Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent System Not Broken, Argues IBM's Chief Patent Counsel

Posted by Soulskill on from the which-is-good-because-being-broken-is-patented dept.

New submitter TurinX writes "Unsurprisingly, IBM's Chief Patent Counsel, Manny Schecter, thinks the patent system isn't broken. He says, 'Patent disputes like [the Apple-Samsung case] are a natural characteristic of a vigorously competitive industry. And they're nothing new: Similar skirmishes have historically occurred in areas as diverse as sewing machines, winged flight, agriculture, and telegraph technology. Each marked the emergence of incredible technological advances, and each generated similar outcries about the patent system. We are actually witnessing fewer patent suits per patent issued today than the historical average.'" Regarding software patents, he argues, "If patent litigation caused by the U.S. patent system stifled innovation, U.S. software companies would not be the most successful in the world." His recommendation is that we should be patient and "let the system work." Schecter's editorial at Wired is one of a series of expert opinions on the patent system; we've already discussed Richard Stallman's contribution.

4 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Well.... really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The title is all you need to know...

    Patent System Not Broken, Argues IBM's Chief Patent Counsel

    Of course he will say that, his job depends on there being patents to work and litigate with.

    1. Re:Well.... really? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're strawmanning the argument. Only the people on the far extreme want patents abolished. Even Stallman doesn't want that. There are a lot of us that want the system reformed and the rules on WHAT is pattentable scaled back.

      Even if patents were totally elimnated on software the idea that all of a sudden that industries would disappear is hogwash. Software is still covered by copyright and that is how it should be. However the idea that you can patent rounded corners or little details of software programs (some of which are ideas that date back to the early days) needs to go.

  2. Fluff patents by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but when you can patent swinging side to side (US6368227) or teasing your cat with a laser pointer (US5443036), and the infamous rounded corners; it just proves that the system is broken. Whether it is broken beyond repair, needs a serious overhaul, or just needs a bit of tweaking, is up in the air.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  3. Re:Not logical reasoning by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not an argument at all.

    I agree with this wholeheartedly.
    Remember when Google went on a patent buying spree? They bought Motorola to help them support Android.
    /. covered the news that Google was buying IBM patents for Android's protection from Apple & Microsoft

    It's not because Google needed the IP, it was to create a patent army to be use in future battles with tech giants.
    That sounds awfully broken to me.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!