Reforming Software Patents with 'Marking'

sakul writes "Came across an article in the Stanford Law Journal that proposes 'marking' patented software to make the patents obvious to the public and to force large companies patenting software "to play by the same rules as holders of other kinds of patents." Interesting but technical read. Could this be a solution to some of the ever growing problems with software patents?" (Stephen Lindholm, the author of the paper, has provided a link to the paper itself, as well.) On the same topic, karvind writes "Gavin Hill, a film graduate, has produced and directed an interesting animated film on How Software Patents Actually Work. It's explaining the dangers of software patents and how they affect you and your business."

Comments

The Conclusion

[Flywheels of Fire]

This article argues that software patents could at least be brought in line with other patents by strengthening the marking requirement. Software patents are largely unjustifiable in the absence of marking.

One might object to the arguments presented in the second section of this paper as empirically unsupported--after all, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The rejoinder is that a half-billion dollar verdict is more than a mere anecdote,204 and the plural of these "anecdotes" is a shameful abomination. The burden is on the proponents of the current software-patenting regime to point out where the billions of economic gains can be found.

so solution at all

[ammoQ]

The greatest problem are submarine patents which do not even exist as widespread software products, so how could marking help?
The other problem are patents that lock proprietary file formats and communication protocols; marking these software products doesn't help to make software interoperable, the opposite is true.

Feeble, absurd compromise that makes no sense

[Concern]

There is only one way to reform Software Patents.

That is to abolish them.

Software patents have never worked, and can never work. There is no way they can be made to work.

Marks do nothing to solve the absurd problem of scale. No one can ever assimilate the patent database, or even keep up with new additions, no matter what reforms were enacted. Anyone who tells you their code is "legal" with respect to patents is a bold-faced liar. Every line of code is a ticking patent timebomb.

The very term is just a code word for "Barratry."

They are a legal anomaly and a practical absurdity. They "function" only in that they are almost entirely ignored by those they are intended to govern. In short, they are a very expensive, very destructive farce.

In theory they were meant to be a tool for rich people to shake down poor people, but they even backfire at that, since small "IP" companies can shake down giants with impugnity without being counterattacked, as long as they have no products of their own.