Timothy Lee has written a very good op-ed piece on software patents in the New York Times. He makes a case against how patents are granted in the USA, saying that companies need copyright protection more than software patent protection.
"In fact, companies, especially those that are focused on innovation, don’t: software is already protected by copyright law, and there’s no reason any industry needs both types of protection. The rules of copyright are simpler, and protection is available to everyone at very low cost. In contrast, the patent system is cumbersome and expensive."He mentions a memo from Bill Gates to his management team in 1991 warning that the patent race will be detrimental to the software industry but that they should get on board, which they did to protect their legal interests.
Witness the case of Verizon vs. Vonage where Vonage used a basic, common sense approach for something obvious, but it was patented by Verizon. This could put them out of business.
"large companies now hold so many patents that it is almost impossible to create useful software without infringing some of them."What do you think?
(Via ars technica)
People who believe patents are not important for software are simply ill-informed. Copyrights protect the expression of an idea; Patents protect the core idea. This is an important distinction. Software is highly malleable. The same idea can be expressed multiple ways. The cost of inventing a new software platform can be very high. The cost of recasting a software platform in a different way to side-step copyright protection is not high at all. Thus, the need for patents to protect the investment in the original invention.
ReplyDeleteAs to the argument that big companies have all the patents... Not so. This is why many big software companies don't like the patent system. Software is one of the last realms where the barrier to entry is low. A single individual can build a uniquely valuable system and bring it to production readiness. Large companies feel exposed because if the do something that infringes on a patent, their liability can be high--especially if the specifically sought to build a competitive offering to try and take a market (willful infringement). This is actually an important protection for the small guy whose competition is a mega-entity that literally can throw a thousand programmers at the problem of replicating their value proposition.
Should patent issuance be tightened to eliminate obvious inventions: YES. Should software be eligible for patent protection: ABSOULTELY.