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.
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.
Making innovative software was a good way to get sued before the Supreme Court stepped in. Google had to spend more money on patents and litigation than it did on R&D. Small start ups were being squeezed by lawyers. There are about 11 million profesional software developers and another 7.5 hobiest programmers. These programmers produce code everyday. Every line of code coud be patented. Every line of code should be prior art. Do you think the patent office examines the 1.2 million apps in the Itunes app store? Does it keep up to date on GitHub's 3.4 million users? Every update, every submission is prior art. None of it is looked at. Patents on software is a bad joke.
As an independent software developer, I'd feel much more relieved if software patents were completely abolished. I *know* I'll never willingly infringe on someone's trademark or steal their source code. Those are things that are simple enough to check for. However, software patents are a ticking time bomb waiting to explode in your face. The sheer number of them and the impossibility of easily searching for them means any significant piece of software I write has a high likelihood of infringing on someone's patent.
At the moment, software patents are really nothing but legal nuclear missiles. Every company of significant size has to keep a significant arsenal in order to prevent getting nuked by others. So, now instead of mutually assured destruction, we have "cross-licensing". And you have the patent trolls (arms dealers) who simply leech profits from the legal system by amassing quantities of patents on the cheap, and them attempting to sue "infringing" companies, hoping that a settlement will be cheaper than a legal battle, and the damned thing is, it often works, perpetuating the whole sordid system.
Honestly, I'm not really even generally opposed to the concept of patents, or even of software patents in general. My stance is a more pragmatic one: I feel that we've seen demonstrable evidence that software patents have done a significant amount of harm to our industry, and I've seen no real evidence that the industry benefits in any real way, save for those few people that directly benefit from the "industry" around patents themselves. The government has proven itself absolutely inadequate to the task of judging the merits of these patents in a responsible way, and as such, I think we need to either revoke the ability to patent software altogether, drastically shorten the patent length, or put into law a much, much higher bar for new software patents.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.