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.
Please.
The intellectually hard work of software isn't the idea. It's almost entirely within the coding.
No, it increases it. There's a half dozen ideas I have on the drawing board that I could never touch, because I know it comes too close to filed patents on a dozen issues and I could never protect myself in court. This makes it easier to explore these ideas. If anything, this will lead to more pushing of the boundaries and combining of good ideas to make great software, and fewer people sticking to safe ideas because there's no patent issues.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
That would be true if you could come up with good ideas (not bad or average ones) easily and cheaply, but you can't. You can work as hard as you want, but there's no guarantee you will come up with a good idea.
With coding, you (and a million other programmers) can work hard to come up with the code. Therefore original ideas are more valuable than the code implementing it. The software world is absolutely saturated multiple implementations of a few valuable ideas, with additional, secondary ideas added to improve the product from pre-existing products.
It's my firm belief that one cannot write any software of any moderate to large size without inevitably running afoul of some software patent. There are only two things that protect any developer:
1. Distribution of their software is sufficiently small that it escapes the notice of patent trolls.
2. Being a large company with a legal department capable of dealing with patent threats, and a bank account big enough to buy them off.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Particularly small patent holders that present ideas to big companies, hoping to be bought out, but instead get the shaft.
Honestly, the real problem is that patents last too long.
If you can't make your profit in 5 years, then your product was never very good in the first place. In that time, you should be able to 'corner the market', develop a brand - including the reputation for quality, and most importantly, learn business secrets that will give you a leg up against the competition.
After that time, you are just holding back other people from improving your product.
Perhaps we need a graduated patent system. Most patents would get 5 years, particularly impressive products get 10 years, and entirely new products that create new types of businesses/industries get 20 years. That is, an improvement to a cellphone gets 5 years, but the creation of a cell phone gets 20 years.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com