Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Software Patents - good or evil?
The New York Times published an opinion piece by Timothy B. Lee yesterday that compares the current patent conflict between Vonage and Verizon to the software patent landscape of the early 1990's. Back then, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates published a memo to Microsoft's senior management extolling the evils of software patents, claiming that they could lead to a complete stall in technological advancement. Of course, today Microsoft owns a massive number of patents, and actively uses them to protect their position in the market. And the Vonage / Verizon patent dispute is a shining example of how patents can be used to attempt to kill technological advancement.
So, here's your chance to sound off and spout your opinion. We want to know if the ability to acquire a patent for a software process is good, or evil. For the purposes of this discussion, "good" is defined as supporting technological advancement, whereas "evil" refers to technological stagnation. As much as the example given here clearly shows a bias, there are probably good arguments from both sides of this debate; let's hear them.
Comments
6
Subscribe to commentsJoel McKinleyJun 12th 2007 4:19PM
Love the picture, where can I get one?
srenehanJun 12th 2007 11:01AM
Patents as they were envisioned were a great idea, Inventors, great minds, and the ingenious could find a product that was needed and manage to protect that product long enough to make a living off of it, or to be able to continue development on it without having to worry about others knocking it off.
This concept isn't "wrong" for the software industry either. The idea of letting people protect their creations is at it's very heart a good idea. It allows people to compete WITH the big names like Microsoft if they can innovate and do something deserving.
However, patent lengths are a joke when you consider the speed that the tech industry moves at, and they're an even larger one when you consider most of the patents are granted for concepts and theories that are either common sense, or already in use.
So... Software patents - Not Evil, just bloated and ugly and long over due for some major revisions.
Wolfman-KJun 12th 2007 12:48PM
Software is code, its a series of letters and numbers put together in a certain way, much like books or music.
Therefor Software should fall under Copy Write laws, not patent laws. This was a fundamental mistake from the beginning, because lawmakers didn't understand the difference between computer hardware and software.
MikaelJun 12th 2007 3:38PM
OMG! That picture is brilliant! Please tell me it is a real patent! If so where to find it?
JamesJun 13th 2007 5:15PM
The problem with software patents is that there is so very, very little that one can do with software that isn't "obvious to one skilled in the profession" (I think the letter of the law looks something like that ). People grant patents that by all rights shouldn't pass the "non-obvious" test all the time, and then trolls use the patent as a bludgeon to threaten others. BUT. There are a few cases, particularly in the math-related fields like networking and crypto, where genuine innovation happens, like a new encryption or routing algorithm that wasn't just the logical conclusion of working through well-defined steps, or a mashup of two things people were doing already. These people deserve some reward for their inspiration, so I don't think patents need to go away completely. Just find some people with at least a doctorate in CS to review them before you let them out into the wild to cause havok.
FredJun 15th 2007 12:39AM
As I was taught in my Intro to Economics class, patents intended to return the externalities (outside benefits) to a company, and this is to encourage research and development. There are some research areas that need "encouragement". But some ideas would be developed without needing any encouragement (like those in competitive areas, such as the latest OS wars), and that's why they have the "obvious to one skilled in the profession" limitation.
Looking at it this way, I think areas in software that actually need extra encouragement from patent rights are VERY rare.