Slashdot Mirror
Software Patents Are Crumbling, Thanks To the Supreme Court
walterbyrd writes: In June, when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a software patent, many in the tech industry hoped it would be the beginning of sweeping changes to how the patent system handles software. Just a few months later, lower courts are making it happen. Quoting Vox: "By my count there have been 10 court rulings on the patentability of software since the Supreme Court's decision — including six that were decided this month. Every single one of them has led to the patent being invalidated. This doesn't necessarily mean that all software patents are in danger — these are mostly patents that are particularly vulnerable to challenge under the new Alice precedent. But it does mean that the pendulum of patent law is now clearly swinging in an anti-patent direction. Every time a patent gets invalidated, it strengthens the bargaining position of every defendant facing a lawsuit from a patent troll."
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports on alleged corruption in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Nope
GNOME 3 is very innovative, and is built with no patent incentives.
No, not at all. People were making innovative software long, long before software was patented. It didn't used to be that patents were applied to software. Patenting of software is a relatively new thing and should not be done. Hopefully we'll see the end of it. The entire patent system is abused and abusive. Time to scrap it and reset.
The basic idea of having drug patents start from the date of invention rather than the date of first legal sale is itself ridiculous. Worse, the idea of just 'extending' the patent length for them is pretty stupid, but the absolute WORST idea is to design the rules for ALL products based on this one industry. The only reason it is not done reasonable is because then non-medical community loves to use the problems with medical patents as an excuse to grab money for non-medical patents.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The way it works is not relevant: What matters is that, if I am writing code under a patent system, I am at risk of doing something that has already been covered by a patent. I can check for patents related to what I am doing, which is a major drain in productivity, and will increase penalties if it goes to trial and I am infringing, or I can code without looking, and be at risk that I am reinventing something that I never knew about.
It's those costs, or the uncertainty that comes from acting as if the risk of getting sued do not exist, that make software patents a terrible deal.