Film: "Patent absurdity" [LWN.net]

Film: "Patent absurdity"

Posted Apr 23, 2010 23:08 UTC (Fri) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432)
Parent article: Film: "Patent absurdity"

Frankly, I don't understand why software gets singled out. Why shouldn't software be patentable? It requires creative effort to invent a new algorithm. The argument that the computing field moves too rapidly doesn't hold water either. Internal combustion engine technology had a similar innovation curve back in the late 19th/ealy 20th centuries to the one we see for electronics today. Just visit the agricultural machinery exhibits at your local state/county/province/etc. fair.

Patents for obvious invention are a problem in every field. The idea of software patents is not the problem. Some of the problems are an overextended patent office, a lack of peer review and all other such things that have been discussed ad nauseum.

There are plenty of entirely reasonable software patents.

(Log in to post comments)

Film: "Patent absurdity"

Posted Apr 24, 2010 6:36 UTC (Sat) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link]

>>> Why shouldn't software be patentable? It requires creative effort to invent a new algorithm.

It requires creative efforts to invent division, multiplication, square root, etc.
Do you think these mathematic operations should be patentable ?

Film: "Patent absurdity"

Posted Apr 24, 2010 16:01 UTC (Sat) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432) [Link]

Those were invented a few thousand years ago and most certainly fall under prior art.

Film: "Patent absurdity"

Posted Apr 24, 2010 9:39 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

It requires creative effort to come up with a new algorithm, sure. But it does not follow that, therefore, anyone *else* who comes up with the same algorithm, using the same creative effort, should be *presumed to have copied the idea from the first guy to patent it* and required to pay. (Encouraging this copying was of course the original intent of the patent system.)

Given that the software world is largely divided into two opposing camps, one pro-patent which *conceals its source code so people cannot copy their algorithms*, and documents them in unreadable patents which nobody ever refers to, and one anti-patent which does none of these things, it seems that the pro-patent guys are trying to have their cake and eat it, demanding payment for something which you were presumed to have copied even though you almost certainly did not copy it *and they know this*.

Film: "Patent absurdity"

Posted Apr 24, 2010 16:09 UTC (Sat) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432) [Link]

Every patent is written to cast as wide a net and be as vague and obscure as possible. Software patents are not unique in this regard. I agree that this is a major problem with our patent system.

Intent really doesn't have much to do with this at all. If someone holds a patent and someone else invents the same thing, the second owes royalties to the first regardless of whether it was an independent invention. That's why Bell was so hot to get his patent approved before Gray.

The Bell/Gray story tells us that the patent office has been the source of controversy long before software was even known. If software patents are invalid, we must treat every other patent the same way. I think that's a worthy debate to have. I'm not sure whether patents serve a useful purpose at all today. They are mostly defensive shields now.