Slashdot Mirror
Federal Patents Judge Thinks Software Patents Are Good
New submitter Drishmung writes "Retired Judge Paul Michel, who served on the Federal Circuit 1988-2010 — the court that opened the floodgates for software patents with a series of permissive decisions during the 1990s — thinks software patents are good. Yes, the patent system is flawed, but that means it should be fixed. Ars Technica have a thoughtful interview with him. Ars' take: 'If you care most about promoting innovation, offering carve-outs from the patent system to certain industries and technologies looks like a pragmatic solution to a serious problem. If you're emotionally invested in the success of patent law as such, then allowing certain industries to opt out looks like an admission of failure and a horrible hack.'"
"If you're emotionally invested in the success of patent law as such" - that's the problem. You should never be emotionally invested in a cedrtain law. You may be emotionally invested in a goal and thus support a law which you think helps with that goal (and revise that support if it turns out that the law doesn't help with that goal). However as soon as you are emotionally invested with the law as such, you are not any more objective about it.
Slashdot headline: "Federal Patents Judge Thinks Software Patents Are Good"
Ars headline: "Top judge: ditching software patents a "bad solution"
If you bother to read the article, he says that simply throwing out the patent system is not a good idea. He also says that software patents are rife with garbage which needs cleaned out, and that the entire system from top to bottom needs to be overhauled.
But I guess it's easier to post a knee-jerk response and get a +5 Insightful than it is to read the article.
Bugs are good!
-- software engineer paid for maintenance
Surely being 'emotionally invested in the success of patent law' would require you to want it to achieve what it was meant to achieve?
Michel's argument is a familiar and persuasive one - if there are problems with the patent system, then those problems should be fixed, rather than exempting entire industries from its scope. Some might claim that it is an argument based on ideology rather than pragmatism, but that does not make it invalid. Why should electrical engineers be vulnerable to patent trolls, whilst software engineers aren't? Why should a program expressed in VHDL and uploaded to an FPGA be worthy of patent protection, whilst the same algorithm implemented in C and running on a CPU isn't? Why should engineers in every industry have to worry about patents, but software engineers be excused? There is the argument that software is just an expression of mathematical functions, which as an abstract concept is unpatentable. But isn't a CPU design also an expression of mathematical functions, that just happen to implement logic gates and other circuits?
The pragmatic difference is that the barrier to entry for software programming is much, much lower. When a person can violate your patents with nothing more than a PC and a compiler, then there are potentially tens of thousands of people who will end up doing so. But the actual result is no different to that of other industries - the PC is to software what Star Trek 3D replicators would be to hardware - if we actually had 3D replicator technology, then people working in every industry would be living under the threat of patent trolls, and many of them would be calling for their industry to be exempted. So, why should software be treated as a special case?
If the cost of enforcing the patent equals or exceeds the recoverable benefit, you have just conceded the fact that the benefit no longer carries more than marginal economic value to the alleged beneficiary. The best that could be said here is that it distracts a competitor. The worst (and probably closer to reality) case scenario is that the pursuit of marginally valuable patents creates a perverse incentive that distracts a company from more useful economic activities.
It's really hard to take seriously someone who says they're all about facts and figures, but then jettisons economics because the economic aspects of his preferred system are abysmal. There will come a day, at the rate we are going, where the rule of law will be formally dead in the US similar to how it is in Russia because the legal profession (and judges and prosecutors in particular) have made the cost of participation so high from various factors ranging from failing to sanction frivolous lawsuits and criminal charges, to allowing blatant corruption. As it currently stands, it's on life support.