Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Tue 6th Oct 2009 21:43 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
The patent wars rage on. Eolas, a company that before won US$585 million from Microsoft in 2003 in a suit that challenged the use of ActiveX and AJAX, is now after twenty-three separate companies allegedly because their precious patent was spoiled by all of them.
Permalink for comment 388016
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-01-25
This is all opinion of course, and opinions vary, but imo there are some concrete differences that imo should be taken into account:
1. Software is considered an artistic expression, and as such falls under copyright law. Copyright law already offers quite a bit of protection, some (including me) think the protection it offers is adequate enough in light of the nature of software.
2. Software IS NOT in and of itself an implementation of anything. Only a running program is an implementation, and to "run" it must ALSO instrument some form of hardware. Thus the actual implementation is a combination of the two. It is therefore impossible to create and then claim ownership of a complete software device unless you are the creator of the "complete" device, i.e. unless you also created the hardware. This point of view mirrors reality - to build a piece of hardware you must first design it (the software) and then implement it (implement the design - i.e. build it). If patent law had an actual implementation requirement the distinction would be quite clear - unfortunately it does not so we are left with this ambiguity...
3. Software IS in and of itself an idea, NOT an expression of an idea. It has no physical representation, it has no "hard" implementation cost, and most uniquely, it has no reproduction cost. It is simply an idea worded in the rigid fashion defined by the hardware it will run on. Patents are not meant to protect ideas, they are meant to offer a limited monopoly for an "expression" of an idea - and while this definition is coerced into fitting software by the law, I don't think it fits very well.
4. The VAST majority of software patents are extremely obvious - to people who write software... Problematically, software patents are not reviewed by people who write software. No need to go further into this one, suffice to say this particular interface skew causes the bulk of the real world problems.