Slashdot Mirror
Recipient of First Software Patent Defends Them
Arguendo writes "Martin Goetz, who obtained the first software patent in 1968, has penned a thoughtful defense of software patents for Patently-O. Goetz argues that there is no principled difference between software and hardware patents and that truly patentable software innovations require just as much ingenuity and advancement as any other kind of patentable subject matter. The Supreme Court is of course currently considering whether to change the scope of patentable subject matter in the Bilski case, which we've discussed before." Does it weaken Goetz's argument that his description of the software lifecycle harks back to the waterfall days and bears little resemblance to current development practice in open source and/or Internet contexts?
The major problem is that most software patents were not awarded to truly patentable software innovations
Indeed. I though TFA was very weak. His points were:
Only the first point is anything resembling an argument, and that one we've heard a dozen times before.
If anyone wants a soild exploration of what should and should not be considered software, and why it ought not to be patentable, I'd recommend PoIR's An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers" over on Groklaw. It's well-researched, well-argued, and informative.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I'm going to have to disagree with this.
Software patents were a problem then and are still a problem now. Patents have always been a trade off. At one time everyone making inventions hid their work through secrecy and obfuscation. This is clearly their right and in order to protect the upfront investment in research and development it was necessary. Otherwise someone could use the information that other people had developed in order to create a product without the upfront investment. They could then undercut the initial inventor.
The result of secrecy and obfuscation was that society couldn't build on top of new ideas. Progress could stall because only a few people knew how something worked. So a limited monopoly was granted to inventors in exchange for full explanations of their inventions. It was hoped that this monopoly would allow others to build on previous inventions and accelerate progress.
This is fine when we are talking about real physical machines. We aren't giving monopolies on ideas, rather their expression in physical form. In the world of physics, only certain things work for a given problem. For example with velcro the hooks have to be at a certain angle and the loops have to be at a certain density. Nobody can patent the idea of a hook or a loop. But a specific physical arrangement of hooks and loops with a specific application is patentable.
The problem with software is that it isn't constrained by physics. For any given problem there are many expressions that can work. Software *isn't real*. If my hooks and loops don't match up I can change the laws of physics to make them match. The work in developing software is *not* trying to discover the angle with which a hook must be made, but rather the sheer volume of describing the hook.
Because people misunderstand the purpose of a patent, they believe that patents exist to protect the upfront investment of development. In this case, if it takes a year worth of work to type in the description of my hook, that hook must be worthy of protection. It is, after all, a considerable upfront cost in my act of invention. But the *specific description* of the hook (i.e., the source code) is not what they want to patent. After all, they already obfuscate it and have a copyright for it. It is amply protected. What they want to patent is the idea of a hook for a given application. *All* descriptions of hooks for that application are now forbidden.
Now we could argue that some techniques are difficult to develop. This is true. But on a computer, all techniques are mathematical algorithms. These are not, and never were patentable. If we accept the argument that a computer program is a "software machine", then the patentable part must be the description of the algorithm in the computer. But this is already obfuscated, secret and protected by copyright. They wish a higher level protection on the concept itself. This is a problem because it has never been patentable (if you wish a reason, I direct you to read the original arguments given when instating the patent system).
Not only are software patents a problem, their very nature is what is causing "bad patents" and "money through litigation" schemes. Any software patent must, by necessity, by overly broad and provide an opportunity for abuse. Not only should software patents be disallowed, but also "hardware" patents that can be fully implemented in software. To do otherwise is to fly fully in the face of the original intent of patents.
***Patents by themselves weren't a problem back in 1968***
A common belief. But probably wrong. Patents are, and always have been, a dubious idea. I don't have time to write a real essay. But just one example. In the early 20th Century, many of the basic patents on aircraft technology were held, naturally enough, by the Wright brothers. However, a lot of the early aircraft were built by Glenn Curtiss who was unable to get a licensing agreement from the Wrights. Curtiss built his planes anyway using (and patenting) alternate technology where he could. The ensuing lawsuits dragged on and on, draining the resources of both parties and crippling the development of aircraft in the US because no one was interested in building aircraft until they knew who they had to pay for the privilege.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war
By the time World War I started, the US was years behind the Europeans in aircraft design. Congress eventually solved the problem by enacting compulsory licensing at a fixed royalty.
How, exactly, did this mess -- which was far from unique -- benefit anyone?
Of course, things are far worse today. The average patent is (deliberately as far as I can see) unintelligible, the claims absurd, prior art is ignored, stuff that is obvious to practicioners is patented, natural laws are patented, etc, etc, etc.
IMHO, the patent system is broken. Badly broken. We would be well advised to carefully -- very carefully -- scrap the thing. Software patents would be a terrific place to start.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey