Software patents

[Anders Karlsson]

On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 00:18 +1000, Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:
> On Friday 21 April 2006 00:03, Robert McWilliam wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:22:55 +1000, "Alexander Jacob Tsykin"
> >
> > <stsykin at gmail.com> said:
[snip]
> > Why should code be patentable? To stop other people copying it?
> > Copyright already does that. Patents on software that aren't merely an
> > expensive duplication of copyright have to be on ideas.
> >
> Software should be patentable to provide options. If it is necessary int eh 
> eyes of the company, why stop them? Particularly if they will copyright it 
> anyway.

By all means allow software to be patentable as part of a
hardware/software combination deal, as in hard-drive and firmware. The
software itself is not patented, but the combination of hardware and
software is.

Pure software patents are not good if you have a healthy software market
in mind. If you on the other hand are aiming for a breeding ground for
monopolies, shady business practises and legal minefields where bar of
entry is so high it virtually prevents new start-ups, then software
patents is a god-send. (One-click shopping anyone?)

> > What are the sometimes when an idea gets to be patented? And does this
> > fringe case justify the stifling of innovation in the rest of the
> > software world?
> >
> How can ti stifle innovation? If all the established ideas are patented you 
> have to innovate. If anything, it encouraged innovation. What it does not 
> encourage is free software in general. But ultimately, this is not the 
> problem of the company. What you are saying is that somebody should make less 
> profit so that you are free to modify software as you see fit and not pay for 
> it. This is not really a moral stance. Saying "its better for me if you do 
> things this way so do it, even if its worse for you" does not encourage 
> freedom and is most definitely not democratic. Freedom is about empowering 
> people, which is in turn about options. I try not to put my interests before 
> those of everybody else, which is why I take the position I do. Provided 
> people are not hurt or injured by it, people should be able to do as they 
> please.

Patents per se does not stifle invention. Overly broad patents, lack of
understanding of the subject at hand by the patent examiners, lack of
checking for prior art and obscenely long lifetime of patents stifle
innovation.

A software patent system that allows the innovator protection for a
short period of time to recuperate development costs is healthy. It
encourages innovation. Hoarding patents to prevent competition is bad
for competition. When granting a software patent, grant it for an
initial period of six months to allow the developer time to start
working on a product that uses that invention. If he doesn't demonstrate
he is using the patent after six months, it lapses into the public
domain. After two years, the patent lapses into the public domain as
that is plenty of time to recover R&D costs in the software market.

With that system, you encourage innovation and prevent hoarding of
patents. Everyone (humanity) is a winner.

-- 
Anders Karlsson <trudheim at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3838 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20060420/cb7f041c/smime.bin