Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Rants On Software Patents
LMCBoy writes "Groklaw has the story of Kodak v. Sun (mentioned on Slashdot already), which PJ calls 'Exhibit A' in the case against software patents. Her analysis of Kodak v. Sun, and the larger issue of software patents, is excellent. Bottom line: the software patent 'cold war' provides no benefits to anyone, and will inevitably make the game of software development impossible for anyone to play."
I don't think the issue is as much with software patents in general as the way the system is currently implemented. The Patent Office is so clueless about prior art wrt software that pretty much anyone can patent anything that hasn't already been patented. They can then use that to intimidate or sue other companies even if those companies have been using the same technology for years without obligation to anyone.
I agree with you that rants are for blogs, but I think the blurb does it a disservice by calling it a "rant". It's certainly an impassioned and angry diatribe by someone who feels very strongly on the subject, and maybe that's what rant means to you. But the article is also well layed out, structured, and an interesting read. I don't think we should label every piece of writing which contains a strong opinion as a "rant" - it's good to know that people care about these patent issues.
apterous.org
After all, patents aren't like copyrights, where Congress keeps granting extension after extension to the protection period. They'll eventually expire, though granted the number of frivolous patents will obviously slow innovation down incredibly.
This might be an object lesson in other fields, though. If we want to slow down the pace of genetic engineering, for example, just allow extremely broad and ill-defined patents in the field, and by the time they expire perhaps we'll have time to define a series of ethics and protocols to safeguard us.
/ only slightly facetious
Even if you think patents are a good thing (as I do), there is no room for Software Patents. The only people they benefit are the Lawyer IP-Land-Grabbers. The vast amount of the proffessionals in the industry I know are against them (includiong me).
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
the software patent 'cold war' provides no benefits to anyone, and will inevitably make the game of software development impossible for anyone to play
It would shift the production of software with unhindered innovations from countries that have intellectual property restrictions to countries that completely disregard them. Governments that are allowing these patent controversies to continue are killing the IT segment of their economy, and will eventually be surpassed by the unrestricted countries. It provides benefits to the latter.
Traditionally, the university was used to progress and disseminate knowledge. Now, due to increased administration, budget cuts, etc., all the knowledge is being locked away just in case it might be worth something.
I'm not sure what can be done about it, but it is unfortunate and wrong IMO.
The other thing that irks me about this is Kodak, is it is yet another company that has been bleeding badly, and thus turns to litigation to survive. Hopefully soon a judge and the judges above them will get a clue and realize software patents are ridiculous, and should not be allowed to survive.
Maybe someday a judge will be appointed that has a computer science background that will be able to see as plain as most programmers how wrong and misguided software patents are. Until then I know I'll never buy another Kodak product. . .
Software is the only thing in the world that can be patented, copyrighted, and be a trade secret at the same time (because source code in usually not revealed). That definitely makes it different, and that sort of multi-level IP protection is excessive.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
As many have mentioned, the idea behind patents is to encourage innovation. So for example, if inventor A decides to create a specific implementation of an idea, then all the effort to create that implementation does not go to waste.
One thing that I never see pointed out as a key difference between software patents and traditional real-world patents is the time it takes to make an implementation.
For example, in the past, it could have taken years and thousands to millions of dollars of development and testing to create a patentable idea. Because of this, you need a way to protect that hard work and investment or, yes, nobody would spend the time to invent things because they could get stolen by big companies (patents were originally designed to protect small inventors ironically). The problem with software patents is that it hardly takes any R&D whatsoever to create most of the patentable ideas. All it takes is an idea, something that patents were originally designed NOT to protect. They were designed to protect the implementation of an idea.
All the BS patents seem to fall into the space of no R&D for implementation, especially the "business processes" patents like 1-click. It's like "Oh, I have an idea," let's patent it. The patent office is making the erroneous assumption that not being able to patent an idea as soon as you thought of it would somehow have discourage you thinking of the idea. If software patents are allowed at all, they need to be tempered by the amount of research it requires to go from idea to implementation.
You should NOT be able to patent a "Hey, I just thought of something idea" that takes 10 minutes to implement. Practically all web-based patents fall into this category. I think there is still room for patents on ideas that take a lot of R&D work, investment and time.
Sunny
Be my Friend
True, and remember, Microsoft is playing the "our language is standardized" game until they have captured the hearts and minds of developers everywhere, then they'll squash all other implementations of their language (dotGNU, mono) with big patent infringement cases.
How we know is more important than what we know.
One way to fix the patent system (re: software patents) without going through the arduous process of patent revokations, appeals, re-reviews, peer-reviews, court dates, dumb juries, is to simply limit patent protection to 2 to 3 years.
That way, those who are serious about their idea will be given plenty of time to get a head start and license out to those who can't wait, or don't want to fall that far behind the curve.
Those who make it their business model to sue won't have much time to sue. Most companies may just simply wait it out, or license a non-infringing technology, or simply work out some 2-3 year licensing agreement.
And once the protection time is over, those who waited will have to play catch-up... and it'll be back to the good'ol days where companies actually competed on things like cost and quality.
Are you a student of Machiavelli, or merely a gifted amateur. [rhetorical question, no need for a question mark]
The scenario you describe is all too likely, the IT/IP mix is like a powderkeg at the moment with software patents. Sounds unethical to me to start such a bloodbath, but one could argue that if it was deliberately started now it would be like "back burning" to prevent bush fires, preventing something even worse later on.
Bitter and proud of it.