OSNews

This is why software patents suck. Apple has over 200 patents for the iPhone, some of which are simple enough that a hobbyist can implement them in a week using a few pictures of the product and readily available APIs. Patents are intended to protect inventions that are costly to develop but cheap to replicate. At first it seems like this applies perfectly to software. Costly to develop, nearly free to replicate.

But software is covered by copyright, and therefore its creators can explicitly prohibit replication. They can also prevent people from being able to figure out how it works. Why would you need to patent something if you can prevent people from figuring out how it works? Replication involves uncovering intentional obscured details of its operation and implementation from scratch. It's nearly as costly to replicate copyrighted OSS as it is to implement it in the first place, and perhaps more costly to do so for proprietary software. Designing software is the easy part, implementing it is hard, and replicating it might even be harder.

The other day I went to the grocery store, and among other things, I wanted pickles. After initially selecting the usual pickle chips, I thought I'd try the "sandwich stackers." The innovative shape is an improvement for use on sandwiches, I must say. But upon further consideration, I concluded that a square shape to fit a normal slice of bread would be even better. "Butters," someone objects, "you can't cut a 4" square from a cucumber!" Sure I can! I figured it out, and I could probably get a patent. I have zero intention of getting into the pickle business, but when Vlasic makes the same logical leap I did, I could whip out the submarine patent claims. No truly sandwich-sized pickle slices for anyone, because I said so.