Software patents are not needed [LWN.net]

Software patents are not needed

Posted Oct 12, 2004 12:24 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462)
In reply to: Software patents are not needed by eru
Parent article: Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw)

Indeed, a recent study shows that patents in general are not as effective as one would hope, taking Watt's steam engine as an example of new technology that was stalled until the patent expired and the frenzy of industrialisation started.

I also agree with you that software patents are not required for technological advancement.

However, that was not the question, and your reasoning applies to the current situation -- not Craig's proposal. Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly, so here goes take two: why would one want to forbid software patents if the patent system does not hinder software development and technological advancement in general?

Really, I couldn't care less about software patents: I don't need them, I don't want them and I certainly do not want to be coding looking over my shoulder because of them.

But that's my take. Big companies probably see things differently. If we can both coexist, and companies use patents to put them ahead of the competition (but not in the way of technological advancement), why would I want to force my view down their throat? Especially since that is a fight we are going to lose in the end (that's what I think anyway). You cannot win every battle, sometimes it is better to just make a reasonable peace. ;-)

(Log in to post comments)

Software patents are not needed

Posted Oct 12, 2004 13:41 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]

If we take "does not hinder" as "has neutral effect" (does not promote either), and if that really would describe the situation, I would say that the software patents are still undesirable because they complicate life unnecessarily for developers and users of software. The "keep it simple" argument.

One problem I see with software patents is that a software patent is the only kind of patent that a private person might violate on a massive scale: create a program that (knowingly or not) implements a patented technique and offer it for downloading on the Net. This kind of thing cannot really happen with patents covering physical widgets, unless you set up a company to make and sell such widgets. Some free software authors already have received threatening notes from patent owners. I don't know if any has had to pay reparations, but they have had to remove features or stop distributing binaries.

Software patents are not needed

Posted Oct 12, 2004 14:08 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

"does not hinder" == "has no negative effect"

(Very simple, and positive effects -- though unlikely -- are still welcome, eh? ;-)

As to your concerns: people break the law all the time, but as far as I know usually the solution is not to get rid of the law. (Actually, being Dutch, I could probably tell you a thing or two about bending the law legitimately. ;-) But notice, again, how you cling to the current system (in the U.S.) -- I think everyone agrees that we do not want that. The problems with the current system are not so much because of patents themselves, they exist because of the corrupt, unjust and stupid circus around it.

Software patents are not needed

Posted Oct 12, 2004 14:49 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]

As to your concerns: people break the law all the time, but as far as I know usually the solution is not to get rid of the law

But sometimes it is. Example: the prohibition of alcohol laws that were tried in various countries early in the 20th century. They did not work, people did not like them, and they actually promoted crime. The solution was scrapping them.

Laws that are not obeyable by reasonably honest people have no business being in the books. They reduce respect for the rule of law in general. I believe laws permitting patenting of software belong to this category.

(Actually, being Dutch, I could probably tell you a thing or two about bending the law legitimately. ;-) But notice, again, how you cling to the current system (in the U.S.) -- I think everyone agrees that we do not want that.

The U.S. situation is a reference point because it is the place with the longest experience on software patents, and also because the U.S. IP laws these days get exported to the rest of the world. Remember the EUCD, modelled on the infamous DMCA? Actually, I am Finnish, so I am looking at the things from fairly similar legal context as you. The situation in Europe with respect to obvious software patents being passed is not that different from the U.S. (browse the FFII pages for some ghastly examples, and also note that U.S. patents routinely are used to get corresponding European versions without much if any added checking). The patents just aren't yet enforced as vigorously as in U.S., partly because theoretically software is still unpatentable in EU.

Software patents are not needed

Posted Oct 12, 2004 17:55 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Agreed on almost everything.

One thing though: your concerns about a failing future patent system seem to be solely based on the current U.S. situation (the one that we definitely do *not* want in Europe). If we can reform the patent system to everyone's satisfaction (and I certainly think that for instance the interests of you and me -- society -- weigh more heavily than those of money-grabbing monopolists, in case our interests conflict), I really don't see any reason for concern. So that's why I wouldn't boot patents altogether; as long as I don't have to deal with or worry about them in my daily, non-criminal routine. ;-)