I'm not sure that the distinction we draw between software and physical process really stands up to scrutiny (what if you develop a complete theory of physical process, what would that imply?).
But there is a much more practical angle on this. In the US, patent is specifically meant to encourage innovation.
My experience as a software developer is that patents are not at all needed to encourage to software innovation. Instead, their practical effect is to form a cartel of companies that generate patents and cross license each other, then shut down the small competitors with infringement claims.
So, whatever the theory, the practical conclusion is that patents are a hindrance, not a help, to software innovation.
Some yes/no questions on shrink-wrap software licensing agreements:
1) Do I click "agree" on the license dialog? yes
2) Do I regard this action as any kind of agreement? no
3) Do I steal software? no
4) Do I respect the copyright of software? yes
5) Do I respect anti circumvention clauses? no
6) Do I respect prohibitions on reverse engineering or decompiling? no
7) Would I post instructions on how to remove the "please insert the cd"
check? yes
8) Would I post instructions on how to generate a working serial number?
no
9) Would I feel free to make my own modifications to the software to suit
my own use of it? yes
Those who have read this far may have deduced that I treat software I purchase
much as I would purchase a book that I purchase. I recognize that the
book has copyrighted content and I respect that content. I wouldn't
photocopy the book for someone else, though I might copy it for myself for
backup. I feel free to scribble in the margins. If I don't like
the ending, I feel free to rip out the entire last chapter and toss it in
the fireplace. I have every right to tell other people that you can
get a funny alternate ending if you cross out every other word in the last
chapter. I feel free to try to figure out what kind of ink was used
in the book. If the publisher intentionally glued some of the pages
together, I would tell others how to unglue them.
If you tried to make everyone who bought your book sign an agreement that
they couldn't scribble in the margins, or read it more than once, or read
pages out of order, or talk about the book with friends, then you would soon
find that other book publishers had taken your business.
But in the software universe, the average consumer does not know how to "scribble
in the margins", or "tear out a chapter". Since these concepts are
not part of their lexicon of software usage, they have no qualm about surrendering
these purely theoretical rights. This places the rest of us in a world
where the market for consumer commercial software is warped in strange ways.
I normally don't like legislative solutions to these kinds of problems, but
I can't think of a better way. We need a standard commercial software
license that corresponds to traditional copyright, without all the bogus
shrinkwrap terms.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure that the distinction we draw between software and physical process really stands up to scrutiny (what if you develop a complete theory of physical process, what would that imply?). But there is a much more practical angle on this. In the US, patent is specifically meant to encourage innovation. My experience as a software developer is that patents are not at all needed to encourage to software innovation. Instead, their practical effect is to form a cartel of companies that generate patents and cross license each other, then shut down the small competitors with infringement claims. So, whatever the theory, the practical conclusion is that patents are a hindrance, not a help, to software innovation.
At one point Mozilla was not downloading images that had a css style of display:none. I'm not sure about the current status.
A diversion into software licensing:
Some yes/no questions on shrink-wrap software licensing agreements:
1) Do I click "agree" on the license dialog? yes
2) Do I regard this action as any kind of agreement? no
3) Do I steal software? no
4) Do I respect the copyright of software? yes
5) Do I respect anti circumvention clauses? no
6) Do I respect prohibitions on reverse engineering or decompiling? no
7) Would I post instructions on how to remove the "please insert the cd" check? yes
8) Would I post instructions on how to generate a working serial number? no
9) Would I feel free to make my own modifications to the software to suit my own use of it? yes
Those who have read this far may have deduced that I treat software I purchase much as I would purchase a book that I purchase. I recognize that the book has copyrighted content and I respect that content. I wouldn't photocopy the book for someone else, though I might copy it for myself for backup. I feel free to scribble in the margins. If I don't like the ending, I feel free to rip out the entire last chapter and toss it in the fireplace. I have every right to tell other people that you can get a funny alternate ending if you cross out every other word in the last chapter. I feel free to try to figure out what kind of ink was used in the book. If the publisher intentionally glued some of the pages together, I would tell others how to unglue them.
If you tried to make everyone who bought your book sign an agreement that they couldn't scribble in the margins, or read it more than once, or read pages out of order, or talk about the book with friends, then you would soon find that other book publishers had taken your business.
But in the software universe, the average consumer does not know how to "scribble in the margins", or "tear out a chapter". Since these concepts are not part of their lexicon of software usage, they have no qualm about surrendering these purely theoretical rights. This places the rest of us in a world where the market for consumer commercial software is warped in strange ways.
I normally don't like legislative solutions to these kinds of problems, but I can't think of a better way. We need a standard commercial software license that corresponds to traditional copyright, without all the bogus shrinkwrap terms.