quality. To me, that is a fair deal.
        • dude187, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4You can market that, but patenting it only harms everyone. You can write the software, and release a download for it _today_. Patents are originally an idea of a time where it took a long time for an invention to be realized. With software it can be realized as soon as it is tested. Making your software faster is enough motivation to write the code. Giving exclusive rights to that company or person on the _idea_ used to make that code faster helps nobody in the case of software.
          To summarize my point: patents are designed to bring the money to the innovators. In the case of software patents the money flows to the innovators anyways, the patent is only used to squash competition.
      • dude187, on 02/28/2008, -4/+23Software patents are ridiculous. Your claim is that software patents should be valid because some ideas in software are non obvious. Well point to one other example of patents where you are able to patent an IDEA (and not the other type of invalid patents, business model patents). Patents are designed to protect an _invention_ and improvements to other inventions, with the requirement of having to disclosed exactly how the invention works. Software patents require _no_ code and it is impossible to implement the idea patented with just the patent itself (if the idea truly is non obvious that is). Ideas are a dime a dozen and we're doing no good granting people exclusive rights on an idea. That is against everything patents are designed to encourage, the progress of science and technology.
        Imagine if the idea of computers exchanging messages broken into small packets and being transported over a self adjusting network of wires had been patented before ARPANET came to be. We wouldn't be talking here on Digg if the person who patented that didn't know how to implement the idea.
        • ffingers, on 02/28/2008, -6/+8That is not how software patents are constructed. It's not so simple as to this will do this, and that will do that. It SHOULD be much more explicit as to how it's done. Which goes back to my point that the system needs to be fixed. I agree, you should be able to say something like computer A submits a request to B that processes it. That is very vague and could be implemented a ton of different ways, but if you say HOW you send that request, and HOW you process it specifically, then why not?
          Right now, the system is broke. You can't say for a circuit, a "switching circuit" connected to an output because a thousand different types of switching circuits could be utilized, but if you explain how YOU build that switching circuit, then you should have something. Currently you can claim an invention with some aspects being "well known in the art", ala my "switching circuit" analogy. You can concede that that process or element is well-know and therefore it's not considered a protectable part. But that little bit after that is new, you can protect.
          Stop thinking about code as being so abstract just because it's not tangible. It's still just elements arranged together to form something. So long as it's adequately disclosed and is narrow there shouldn't be a problem. Right now that isn't happening which needs to be fixed.
        • dude187, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7The question isn't about whether or not software is a new creation, obviously it is. The question is whether or not allowing patents on it really helps anyone or not.
          With the fast paced world that is software development, a software patent only harms things if it lasts more than 3-4 years. Furthermore with no pseudo code being disclosed or at least VERY detailed flowcharts of how _exactly_ to write a program that does what the patent outlines you are still just patenting an idea.
          It doesn't matter thou, even if you needed to disclose very detailed pseudo code I believe patents on software is still a bad idea, especially considering 99% of the real innovation in computing happened before software patents or goes unpatented (web 2.0 stuff).
      • mtekk, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8We already have copyright for software, and many of the software patents I've seen do deal with more or less just an algorithm. They seem unnecessarily redundant for software. Additionally, in the software world, a patent lasts an eternity (15 years ago we were running windows 3.1). Software patents could be fixed if 1) the USPTO would actually do it's job and do better research for prior art in software patents (happens all the time) and if it would stop granting trivial patents 2) if the time duration was decreased to a default length of 5 years, with optional extension of 3 additional years.
        • CoolWind, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5Software patents should not be fixed or improved, they should be abolished. They are not having a positive effect on society.
      • ffingers, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4mtekk...you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT...number 1 is the prime problem....and that needs to be corrected. My paper suggested an independent tribunal to review software patents and submit prior art to the examiner for his review because a single examiner does not have the ability or scope of knowledge to adequately find the needed prior art. You create a tribunal of open source developers, private developers, corps, etc. and they will find the prior art because they have a vested interest in not letting a frivolous patent being granted and stifling them later. If they can't find prior art, obviously it would be new and novel enough to deserve protection.
        • mtekk, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure if a tribunal would be an end all solution as even though the other members may have a vested interest in finding prior art, what happens if enough members in the group form pacts and gang up on everyone else. We've seen Microsoft do shady things with the ISO in trying to get their ***** Office XML format ratified as an ISO standard, letting them have any more power is not wise yet excluding them from such a panel would present problems of fairness. Though I doubt that in the worst case scenario that this would be worse than what we have today where Microsoft can file a frivolous patent and some naive (or possibly corrupted) patent clerk reads it and approves it.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 02/28/2008, -5/+1A rare voice of sanity. Sadly, as a group, the kind of people that inhabit digg will not really consider your position.
      • Jumper199, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4I do not claim to know much about law but as a programmer I have never seen software as an invention but rather closer to that of a book. To me software should be listed under Copyright Law rather then Patent Law. Granted like most law there seems to be a rather large grey area. But mainly my issue has always been that software doesn't really exist in the way a circuit board exists which is the wonderful world of grey. Anyway ive always like the idea of software being intellectual property falling under Copyright Law.

        But I do not know much about software Patents except for people complain about them a lot. So maybe wiping is a good idea or reform, hopefully the experts know but they tend to fail at a lot of things so who knows.
      • jrizzo, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7Ya, I think patents and intellectual property are junk as a whole. I think you should get paid for something you can do or make that someone else can't do/make as well as you.

        Just because you think of something first does not mean that you get to sue people who think of it too. That is just childish.
      • mozert, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1BS
    • CoolWind, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11The benefits of invalidating software patents would seem to greatly outweigh the disadvantages. Years and years of patent abuse have lead many of us to feel that software should not be patentable, regardless of how original or creative it may be.
      • ffingers, on 02/28/2008, -6/+4I can understand and appreciate that. BUT, instead of saying let's just abolish them, the easy solution, why not try and fix the process so both sides win. I have seem some very important software patents come out that deserve protection and to deny them just because it's easier then fixing a broken system doesn't seem right. To me, I can't justify punishing even a few great inventions because a bunch of others are bad without even trying, instead just dismissing all of them as a group, the good and the bad.
        • CoolWind, on 02/28/2008, -0/+10You believe some software should be patentable. I don't. Please explain how software patents are beneficial to society.
        • HonoredMule, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4And how do you propose to deal with the many inappropriate patents that already stifle innovation if not by abolishing them? The damage they are actively causing right now is substantially worse than a reversion to "stone age" would be. Really, the early days for software were awesome, with explosive idea-growth due to the free, unfettered exchange of information. That was the dream that corporate selfishness (largely empowered by software patents) destroyed.

          Profitability is an important part of our social model, not an objective pre-eminent above the welfare of society itself.
        • warsql, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Examples?
    • harlowsmonkeys, on 02/28/2008, -2/+6Can't you say the same thing about ALL patents? E.g., patenting drugs doesn't make sense--it is like patenting a chemical formula. Patenting a mechanical device doesn't make sense--it is like patenting physical laws.
      • HonoredMule, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3In that case, let me introduce you to patent h-325: Method of curing cancer by injecting chemicals into the cancerous region of the body by means of a syringe.

        Now we'll later decide this was a bad idea for society, but as long as drug patents aren't abolished altogether, my profit will be protected by an insurmountable volume of unfair patents just like mine, extra-patiently awaiting review.
      • theaceoffire, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1You can't copywrite chemicals as of right now... you can copywrite the process you use to purify them.
    • LeeSoong, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4I thought Microsoft patented all the 1's and 0's ?

      http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
    • DestroyFascism, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3As A patent attorney you can have lots of reasons to keep them for software, one being the work load and income you receive. Now I should be less sinical but you have a definitive interest in them do you not? Patents on a fridge motor help people improve on what was. patents on software restrict all that could be. Copyright is enough and more than enough to prevent theft of an "idea or concept" so long as it exists! Sadly patents for software exist even though the code was never written, has ever been been or ever will be written! This is a crime against the spirit of art itself. To argue that patenting an "idea" that does not exist and when it does, prevents the improvement of the concept rather than promoting it is a sham and you are the one making the dollars standing in court arguing for it to continue.
  • turbosatan, on 02/28/2008, -4/+9if this goes through half of america will fall over :-)
  • Fernandou, on 02/28/2008, -2/+7We have to bring the League for Programming Freedom back!
    • sporg, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Patented or not its all up for grabs via bit torrent.
      • HonoredMule, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3That doesn't do jack for our freedom to understand and modify the software that directs MY computer.
  • TakeyMcTaker, on 02/28/2008, -9/+3I would go even further and say that some individual processor designs are not patent worthy, and should only be protected by copyright. The terminology used by the chip maker industry betrays this -- making a chip is a "printing" process. The only original works are the original transistor type, and some of the process techniques (UV lithography, etc.). The chips themselves are just like writing carved into a stone. It's just very small writing, on a very small and smooth stone.
  • yardape6, on 02/28/2008, -2/+62Software is already covered by copyright. There is no need for software patents. It would be like a person discovering a new plot type for books and then saying anyone who writes a story like mine needs to pay me. Just like I can't copy word for word any book, it is against the law for me to copy line be line someone's code to form the exact same program. Imagine if authors could get patents on sentences and no one else could use them. It would paralyze and industry fairly quickly. The same goes for software patents. We are limiting the things people can do every day while other countries ignore those patents and continue to innovate.

    DOWN WITH SOFTWARE PATENTS!
    • Phlogiston, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Allegory and cliches come to mind you were talking about patenting a sentence. Patents are, and should be, different than copyrights. Lawyers help people get confused with this stuff.
  • sublimer, on 02/28/2008, -3/+29just imagine where we would be if simple formulas like c^2 = a^2 + b^2 had patents!
    • JMSantos, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8Luckily, I could just use the law of cosines! a^2 + b^2 = c^2 - 2ab(cos C)
    • FredFredrickson, on 02/28/2008, -6/+2Software isn't just math... are people really this ignorant?
      • Hellothere123, on 02/28/2008, -2/+6It's all 0s and 1s being manipulated through the "Arithmetic" Logic Unit.
      • HonoredMule, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Yes it is. Do you think math is an artless pursuit?
      • FredFredrickson, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2So you deserve no credit or compensation for your work in software, because you believe it simply boils down to a series of mathematical equations? Not sure that I follow.
        • HonoredMule, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3You clearly don't. Software developers deserve protection for the product of their work, not the ability to muscle other developers out of producing their own related/similar work.

          No one is suggesting the straw man argument you describe.
  • bootup, on 02/28/2008, -8/+1Do we really have software patents? Isn't this just an assumption that hasn't really been challenged? I find it funny how we presume something is law that isn't so clear. While I recognize some precedents have been set nothing has really been taken to a higher court or the supreme court as far as I know. It is similar to what happened with DVD 2600 case where they challenged the circumvention provision of the DMCA, lost, and then decided to back off and not appeal. If nothing is appealed you don't know where the law really stands. Lower courts can and do get over ruled in these types of cases. Sometimes the supreme court decisions are not clear. Such as the legality of p2p applications that are used for piracy but do not promote piracy.
  • OddTSi, on 02/28/2008, -7/+2There most certainly are some ridiculously obvious and simplistic software patents out there, but then that applies to other patents as well. I'm all for ditching all of those, but ditching software patents altogether is ridiculous. If someone forks over tons of money into R&D to come up with a nontrivial software solution to an existing problem then they most certainly should be allowed to patent that and make money off of it.
  • cmister, on 02/28/2008, -1/+15Fortune coverage
    http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/02/28/e ...

    In any case, even if End Software Patents’ goals are extreme, they are not far-fetched. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the patentability of software, and at one time the predominant assumption among lawyers was that it could not be, because it amounted to nothing more than mathematical algorithms, which, in turn, were considered nonpatentable “laws of nature.”

    That assumption was gradually turned upside down through a series of decisions rendered in the 1990s by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court that had been set up to handle patent appeals, among other things, in 1984. Those decisions suggested that even if pure software itself was not patentable, software when loaded onto a general-purpose computer created, in effect, a new physical device that could then be patented. Some of the same rulings that opened the door to software patents effectively opened the door to “business method” patents, too.

    In the past two years, however, it has become clear to all that the U.S. Supreme Court is extremely unhappy with the patent environment that the Federal Circuit has fostered in the two decades since its creation. In eBay v. MercExchange (May 2006), the Court unanimously junked one longstanding rule of that court, and last term, in KSR International v. Teleflex (April 2007), it unceremoniously dispatched another. (In eBay, the Supreme Court ruled that judges need not always enjoin defendants from infringing, even after a patent-holder has proven its case, and in KSR it made it much easier for judges and patent examiners to invalidate patents due to obviousness.)

    For Klemens, however, the most encouraging ruling for his agenda was one that, technically, wasn’t. In LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories (June 2006), the Supreme Court had been asked to review the Federal Circuit’s precedents on patentability – the issue that ultimately also determines whether software patents and business-method patents are permissible. After hearing oral argument, the Court punted, deciding that, for technical reasons, it never should have heard the case in the first place. But three justices dissented, writing that they would have overturned the Federal Circuit and invalidated the patent in question, because it clearly amounted to an attempt to patent a nonpatentable “natural phenomenon,” though the phenomenon had been recast in the patent application as a patentable “process.” For that opinion, see here. Klemens contends that software patents amount to much the same thing.

    Though only three justices signed the dissent, it does appear that it, in combination with the Supreme Court’s back-of-the-hand treatment of other key Federal Circuit precedents, has led the patent appeals court to engage in some soul-searching. Just two weeks ago, it announced, without having been spurred to do so by the parties, that it would rehear an important patentability case, In re Bilski. (See generally here.) It even asked the parties to brief whether a key ruling it rendered in 1998, State Street Bank & Trust v. Financial Signature Group – one of the pivotal ones greenlighting software and business-method patents — was correctly decided.

    “There are test cases all over the place,” observes Klemens. Plainly, his timing is propitious.
    • bornfreeid, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Your comment here is simply amazing and insightful. Thanks!
  • Gigamand87, on 02/28/2008, -8/+4As it is right now in the United States you are unable to get a software patent unless is has a "Meaningful" outcome. This means that the only software that you can get a patent is on software that is part of a larger mechanical item such as the software in an automated lathe. There are some rare cases where software by itself can be patented as long as it has a “meaningful” outcome, which does not include things like games for word processors.
  • vwvan, on 02/28/2008, -6/+8software patents are the greatest restriction to the individual liberty of thought and action ever devised.
    - me!
  • apc3161, on 02/28/2008, -6/+6I'm not a patent expert, but I still disagreed with some of the statements in this article such as, "the End Software Patents (ESP) project aims to challenge the legal validity of patents that do not specify a physically innovative step."

    But our constitution mentions nothing of "physical" processes and for good reason:

    "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

    I mean this is talking about patenting writings, art, and discoveries.

    I'm not saying our patent system doesn't need massive reform. It does. There are a lot instances where companies get patents where they shouldn't, and good inventors who should legally own the rights to patents lose them because they can't afford the legal bills that well financed companies impose on them when disputing a patent. (My Dad lost a medical patent back in 80's in this fashion, he just gave up because he didn't wanna take the chance of wasting thousands of dollars on lawyer fees to protect his patent).

    But to say patents have no business in the realm of software to me seems a little far fetched.
    • CoolWind, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4I hate to digg down a well articulated thought, but it's the best way to express my disagreement, in a thread of this type.
      • apc3161, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3What can I do? You're free to disagree. =)
  • Elissar, on 02/28/2008, -4/+3Software is already intellectual property, why does it need to be patented?
  • SuspicionVandit, on 02/28/2008, -18/+3BORING. DIGG THIS DOWN AND DIGG THE TERMINATOR 4 STORY UP. CHRISTIAN BALE FTW
    • SemiSarcastic, on 02/28/2008, -3/+4DO THIS THING BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!111!!11!! I'M SO ***** AWESOME AND YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO ME!!!111!!!11!! CELEBRITY OBSESSION FTW!!
    • SuspicionVandit, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2FTW
    • CapnDeviance, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4I too would like to free the walruses.
  • bradcrc, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2this will need to happen at some point.

    I fear it will be later, rather than sooner unfortuately.
  • heartsblood, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3I never understood how they were able to patent math in the first place.
    • FredFredrickson, on 02/28/2008, -6/+1Software isn't simply math - if that's really what you believe, then your opinion on this issue is completely invalid, because you lack the understanding to make a serious judgment.
  • FreeDeb, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4apc3161 -- The use of the words "writings" and "authors" is sort of misleading in that instance. Literary works and visual art are covered by copyright law, not patent law.

    Until fairly recently, it was understood that neither thoughts nor math ought to be subject to patent law.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 02/28/2008, -4/+5If I was a programmer I would at least like to be credited as the creator of the software.
    • Haapi, on 02/28/2008, -1/+9Copyright does that for you.

    • cryptoki, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Great.. patent your software then... but dont write 1000 algorythms with no real product dev, just waiting to pounce on a big company (waiting for the big legal payout) that never saw your code to begin with (aka - didnt steal your code).

      Auto manufacturers rarely (engine wise) get into disputes over this type of thing (vs software industry)
  • pantuky, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4Hell YEAH! Get rid of software patents outright. Since the dawn of time the law has said you can patent an implementation, you cannot patent a concept. Software patents constitute ownership of a concept, not ownership of code implementations.
    • FredFredrickson, on 02/28/2008, -6/+1Software is not a concept, it's written code that people who are willing to do it should be compensated for.
      • srg13, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3So, you think that I should need to pay a license to IP Innovation if I code a tabbed window (or "User Interface with Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects" )?
      • dannystaple, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2And it is written code people are compensated for perfectly well under copyright law. You can not legally take someone else's written code, merely rebrand and sell it. However, patenting the algorithm or outcome of such software is simply too broad, and has so far only demonstrably been used for stifling competition. If anyone here can point to one example of the use of software patents that actually benefits society, I am prepared to consider it.
  • cryptoki, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3I gree with this reform. Current Law is akin to taking a pile of bricks and mortar, and telling a construction worker, you cant stack those bricks like that, or you owe us money. Its absurd. Many patents are just basic computer science methods and procedures. The system needs an overhaul.

    There are predatory companies who write code 1000 different ways to do the same thing, (which anyone does based on common protocols), and then they decompile everything (probably illegally in many cases) they can get their hands on, even though they didn't truly innovate, market, pay taxes, create jobs, or contribute to manufacturing etc....
  • DangerCollie, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Hey, I patented the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide across a thin, moist membrane. I figure all of you owe me beeelllions and beeeelllions. However, if you're female and hot, we can probably work out a cross-licensing agreement.
    And I'm working on a patent for the business process of using a secreted liquid to aid the movement of partially masticated food through a tube connected to a digestion chamber. Probably not as lucrative as the respiration patent, but when you get hungry enough, you'll pay. Oh, yes. You'll pay.
    Muahhahahahahaha! Muahhahahahahaha!
    • cryptoki, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1i thought you were talking about a pal point pen there for a second. lulz
      But i get your point... reinventing the wheel can be tricky indeed

      or rather it would be like patenting a picture, only you can take a photo of it ... lol
  • Scheissen, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3Abolish the patent system.
  • scamper22, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1yeah and anyone care to explain what's different about software patents and other patents is.
    If a mechanical engineer develops a new kind of engine, he can patent it.
    If a software engineer develops a new search algorithm, they can't patent it?

    I'm equally sure hardware innovation would flourish just as much if we got rid of hardware patents too.

    By all means, fix up the patent process to get rid of 'stupid' or 'obvious' patents and things that are covered under copyright, but to create an artificial distinction between software and hardware patents is ridiculous. I
    • Mizerooskie, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1"Software patent" is a misleading term. Software cannot be patented, as programs are subject to copyright protection. The methodology performed by the software is subject to patent protection. For instance, the seminal "business methods" patent is the Amazon 1-click. The process that is performed by the single click (automatic retrieval of user shipping and billng data and its application to an order) is what is patented, not the code behind it or the actual click itself.
  • sdasgupt, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1GO PATENTS
  • jasonsalas, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4I'm for it, but this is one of those ideas that's great in its idealist concept, but realistically is never going to pan out.
  • bingobongony, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1Then it'll just be copyrighted instead. But it is not going to be something that someone can spend years and millions of dollars writing and then a competitor can simply use it as well for free.
    • dannystaple, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1You can not copyright a single click button to buy something. You can copyright the code behind it. It means that you own your code, someone else would have to pay to use your code, but they can implement their own system that also offers one click purchase. Patents have meant that a competitor cannot do that. It would be akin to patenting "An elevated surface upon which you can rest your buttocks" and all manufacturers of chairs, benches, stools, seats and sofa's would have to pay a license. Plain silly if you ask me.
  • FredFredrickson, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1If you put in the time to make something work, and work well, you deserve to be compensated for it. Why should software be exempt from this?
    • srg13, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3Because the system is massively abused - there are software patents akin to patenting a 'method for moving one or mode people over a distance'. Clearly developers aren't happy with the system, just as car makers etc. wouldn't be happy if people could patent things like my example above.
      • FredFredrickson, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1The fact that the system is abused doesn't mean that those who use it correctly should have their own rights stripped away.
  • SavageBlackCat, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1worst idea ever
  • 3tcp, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't this just force developers to jump through hoops so that their work is covered by copyright law?
  • l800LEMMINGS, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2it's about time I'm sick of frivolous lawsuits made over base ideas like the microsoft's double click or apples new patent pinch *****
  • ElRaval, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Yes! Wait... No!
  • Infowarmachine, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1please do it
  • kd1s, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Then maybe we'll see the stupid Verizon vs. Vonage thing disappear. It appalls me anyhow being that Verizon's "patents' were nothing but prettied up RFC's.
  • byogman, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0Philosophically, I can see a case for software patents: ideas on how to do things have value, whether those ideas are how to put together a mechanical device that does something neat, or ideas of how to put together algorithms and data structures to solve a tricky problem.
    Practically, the purpose of the patent system isn't to reward those with ideas, but to foster innovation for the benefit of society as a whole. In physical invention, there are substantial costs of materials, fabrication, and experimentation. In software, those costs go away, and the primary cost is just programmer's time. So, software innovation doesn't require nearly as rich a reward structure to encourage innovation effectively.
    There have been a lot of attempted software/business process patents precisely because the low cost of putting together an implementation. It's easy to churn these out (especially if you have no regard for obviousness or prior art), but for precisely for the same reason, very, very few of these should ever be granted.
    However, I'm not comfortable saying that no software patents should be granted at all. Sometimes an idea or algorithm really is new and only comes as a result of years of work.
    • dannystaple, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Perhaps if the obviousness was checked by a board of those who are independent and thoroughly technically qualified, and the exclusivity period was foreshortened to around 2 years or so from publication, and the patent holder can only be granted the patent if a working proof of concept is demonstrated, and only hold it pre-publication if they are demonstrably preparing a product for release within a reasonable period, then patents may actually be worth having. Those rules would hopefully prevent patent trolling, encourage innovation, ensure remuneration, and ensure the patent periods are not excessively long when related to the subject area.
  • cemkalyoncu, on 03/03/2008, -0/+0In a sensible world which we dont have, software patents can be given to larger algorithms. Like MP3 or RAR, people make on living by writing these algorithm and these algorithms are extremely hard to stumble if you are not copying it. Think it like this, RAR, MP3, 7zip, OGG, even ClearType technology and such can be patented but not the wave file (too basic to patent), or idea of compressing sounds, or anti-alising text. This method will be fair. But see (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum20/596.htm), someone has patented displaying a popup ad on a website. And one more causition must be taken. A patent owner should decide what to do with a patent from the start. Some people have exploited this. Let the algorithm to be used freely and then start claiming loyalities (MP3 and GIF case).

    Although patents can be applied to software, in the world we are living, where the larger companies lobbies anything they want, buying judges and such, it is impossible to distinguish a valid software patent. Therefore, for the greater good of society, software patents must be eliminated.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.