An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing [LWN.net]

An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing

Posted Apr 9, 2008 23:08 UTC (Wed) by caitlinbestler (subscriber, #32532)
Parent article: An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing

If an invention is novel it should not matter whether you implement it in hardware, firmware or software. The logic is what is novel and should be protected, not the specific form that the logic is implemented in.

if an invention is not novel, merely implementing it in hardware should not make it more patentable that the same algorithm in software.

The real problem is not patenting of "software" but patenting of problem spaces (rather than specific solutions) and/or obvious algorithms (especially when the only 'novelty' is applying known techniques to a new market space).

(Log in to post comments)

An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing

Posted Apr 9, 2008 23:56 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Sorry, I missed where the government-assisted monopolization of algorithms 
was beneficial.

It's not as if an algorithm is going to be especially expensive to 
develop. The most it needs is thinking time.

An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing

Posted Apr 10, 2008 0:10 UTC (Thu) by caitlinbestler (subscriber, #32532) [Link]

The same could be argued for any service or any form Intellectual Property. They "just" take
time.

By your logic everything should be free. your objection is to the market system, and has
absolutely nothing to do with software patents.

An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing

Posted Apr 10, 2008 0:33 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Er, as far as I was aware you can't construct and test physical machinery, 
or (say) some new drug for nothing. Building machinery costs money. 
Running clinical trials is vastly expensive. In both cases, the cost of 
<i>inventing</i> the patented entity is vastly higher than the cost of 
<i>implementing an instance</i> of that entity, given the patent.

Coming up with some patentable algorithm appears (from the quality of the 
algorithms already patented) to be a matter of a couple of hours' thought, 
if that. No significant expenditure is required above and beyond that 
which is needed to get a working instance of the algorithm. Access to the 
patent doesn't help you at all. (Note how software patents are essentially 
never used by anyone in the field for any purpose whatsoever other than as 
landmines: the system is essentially worthless as a repository of 
algorithmic knowledge. Indeed most companies recommend against or actively 
ban the use of patent searches for any purpose, because all it does is 
bring in the possibility of a wilful infringement suit, and there's no 
real chance of finding anything useful and comprehensible in there faster 
than you could think it up yourself.)

Patents = government-created monopoly

Posted Apr 10, 2008 16:18 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link]

Huh? Patents are not a requirement for a free market; they inhibit the creation of a free market. In a free market, everyone would be developing the best products and services they could. Instead, patents are a government-created monopoly, preventing most market players from deploying the best products and services that they can. What's more, there is nothing in nature "requiring" the existence of patents. Without patents, we would actually have a freer market. Patents are yet another government bureaucracy, in this case a very expensive one.

Now, that's not to say that patents are always a bad idea; patents are essentially a bargain created by governments, granting temporary monopolies in exchange for the development of products and documentation of ideas that would not happen otherwise. In short, patents are a solution for a market failure - if you cannot get new ideas in a area without patents, then patents can help create a market where one did not exist before.

But there was no market failure for software. Software was developed for decades without software patents. So instead, software patents have actually retarded innovation, inhibited the free market, and caused massive harm to the economy. Study after study is showing that software patents have harmed, not helped, the industry.

I think the jury is out on medical patents - they may very well be worth the cost. But software patents are absolute lunacy. If the pharma industry wants to keep patents on medicine, they should work to eliminate software patents... or people will eventually throw out the whole patent system as being unjust and unworkable.

Patents = government-created monopoly

Posted Apr 11, 2008 9:26 UTC (Fri) by PO8 (guest, #41661) [Link]

"Patents are essentially a bargain created by governments, granting temporary monopolies in
exchange for the development of products and documentation of ideas that would not happen
otherwise."

Historically, patents were essentially a bargain created by governments, granting temporary
monopolies in exchange for lots of money.  The conceptualization you describe occurred later.

Patents = government-created monopoly

Posted Apr 15, 2008 9:07 UTC (Tue) by roberton (subscriber, #39680) [Link]

Excellent summary, I totally agree.

Regarding the distinction between software patents and medical patents, IMO there is no doubt
that pharma patents allow private companies to develop drugs that they would not otherwise
have done. Whether this model is the best way to develop those drugs is debatable, but even
this "plus" side doesn't apply to software patents. Software patents have no benefits, only
terrible costs.

Roberto/.

An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing

Posted Apr 11, 2008 0:32 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

"'By your logic everything should be free. your objection is to the market system, and has
absolutely nothing to do with software patents.""


Umm... In a truly capitalistic environment there would be no place for any sort of patents or
copyrights for that matter. Or any form of artificial government-enforced ownership over
anything.

Government-enforced ownership

Posted Apr 11, 2008 6:22 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Actually, apart from wild west scenarios all property is "artificial government-enforced ownership". From ancient irrigation laws in Summer to medieval land deeds to modern day copyright regulations, ownership is granted (or taken away) from the state to private citizens; and it is the state's judicial system which decides upon who owns who. In the old days kings exercised all this power (remember Solomon's judgment), while now it is the State.