Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Things We Could Do Without: Software Patents

<< < (2/3) > >>

JavaJones:
But if someone invents an algorithm isn't it already protected by *copyright*? If someone rewrites the algorithm in a different way it's unique and has its own copyright, but a *patent* would prevent that because it can be generalized enough to apply to slightly different approaches to the same thing (e.g. "A method for purchasing items in a shopping cart using a single click" or whatever). I think software *patents* are a bit silly. Just like sideways swinging patents. ;)

- Oshyan

NeilS:
But if someone invents an algorithm isn't it already protected by *copyright*? If someone rewrites the algorithm in a different way it's unique and has its own copyright, but a *patent* would prevent that because it can be generalized enough to apply to slightly different approaches to the same thing (e.g. "A method for purchasing items in a shopping cart using a single click" or whatever). I think software *patents* are a bit silly. Just like sideways swinging patents. ;)
-JavaJones (October 07, 2006, 03:38 PM)
--- End quote ---

Copyright protects a specific expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself, so it doesn't really offer any protection for something like an algorithm. You could use copyright to protect a written-down version of the algorithm, but that wouldn't protect what the algorithm means, nor would it stop anyone using that algorithm in their own software, since the written-down version is not what is actually expressed by the software.

JavaJones:
Indeed, but why should the algorithm be protectable? What if the great mathematicisions of our history had "patented" their mathematical concepts, their proofs, etc. Would we be where we are with mathematical and scientific knowledge? I doubt it. I just don't see the value in extending from "protection of the unique expression of an idea" to "protection of the idea itself". The unique expression is the true creation of man and should be protected as "property" so long as we have a concept of such a thing, IMO. But the idea is no-ones property and cannot be proved to be such. It is a much more arbitrary way of dealing with ideas IMO.

- Oshyan

NeilS:
Indeed, but why should the algorithm be protectable? What if the great mathematicisions of our history had "patented" their mathematical concepts, their proofs, etc. Would we be where we are with mathematical and scientific knowledge? I doubt it. I just don't see the value in extending from "protection of the unique expression of an idea" to "protection of the idea itself". The unique expression is the true creation of man and should be protected as "property" so long as we have a concept of such a thing, IMO. But the idea is no-ones property and cannot be proved to be such. It is a much more arbitrary way of dealing with ideas IMO.
-JavaJones (October 07, 2006, 06:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

I don't quite agree with your wording ("the unique expression is the true creation of man"), because that suggests that ideas are somehow less creative, and I don't think that's true. However, when it comes to protection, I do agree that protecting ideas is much more problematic than protecting unique expressions of ideas. The main problem is that a single idea could be used in a number of unique expressions, and so protecting an idea can hamper a lot of further work, which can be undesirable.

And I guess, when it comes down to fundamentals, I'm generally against protecting ideas. The way I see it, protecting an idea gives you two things: 1) The inventor of the idea gets a fair shot at exploiting the idea, and 2) Extensions of the idea and unique expressions of the idea tend to be restricted too much. If the benefits of (1) were more significant than the issues of (2), then I might be for protecting ideas, but I'm not convinved that the benefits of (1) are that great in reality.

I generally believe that the inventor of a new idea will tend to have a natural advantage in terms of exploiting it anyway, since he will have a head start and was smart enough to come up with the idea in the first place. OK, so there will be cases where a large company will see someone's great new idea, steal it, and overtake the inventor, but inventors can combat this to some extent by not releasing details too soon, and history has also taught us that radical new ideas are rarely stolen, mainly because people don't believe in new ideas until the evidence is staring them in the face.

The problem with this viewpoint, though, is that some ideas are so fundamental that they have lots of applications besides the one the inventor was considering at the time of invention, and the inventor's natural advantages won't normally stretch to all applications, so something like patents are the only way to give them a chance to exploit these other applications first as well. However, you could argue that this gives the inventor more than a "fair shot" at exploitation, but I guess different people have different definitions of what a "fair shot" actually means. I do think the current patent systems go far beyond any reasonable definition of fair shot, though.

That said, I'll happily admit that my opinion of how things should work is pretty idealistic, as is much of the anti-patent talk I've witnessed. There's nothing wrong with idealistic opinions, of course, but I think we'll have to accept that the reality of the situation is very complex, and that any change will be very slow and will probably only ever go so far.

JavaJones:
What's idealistic about those opinions? In other words is it just the very idea of big patent reform that you think is idealistic, or that particular implementation? I don't see how a more limited approach to patent granting and patent lifespans is any more problematic than the current system, either in implementation or regulation. I do think concieving of widescale patent reform is a bit unrealistic, so yes perhaps idealistic, but then in Europe there is a lot going on in this area and if some of this debate and reform led to more limited patent lifespans and granting procedures they might lead by example. If benefits were notable, the US might eventually be forced to follow suit. US is becoming much less of a world-leading force these days...

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page