"The simple question 'what's wrong with software patents?' stirs up controversy and divides the IT industry into two camps like no other. Every group has their own ideology about software patents. Those who don't like them claim that they are anti-competitive, that they are tools used by industry giants to crush free and open software, that they are bad for innovation, that they are monopolies. Those who like them claim that they are simply units of intellectual property, to be traded like any other commodity."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
(1) and (5) Undermines the whole point of a patent. Why take out a patent if you can't benefit from it? Sure, lots of companies take out patents spuriously, and use them as clubs to beat competitors down, but there is still a fundamental purpose to the patent system (to encourage innovation) that is not served if they cannot be used to stop competing products. What about companies who spend years of R&D to develop technology nobody else has? Often*, these are small companies who do not have the resources to bring a product to market, and must depend on licensing the IP to someone who can, or selling the company (and its IP) to someone who can.
As a society, we are long past the point where innovation can happen "on the cheap". Technology continues to progress, but the cost of that progress is astounding. Wheras the original jet engine designs were created on grants to private individuals, today the cost of making just incrementally better designs is measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
That said, I do agree with you that the patent system in this country is quite generally broken. It is far too easily used as a tool of abuse, instead of as a tool to foster innovation. It is far too easy to get a patent these days, especially in the field of software where its often hard to judge exactly how much unique thought went into a design. We need people in the patent office who can hold applications to the critereon of being "novel even to a practitioner in the field."** Moreover, I'm opposed to one specific class of software patents: patents on algorithms. Algorithms should not be patentable! Algorithms are merely expressions of mathematical truth, and are thus no more patentable than algebra or calculus. Some of the patents that exist on certain types of pointer analysis in compilers are ridiculous for that reason.
*) Small outfits can afford to hire dedicated groups of specialists, then bet the livlihood of the company on a particular piece of technology in a way that larger companies often cannot. That's why you have small companies like Scaled Composites doing R&D that is way out of proportion with their size as a business.
**) Interestingly, one of the first patent examiners was Thomas Jefferson, during the period from 1700 to 1703, at which time the role of the patent examiner was given to the vice president and the secretary of state (this was Jefferson's idea). During that time, he rigorously examined each of 114 patents that came across his desk. Think of that situation: a man of Jefferson's extraordinary intellect, a leading natural philosopher and inventor of his day, was in charge of deciding what was novel and what was not. Compare that to whatever rube gave Amazon the patent for one-click shopping!
Edited 2006-10-31 22:23
Member since:
2005-07-06
Everything.
1) Patent should be awarded to the inventor.
2) Should not be awarded on evolution of software or innovations.
3) Should not exist for software as its not a new invention.
4) They should be free to everyone , it system should also investigate prior art.
5) Should not be use as a litigation or stopping someone else products.