Software patents could be killed off for good
An idea worth patenting
TWO ADVOCACY ORGANISATIONS, the End Software Patents (ESP) and the Free Software Foundation (FSF), have filed an amicus curiae brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (CAFC) rehearing of the In re Bilski case, set to be heard on May 8, 2008. This rehearing could have significant implications and mean the death of software patents.
Amicus curiae briefings are sometimes filed in cases where judgments could potentially have broad implications, as a way of offering a third party opinion on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The opinion is not solicited by any of the parties actually involved in the case, and is basically just an outside opinion, meant to make the decision fairer.
Earlier Federal Circuit rulings more or less effectively erased the boundaries of what can and can’t be patented, creating something of a massive-scale liability in the US economy, meaning that non software companies like McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Kraft Foods, Caterpillar and some fifty others are being sued for infringement because of their web sites or other software.
Ben Klemens, ESP’s executive director said that the case was a “historic opportunity”, and that the brief had supported “the Supreme Court's long-held position that computer software should not be patentable”.
In an ironic twist, it’s even reported that the Federal Circuit's own web site could be produced on software patent infringing software. So it would be in their interest to abolish to do away with the silly software patent laws before somebody sues them. µ
L’Inq
End Software
Patents
Comments
A complex problem
Specific software is copyrighted. Lets say patent protection is removed.If someone where to change fucntions with synonymous functions with very slightly different operation, say just a bit less efficient, then that new software code is not only allowed to be reproduced for profit in that variation but also is itself then copyrighted.
For complex software tasks, research and development costs by one entity can in this manner be avoided very simply by homogenous competitors.
Obvious software patents or something that has synonmous software prior art should be removed, that is certain, because these do limit innovation, but banning software patents altogether would discourage people for producing especially innovative software (suddenly ten other commercial entities spring up two days after somebody get the source code).
In short, companies which make money only from software would not exist. I dislike advertsing in what is supposed to be offline software and do not want to see companies have to go in that direction.
BTW, I have several hardware patents. There is a reason hardware patents exist.
The only patents which should not exist at all are "method of doing business" as that produces nothing and yet is anti-competitive.
They should stop a lot of patents
They should also stop all these "concept" patents. Companies that actually have working products are getting sued left and right for patented concepts of how something could work, when the patent was filed without any sort of working model at all. On top of that, the concepts are so vague they're too general in nature. This keep innovation at bay and we, the consumers, are losing out.Well...
It depends on the administration...Bush = Big software means big govt taxes except that we offer huge breaks to domestic companies.
Clinton = Big software still wins, but we will demonize them in public and reward them in private.
Obama = Who the hell knows, but he has my vote.
The lawyer error!
Good article, good point. The software lawyer the first being... Well we all know who that is, will be a thing of the past. I welcome it, the next to go is these cash grabs on copyright issues.Let the REAL innovation begin!!
Corporate thieving
So how is this any different than Chinese based companies or others remaking products almost exactly as they are made elsewhere and then packaged with their name or some 3rd party name then pushed into the market as genuine originals. This amounts to theft regardless how you package it. 1 company spends huge resources to develope a product then 3 individuals come along after and change a few things. Wala the 3 individuals make all the money and the original company takes a complete loss on their investment. Will the original company ever bother with that investment agian? Nope and neither will others. This doesnt drive any innovation beyond a new way to steal more from companies who employ alot of people. Wonder if those people can learn a new trade when they get a pink slip.Re: Corporate thieving
It is quite different because you're going to have a hell of a time enforcing any US law in China.The subject is enforcing US patent in the US, and that's already difficult enough.
I'm not sure of what I should think about software patenting, but I am sure of one thing : a patent should exactly describe the thing patented and, for software, that means working code should be included.
If a working example is not included, the patent should never be awarded in the first place.
So all those empty patents with only a vague description should be trashed without mercy nor delay.
Then we can start talking about what should remain patented.
Patents are NOT needed
To all of you who claim that patents are necessary because people won't do anything creative if they can't protect it: Go over to Techdirt and read the series of articles Mike has posted about patents and copyrights. The most recent one is here:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080409/011406799.shtml
and it has URLs for all of the articles of the series (so far) at the end.
Mike cites and explains a bunch of peer-reviewed economic research that uses not theory, but actual examples, both historical and current, to demonstrate that protection by patents or copyrights does not enhance progress, but actually inhibits it. The idea that inventors/authors need protection seems sensible, but only because we've been taught that it has to be that way. The reality is quite different.
I know most of you will reject the notion without giving it any real thought. Patents and copyrights have been around so long that it seems like nonsense to question the justification for them. For the few who have an open mind, find some time to read the articles at Techdirt. I'm confident you will find them quite interesting.