Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Reducing Software Patent Life-Spans?
seattle_coder writes "Many have advocated for the elimination of software patents. The arguments generally are that software patents are handed out too easily, and that they're too difficult and expensive to fight. Some say that patents just plain don't make sense for software, which is such a dynamic technology. Given that the standard patent lifetime is 20 years, and software changes so rapidly, is the life-span the problem for software patents? Would reducing the software patent lifetime to 5 years or even less be the thing to do?"
We shouldn't be able to patent software for the same reason we can't patent mathematics. Copyright protection is sufficient and suitable for software.
the one that's holding all the cards isn't going to ask for a new hand. the broken patent system serves the interests of large corporations, and they'll fight tooth and nail against any changes that is against their interest. in summary - dream on.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Yes, the lifespan of patents is a big problem.
But in software, things change so rapidly that patent protection for even five years is an eternity: by then, it is game over.
The fundamental problem with software patents is that companies patent simple ideas. The Amazon one-click purchase patent is a prime example. These kinds of ideas should be considered "obvious" by the USPTO, but unfortunately these kinds of things are routinely patented. The result is that there is a minefield of patents around every simple idea, every basic thing that one can do in software. Anyone who wants to create a startup company around a software product is at great risk, and instead of investing their time and energy into product development they now have to invest it in legal research. That is not a very good state of affairs for an industry that thrives on innovation.
If patents are to be allowed to exist for software, the bar for what is not obvious should be much, much, much higher than it currently seems to be.
Making them 3 years would solve many many problems.
But, the TRIPS agreement says patents have to last 20 years.
However, the TRIPS agreement doesn't say that software has to be patentable. So countries could declare that software isn't patentable, and then create some new legal thingy called "petents", and say that petents last 3 years and that software innovations can be petented.
This would be hard work because some countries (USA for example) push the idea that TRIPS requires software patents.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/TRIPS
Really, shortening the duration would be as much work, and there's always the risk that the monopolists will find some other nasty clause to stick in to make 3-year petents really harmful.
Let's just go for abolition. It will take time, but it's the only practical solution.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Anyone who has ever programmed just a little knows that programmers invent algorithms every day and reuse somebody else's algorithm every minute. It is just a greed-fuelled idiocy to patent random bits of what programmers invent as part of their work. It is like patenting a mathematical proof or a law of physics.
Then there is another matter: when are two algorithms identical? When the code is exactly the same, including the naming of variables? No matter the variable naming? When they generate the same machine code on some machine? When they compute the same results (but this is undecidable formally)?
Software patents are a stupidity to make lawyers richer and to make the life of developers more miserable.
The real issue is that patenting has moved from protecting the method of solving a problem into solving a particular problem.
For instance, I cannot patent mowing a lawn. I can patent a lawn mowing machine, even one that exactly copies the pattern created by another lawn mower that also runs on gas and uses a rotary blade to do it. As long as my lawn mowing machine is different enough to merit the patent, I think it's fair so someone doesn't come along and copy my machine.
Now people are patenting ideas. So when Amazon patents "one click shopping" and I write open source software with different libraries to complete the same task, they claim patent infringement, which is nonsense. They should be able to patent a particular method, which is really just their code, not an end result. Even then it's redundant, as it's already protected by copyright.
Large corporations do not want patent law sane, because it's their multi-million dollar playground, and they can crush innovation and startups by simply filing a few law suits. The first nation with decent infrastructure to fix their system or abandon it will lead the way into the 21st century.
tl;dr: The ability to patent end results instead of particular methods is why the current patent system is a failure.
There should be some distinction between a work that has potential monetary worth 75 years after its creation, and something that has no worth 5 years after creation.
I have a different opinion. Any work that still has relevance 20 years after it's release has become an important piece of cultural property that _desperately_ needs to be in the public domain, and the property of all.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
No, it would take more than that. In fact, I'd say that the number one reform we need is to stop automatically granting copyrights; we need to require registrations and impose some strict formalities. A system of short overall terms comprised of even shorter initial and renewal terms would probably be number two, and a broad exception for non-commercial infringement by natural persons would probably be number three.
Congratulations, you're just killed 90% of open source software. And 90% of works created by individual artists and 90% of works put online by individuals.
Those are all entities who cannot afford to copyright all their works. It's simply not economically feasible especially if they create many small works. Nonetheless they benefit from having copyright protection as it prevents excessive outright copying.
Large corporations, who are the real source of problems, would simply pay the to them trivial fees for copyright and get on with their day. Trolls would probably also copyright the works of others, who didn't have the money to do it themselves, and then sue those who use them. That would be a fun lawsuit to see.