Nobelist Gary Becker Calls For an End To Software Patents

GigaOM notes that (excerpting) "Gary Becker, a Nobel-prize winning professor at the University of Chicago, stated this week that the U.S. patent system is ”too broad, too loose, and too expensive” and called for the end of software patents: 'Disputes over software patents are among the most common, expensive, and counterproductive. Their exclusion from the patent system would discourage some software innovations, but the saving from litigation costs over disputed patent rights would more than compensate the economy for that cost.'" Here are Becker's comments, from the always-fun Becker-Posner Blog.

Comments

how to delineate software patents?

[Joining Yet Again]

Is it a mere algorithm? An algorithm with a specific realised implementation?

Since I'm not currently in a country where mathematics can be owned, it seems weird to me.

Does any software company actually indicate that they would stop work if it were not for software patents? I.e. is there any company which says that it relies on software patents to do business in software, rather than as a defensive/offensive mechanism?

Re:how to delineate software patents?

[faffod]

[...] is there any company which says that it relies on software patents to do business in software, rather than as a defensive/offensive mechanism?

Yes, they are called patent trolls.

Re:Nobelist?

[SleazyRidr]

I believe the generally accepted term is "Nobel Laureate". Who wrote "Nobelist"?

Here here ....

[pollarda]

It boggles my mind that the Government expects that software developers will do patent searches as they write their code rather than simply implementing what is obvious at the time to implement. Software patents are written in such a way as to make them difficult to interpret and appear broad even when they aren't. It simply isn't practical for software developers were to do their "due diligence" as they write their code, and if they did no appreciable amount of code would be written.

It is quite likely that most if not all software written violates at least a small handful of patents (remember the XOR patent?) -- creating an unfair advantage for the companies who have enormous in-house legal councils who can pursue purported patent violations.

Re:Here here ....

[Dr_Barnowl]

The prevailing advice AFAIK is to deliberately NEVER do a patent search. Why? Because if you knowingly infringe a patent, that's triple damages. Even the suggestion that you did a patent search could be sufficient evidence.

As you rightly point out, everyone knows it's impossible to write any significant (or possibly even trivial) piece of software without infringing something ; since this is the case, it just doesn't make any sense to do any kind of patent search at all.

Obligatory : IANAL.

I'd query one of his suppositions

[johnw]

Their exclusion from the patent system would discourage some software innovations

Can anyone point to a single actual instance of a software innovation which wouldn't have become public without the benefit of patent protection?

Just software?

[ubergeek65536]

You can apply his arguments to more than software. Patents discourage innovation. Under the current system small companies and individuals end up with a huge disadvantage. Huge companies have enough resources to try to patent everything hope a few are approved.

Re:No more SW Patents, but FW Patents.. yes

[h4rr4r]

Why should firmware be any different?

All your approach would lead too is software that requires a peripheral with some firmware in it to run.