Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software Patents Compared to Hard Patents

Posted by Zonk on from the different-flavours-of-patent dept.

Arie writes "The Slate discusses the obvious differences between patenting an algorithm and a drug. The article introduces the Fence test, which basically says that if you can physically protect your property, you have a case patenting it. In addition, it claims that the burden on a programmer identifying whether he is infringing on a patent or not involves excessive research burden, essentially to the inherent lack of physical boundaries. Obviously the article starts off with mentioning the patent dispute between RIM and NTL."

4 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Investment, risk, compensation by Toby+The+Economist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The original and valid purpose of a patent is to enable people who make investments in research to be compensated for the risk they take.

    This - investment, risk, compensation - is the issue.

    Whether or not a fence goes around the concept patented is utterly irrelevent.

    If a fence test was implemented, all investment into non-physical research would be discouraged.

    1. Re:Investment, risk, compensation by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The original and valid purpose of a patent is to enable people who make investments in research to be compensated for the risk they take.

      Well, no, not exactly. People already made investments in research and were commercially compensated for it before patents.

      The original and valid purpose of a patent is to force them to reveal their research to the public in order to gain government protection of it.

      Whether or not a fence goes around the concept patented is utterly irrelevent.

      Actually, this is exactly the test applied by the founder of the American patent system and its first examiner; Thomas Jefferson. For things which you can't put a fence around there is copyright.

      Patents are not ideas, they are for things.

      KFG

  2. In the news.. by db32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Today slashdotters were shocked when another tech writer repeated the idea that software patents are bad in yet another way. I think most people here, and throughout the industry, already know the multitude of problems with software patents. I don't think the problem is convincing people on the working side of the industry that they are bad. The problem is convincing the people profiting from software patents that they are bad. I would be interested in seeing industry leaders that can actually influence the decisions, or some politician types with the power speak out against software patents, but seeing yet another tech person do it is just getting redundant. You have to convince people that really like their money, why they shouldn't make money the way they are now. Until things get so bad that the top starts feeling the pain I don't things are going to get much better. Melancholy Elephants is an excellent short story by Spider Robinson about the end game of this situation we have these days. (It isn't terribly long, and it really is a good read) Enjoy!

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  3. Barriers to entry by Varitek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The basic difference between drug patents and software patents is the barrier to entry. You can buy a $200 computer, a $50 book on programming, and be infringing on software patents later that evening. It also costs nothing to release that infringing code to the world. The only people likely to be infringing on drug patents, on the other hand, are well-capitalised pharmaceuticals companies, who can afford to research patents.

    This is why software patents "feel" different to the Slashdot audience. None of us think we will infringe on a patent for an anti-depressant, but we don't like the idea of infringing on some obvious patented algorithm just by writing a few lines of code.