"isolating" or "quarantining" software from patents?

Posted Nov 6, 2012 11:47 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)

I misunderstood the title. The word "limiting" is often used by people who propose non-solutions*. He makes clear in the article that the goal is still a complete end of patent usage against software developers.

What would be a clearer way to describe this approach? "isolating" or "quarantining" software from patents?

(* non-solutions: raising evaluation requirements, giving more resources to patent examiners, limiting when trolls can attack or reducing how much damages they can ask for. These ideas often come from pro-patent companies, which suggests that they know they're dead-end ideas that won't change anything.)

"isolating" or "quarantining" software from patents?

Posted Nov 6, 2012 12:36 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

I've made a wiki page for developing this idea:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Shielding_software_instead_of_ex...

I've adding the text of the law RMS refers to which shields surgeons from patent risk, 35 U.S.C. Section 287 (c).

"isolating" or "quarantining" software from patents?

Posted Nov 6, 2012 16:23 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Non-solutions are also things like compromises made by people who don't want patents but feel that they have to offer something (for example, acceptance of the granting of patents on software or in another field) in exchange for a promise (for example, that software patents will only have a five-year lifespan) that will eventually be rescinded.

When you know that offering a concession will just have the opposing party come back for another one, it's best not to offer any concession in the first place. So, identifying areas where patents can be unconditionally eliminated on the road to complete elimination is very useful.