Comments on: Even Hypothetical Software Patents are Bad

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:38:48 +0000

Question. To my mind a patent can only be granted to a physical device (water pump). Software (source code) is akin to a book. As a compromise, it would seem then that specific lines of code could be “protected” under copyright law. This assumes that we have a reasonable copyright protection law, lets say five years NOT the current absurd, I believe, 99(??) years. Furthermore, the “task” that the software is designed to accomplish (flight simulator) can NOT be protected. Reverse engineering, as a form of innovation, must be protected.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:38:48 +0000

By: Mike Masnick

Mike Masnick — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:24:28 +0000

Wow, wow, wow! I can't believe that Markham goes off on you for focusing on the claims.

When the pro-patent crowd goes off on me, they very often claim the exact opposite. That I only focus on the description and ignore the claims.

I get the feeling that this is another example (like with DRM) where the other side keeps flipping what's important based on how you argue with them.

What the pro-patent crowd always screams at me is that the ONLY thing that matters in a patent are the claims, so for him to go off on you saying that's wrong is pretty funny.

By: Mike Masnick

Mike Masnick — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:24:28 +0000

Wow, wow, wow! I can't believe that Markham goes off on you for focusing on the claims.

When the pro-patent crowd goes off on me, they very often claim the exact opposite. That I only focus on the description and ignore the claims.

I get the feeling that this is another example (like with DRM) where the other side keeps flipping what's important based on how you argue with them.

What the pro-patent crowd always screams at me is that the ONLY thing that matters in a patent are the claims, so for him to go off on you saying that's wrong is pretty funny.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:29:46 +0000

An excellent point! I think the problem is that in software, there isn’t a clear distinction between an “idea” and its implementation. Because of the way computers work, implementing an idea just means describing it in detail in a language the computer can understand.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:44:06 +0000

I am in full agreement that the patent system has been totally debased. To a degree I am repeating my earlier post where I talked about a hypothetical patent for a water pump. I believe that we are overlooking a key issue that is you can patent a specific model of a water pump, but you cannot patent the concept of a water pump.

The software industry seems to believe that patent system, as currently implemented, gives them an "intellectual property right" to abstract concepts that are "obvious" to anyone developing a program to undertake a specific task. Based on this absurd logic, no one would be able to build a water pump, other than the so-called patent holder. It is patently wrong for someone to have a "lock" on a concept.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:29:46 +0000

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:44:06 +0000

The software industry seems to believe that patent system, as currently implemented, gives them an "intellectual property right" to abstract concepts that are "obvious" to anyone developing a program to undertake a specific task. Based on this absurd logic, no one would be able to build a water pump, other than the so-called patent holder. It is patently wrong for someone to have a "lock" on a concept.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:10:01 +0000

The guy you're writing about is part of the patent crowd. In the recent discussion about the Skyline patent, I asked him how he would feel if the person who invented the linked listed, pointer, array, etc, had decided to patent their ideas. He still has not answered.

That said, software patents are harmful, there's really no question. At a certain point, they'll reach a kind of terrible critical mass that will seriously reduce innovation, eventually reduce hiring, and of course, spread fear throughout the industry. We may already be near that point. Software patent holders are parasites. Their "unique" ideas take advantage of the combined work of thousands of other people. So, while software patent parasites unquestionably rely on the generosity and good faith of others in the software industry, they offer none themselves. That's why they're parasites. Tapeworms. Heartworms. Whatever. I'm not sure what's the best comparison.

Before anyone thinks this is more "chicken little talking about the sky", remember, as software patent litigation increases, it WILL have an effect on innovation. Innovation helps drive increases in productivity. Productivity increases result in a higher quality of life. Of course this is just basic economics, no doubt it's of little concern to software patent parasites. I would encourage software patent parasites to think about what will happen to innovation, little by little, if people and companies become afraid to innovate when it means being slapped with a patent suit.

If you're a software patent holder, you should hang up your keyboard. Software patents will seriously damage the software industry.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:10:01 +0000

If you're a software patent holder, you should hang up your keyboard. Software patents will seriously damage the software industry.