Makes sense to me, maybe this will spur in the concept of “better” software, rather than simply “innovative” software…
I think the first post nailed it-- software patents should be eliminated (and all prior ones revoked), but I don’t know that there’s much we can do about it. Well, any of us reading this that aren’t in charge of a multi billion dollar corporation.
“But how do you address the issue of some guy in a garage who spends a year building a website app to feed his family, and then 1 month after he releases it some weasel clones it by bank rolling some cheap offshore labor?”
By eliminating software patents. That guy builds his app, which threatens some new feature Amazon’s doing. Amazon sues him, and then Ebay does for good measure. Meanwhile, he can’t afford to pursue litigation against the local clones, much less the entirely out of country clones that have an entirely different legal framework-- unless his lawyers are going to fly out to Russia on contingency.
Eventually he signs over all rights over what he’s developed to Amazon, whose own site (with some cool new “innovations”) takes off several months later along with a massive marketing blitz. The clones die off, unsupported and ignored.
Patenting software is like patenting a “story” written by a novelist. It is a much better job for copyrights than patents.
After all, once you have patented the Turing Machine, haven’t you patented all computers and programs? It’s the computational equivalent of patenting the wheel.
Of course, patent infringement is strong and vigorous and court supported. But suing someone for copyright infringement is almost always ignored by the courts or competitors are slapped on the wrists for pirating copyrighted material. If the courts would reverse that behavior, companies may be more open to reverting to copyright based intellectual property.
Or, as another poster mentioned, perhaps I can come up with an algorithm that will generate patents for every method of converting a given bitstream into a different bitstream. Then all your patents will belong to us!
Whatever happened to that guy who patented “if xx 30 then year = 2000 + xx else year = 1900 + xx”?
What’s sad is that’s rarely the actual software developer that’s big on getting a patent. The really good developers often would much rather be coding than getting together patent paperwork and in fact most developers thrive on the sharing of ideas and examples.
Suing is rarely worth it, often it’s a huge resource expenditure and in the end you create more bad will than good, thus damaging the single thing that can really give you an edge over similar products, your reputation. Any company that’s using litigation to hold onto their market position instead of innovation or quality is one that no longer cares about making a quality product.
I’d hate to be working at Microsoft right now as a developer since you can’t look at open-source code for the fear that you’ll absorb something covered by the GPL and thus force the software to suddenly be free. It’s of wide opinion that they’ll never be able to create a 100% compliant Ruby language in IronRuby simply because they’re not allowed to look at other implementations. It really is a stand-off and it’s getting scary.
Personally if I release source into the wild I like to do it under a “No Rights, No Responsibility, No Patent” licence, meaning I give up all my rights to said code thus you can use it freely yet I take no responsibility for how it’s used, the only limitation being no one else can patent said code.
Nice article, but you didn’t even mention the biggest problem with software patents today - patent trolls. These are companies whose sole purpose for existing is to buy up software patents from software companies going defunct, or just needing to clean house. They then look for someone infringing, and sock them with a law suit - as much as they can get. In a community where big name companies like IBM, HP, and Sun Microsystems only apply for patents for defensive purposes, patent trolls make out like bandits - they have no software, so they can’t be counter-sued.
I think titling this “The Software Cold War” would have been better suited in my opinion. The building up of patents and daring the other to use theirs against you and you will use yours back at them.
Are US patents enforceable in Europe or anywhere else in the world?
If not then just ignore them and boycott US as far as possible.
It should be noted that the US Supreme Court refused to address whether or not software was patentable during the Microsoft Corp v. ATT case earlier this year:
“We need not address whether software in the abstract, or any other intangible, can ever be a component under 271(f). If an intangible method or process, for instance, qualifies as a #8220;patented invention#8221; under 271(f) (a question as to which we express no opinion), the combinable components of that invention might be intangible as well. The invention before us, however, ATT#8217;s speech-processing computer, is a tangible thing.”
(You can find a copy of the ruling on Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070430121005424 )
“Are there any non-profits directly involved in patent reform?”
The Pirate Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
Wikipedia: “The Pirate Party (Swedish: Piratpartiet) is a political party in Sweden. The party strives to reform laws regarding intellectual property, including copyright, patent and the protection of design.”
“i’d be more extreme: find a way to break all RSA codes, patent it, and then blackmail the government to break all patents or else sell it to terrorrists.”
The new form of terrorism: “Do it or we’ll give the foobar to the terrorists.”
greed… OR, what did Jesus say? The love of money is the root of all evil. Notice not the money itself, just the love of it.
That’s whats driving this insanity that they call software patenting and, the biggest offenders; the ones that already have boatloads of money. Why? Because fundumentally they are all run by very greedy people.
As others have said the REAL problem is that the patent office is giving out patents for blatantly obvious ideas or ideas that have been done for years. The patent office simply needs to slow down and sotp awarding trivial patents.
The naysayers who want to just disolve all patents for their own personal reasons will say that this isn’t practical. Hogwash! It is not only practical, but much more practical than trying to continue at their current pace. So what if they get 10,000 patent applications and only approve 10 per year? What will happen is that people will suddenly learn that it is nonsense to keep submitting lousy patents and the problem will fix itself.
It’s not that ALL software patents are bad. It’s that the idea must be TRULY remarkable or else it shouldn’t get awarded a patent at all. Anything else is just nonsense from special interest groups trying to save their butts.
“This effectively gives the patent holder absolute control regarding who will implement a standard containing his patented principle.”
One solution is to not, except in exceptional cases, grant absolute control. That’s a key part of some of the ideas I have about patents. The other idea is to have governments or conglomerates aquire patents as a group and release them to the public domain. Of course that’s alot easier if the buyout cost is limited and not subject to blackmail licensing.
Read more at: http://ryan-technorabble.blogspot.com/search/label/patents
Are Software Patent Self-Exams Realistic?
There are many reasons a software company might wish to avoid checking existing patents for infringement:
- There are too many patents to effectively search them all.
- Patents are complicated and opaque and hence difficult to determine infringement.
- Researching patents can actually open a company to additional liability and damages.
- Microsoft doesn’t do it.
iAre US patents enforceable in Europe or anywhere else in the world?
If not then just ignore them and boycott US as far as possible.
bob on July 31, 2007 03:21 AM /i
That means everyone other then the USA will stop suing Microsoft Windows. I don’t see that happening even though it would be interesting. =)
From the above blog entry, a NY Times Op-ed piece from Tim Lee on the topic of software patents:
I’m happy that software is still not patentable over here in Europe. It’s just a stupidity, causing billions of customer money spent on defending patents - money that could be used elsewhere. Patents kill innovation and especially the small companies. Probably neither innovation, nor small companies are welcomed in the US.
As a practicing patent attorney and an opponent of patent law on principled (property rights) grounds (see my publications at http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications.php#IP ), it is my view that the opposition to “software patents” is simply confused. A software patent is nothing more than a patent on a process, which is a standard type of patent. If you are in support of a patent system, you have no principled ground on which to oppose software patents.
Not only software patents, but any kind of patents are harmful, unjustified and an unprecedented attack on liberty. The only function of a patent is to grant monopoly rights, and the government is the one who grant this monopoly right. There is no such thing as an ownership right granted to the first finder of a non-scarce item. And any knowledge when finally find becomes non-scarce because anyone can have it without injuring anyones right. Ownership over scarce items is the only “natural” or spontaneous ownership. Ownership over non-scarce items have no sense, knowledge is not a means of production, it is like air, the fire don’t need to own the air in order to stay alive, any company can produce any product without owning any knowledge, patents are noting but a brake on progress and a way of making monopolies.