Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Things We Could Do Without: Software Patents

(1/3) > >>

housetier:

That's right, you can have a patent on software. This does not mean the source code which is protected by copyright, but the idea in the code. An example is amazon's patent on their 1-click buy button. It is totally ridiculous but larger software companies do like these things as they can use their patent to keep down the competition.
:nono2:

Other big software companies strongly oppose such patents.

So if I could get a patent on "using groups of integers to encode multi-channel color values" or something along those (RGB,YMBC) lines, I could then sue ATI and Nvidia and Intel.
:greenclp:


To ridicule these ridiculous patents and the system which grants them, several individuals have founded an organization against such software patents. Each month several software patents are presented and users vote the most ridiculous one, which is then awarded. From all the winners, a software patent of the year is selected.

Although this is primarily a European "problem" I want to encourage also my non-European friends to vote and spread the word because I think these software patents are ridiculous, awkward, and not good for competition. And when there is no competition, the comsumer loses. To argue yet another way: Competition is at the very heart of Capitalism and Free Market.
:hanged:

So, cast your vote :deal: and tell you mother, your sister and your sister's friends to do the same

JavaJones:
This seems like the extension of the basic ability to copyright any method of doing something, which has always seemed a tad ridiculous to me as well. But then what about manufacturing process improvements that give people an edge? I don't know, it's a tough issue. It does seem ridiculous though that this same system also provides for patents on things like Sideways Swinging or Cat Toy Using A Laser Pointer (or any one of a number of other insane things). :D

Personally I think massive copyright and patent reform is the only good way out of the mess, but we'll probably have to make do with small victories, if any.

- Oshyan

housetier:
The only worse patents are those on (human) gene sequences. I mean, nothing makes less sense than a patent on a more or less random mutation of RNS!

Back to the software: the waters are murky because many people are confused by copyright and patent. Basically everything that is created with a minimum of "original effort" (=not copying) is covered and protected by copyright. If you write software that does a certain thing, and, without looking at your code, I write different software doing the same thing/having the same effect, we do not infringe each other's copyrights.

However, if you manage to get the patent office issue a patent on "doing a certain thing" then any software doing this certain thing (or a similar thing) would "break" the patent protection. Whereas copyright protects your work, a patent keeps the competition in check.

I just want to have a patent on filing patents and then won't license it. The problem would be solved: no more patents issued. Too bad this dream is too ludicrous...

Companies in favor of software patents argue they need to protect their works. But the work is already protected by copyright! What they want to protect is their business modell! The dispute has become very emotional, which in turn means pure, naked facts are neglected.

But we can walk the emo path as well: just vote on the patents that don't feel right!  :)

f0dder:
IMHO software patents isn't wrong per se. What's wrong is the ludicrously high lifetime of patents, and that they can be granted for extremely generic cases... and that often "prior art" isn't taken into consideration.

So... I'm against software patents as they look now, but I'm not against the idea in general. If somebody comes up with some really unique algorithm, I think it's fair enogh that they're granted a couple years patent on it - but not more, considering how fast-moving the software industry is.

NeilS:
Companies in favor of software patents argue they need to protect their works. But the work is already protected by copyright! What they want to protect is their business modell! The dispute has become very emotional, which in turn means pure, naked facts are neglected.
-housetier (October 06, 2006, 09:36 PM)
--- End quote ---

Although "protecting your work" was one of the original goals of the patent system, it's not necessarily the primary reason companies obtain patents these days.

Large companies commonly use patents as bargaining chips when defending against other patent infrigement cases. Usually the patents on both sides are related, but they don't have to be. Large companies also tend to generate a lot of speculative patents these days, mainly to protect against patent trolls by covering areas of the "patent landscape" that trolls might try to gain a foothold in.

They prefer to maintain the status quo because they already have massive patent portfolios, so reducing the legal impact of patents would effectively reduce the perceived value of these portfolios. No large company is going to support patent reform as long as they have their shareholders to answer to.

For small companies (including startups), patents can have a large effect on the perceived value of the company, which can be critical when looking for funding. So, even if you have a great idea that you're confident no-one will be able to copy before you corner the market, investors will not typically share that confidence and will expect to see patents to help minimise competition and litigation from other companies. Patent reform is likely to be a mixed bag for small companies; it may level the playing ground a bit (against large companies with huge portfolios), but it might also make the path to investment much less clear.

IMHO software patents isn't wrong per se. What's wrong is the ludicrously high lifetime of patents, and that they can be granted for extremely generic cases... and that often "prior art" isn't taken into consideration.

So... I'm against software patents as they look now, but I'm not against the idea in general. If somebody comes up with some really unique algorithm, I think it's fair enogh that they're granted a couple years patent on it - but not more, considering how fast-moving the software industry is.
-f0dder (October 07, 2006, 06:12 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yes, that's roughly my feeling on the subject at the moment. If we assume that the real goal is to protect inventors while maintaining a decent level of competition in the market, then the system needs to concentrate on reforming the lifespan and coverage of each type of patent that can be obtained, and adjust the rules to allow each type of market to operate optimally.

For example, it may be that software patents should be very short-lived and fairly specific, whereas manufacturing industry patents might need longer lives and a bit more generality.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page