"I am against software patents because it is not reasonable to expect that the current patent system, nor even one designed to improve or replace it, will ever be able to accurately determine what might be considered legitimately patentable from the overwhelming volume of innovations in software. Even the most trivial of software applications involves hundreds, potentially thousands of design decisions which might be considered by those aggressively seeking patents as potentially protectable inventions. If even the most basic elements of these are patentable, as they are currently, the patent system will be fundamentally unable to scale to meet that demand. As it is today."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-02-17
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/cloud/2010/03/19/sting-in-the-tail-for-...
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/columns/11782.html
Software patents are being used today as anti-innovation, anti-competition (elimination of competitors) and as an enabler of lock-in, to the enormous detriment of end users.
This is precisely the opposite of the supposed purpose for allowing patents in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Act_of_1790
Today, Software Patents are being used exclusively to stifle the progress of useful Arts (where the authoring of software is the alleged art in this instance).
In any other field of endeavour, if a rule or law was working precisely the opposite of the way it was intended, surely that rule or law would be repealed post haste.
PS: Software is mathematics. Normally, mathematics and arts would be seen as polar opposites of one another.
Edited 2010-03-22 02:34 UTC
Member since:2009-02-19
This is precisely the opposite of the supposed purpose for allowing patents in the first place.
And that there is a concise and accurate summation of the problem. Precisely, well done. Patents where intended to foster innovation, and instead they're inhibiting it. They're not working for their intended purpose, and they're damaging an industry while they're doing it.
You'd think, wouldn't you? But, unfortunately, politics doesn't work like that. I'm immediately reminded of the War on Drugs. While limiting the availability of heroin is inarguably a good thing... the War on Drugs as it's being carried out isn't really achieving that result, and is in fact probably making things worse. But it's awful politics to end the War on Drugs while there's still a drug problem, so we're stuck with it. Patents are similar -- at least in so far as changing the system is politically untenable, even tho it's working against it's intended purpose. Most of the electorate doesn't care that the patent system is broken -- it could not be further from their minds. And there are some very entrenched, very wealthy interests who like things just the way they are, however messed-up they are. So the patent system's probably not going anywhere either.
Member since:
2006-01-10
I never really saw much of a difference between hardware and software patents... but I'll be a little bothersome on another issue.
Who says the goal of patents is only to inspire innovation? I certainly don't see it that way. I'd say a perfectly good goal of patents is to ensure the price of goods stays high enough for a small duration so it does not become a commodity as quickly as it could otherwise.
We don't live in a free market... never have... never will. It's one of the few tools to prevent rapid commoditization. Even Intel has used its hardware patents to prevent anyone from making x86 compatible chips without paying for a license... and that's no different than patenting an API 
Ditto for hybrid cars. Is Toyota holding up innovation with all its patents on hybrids that pretty much any of the other car companies would come up with similar solutions? Yep... but the auto industry is full of ways to keep costs high enough to prevent rapid commoditization. It's why you still have to pay for a reader to read car error codes...
Innovation and cheap prices are the goals of engineers not living in reality.
Member since:2009-02-19
That would be the Constitution of the United States of America -- which obviously only matters to you if you're a US citizen. Specifically, Article 1, Section 8:
...
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;
It's short, yes, but that's exactly what it says. Notice the entire reason given for allowing Congress the power to enforce IP law is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". That's it.
Member since:
2007-02-17
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=28...
This is a company started by an ex-Microsoft employee. Why am I not surprised?
Member since:
2006-01-02
It's all preaching to the choir.
I don't mind someone wanting to be compensated for potentially innovative R&D, but the net damage to innovation and standardization appears to far outweigh the potential benefits.
In addition, I don't trust our government to be able to, even if it become an important issue, create a balanced system for approving and defending patents (IE, one that isn't, "we can pay our lawyers however long it takes, and you can't, so stop what you're doing, there. Kthxbye.").
