There’s a brief explanatory section at the beginning devoted to tracing the history of how software patents came about and why the attempts to hold back the flood failed. The conceptual underpinnings of the dividing line were just not clear and strong enough. And MOST IMPORTANTLY the institutions that are supposed to mediate those concepts (the PTO, the Federal Circuit) just were not up to the task. Reform of those institutions to sharpen up their accountability and ending the kind of fuzzy thinking that gives us arguments like those in the EU that software is not “physical” needs to come first.

Re software’s linguistic characteristics: Even object code would “speak” to a computer that was self-aware. But those linguistic characteristics are there primarily to interface with switches. This point does not end the argument, but suggests how tricky it begins to get. One could go on and on. Perhaps the aspect of a product that possesses linguistic characteristics should not patentable? A keyboard shape but not what is printed on the keys? But what makes “language” as a interface tool different from “shape? What happens to our thinking about other types of patents if we need to distinguish the language that describes a process (a blueprint or chemical formula, say) from the thing that is actually patented? Do we end up arguing by analogy that while software cannot be patented that the underlying product–a series of electrical states in a computing machine–can be patented? Is that even remotely useful? So one ends up depositing a machine endlessly running a program with the patent office, instead of the program?

And all this is backwards-looking. One doesn’t know, going forward, what the heck sort of thing will be used to activate switches in general-purpose computers with different types of processors, where this all is going to merge with nanotech and biotech. Even if we draw an arbitrary line between copyright and patent for software with the benefit of hindsight (and mess up an awful lot of investment decisions in the process), well, the patent system has to be able to handle the curve balls that the future is going to throw. It doesn’t make sense to make tech policy by hindsight. Thus I think solutions of general applicability are far superior to sectoral ones such as abolition.

Happy New Year.

True company success comes from two and only two things. Innovation and marketing. Without either, no company can survive. Sure, you need the products, but without innovation and marketing, no company can survive long term. If not a lawyer, people should really not be talking about the different protections afforded copywrite vs. patents.

Noel, I really don’t know what you have been smoking, but I recommend you give it up before it affects more than just your sense.

You imply that the software industry would exist happily without programmers, who should at best shut up and quit complaining, and just get on with the “nitty gritty” stuff. Heaven forbid that programmers should have a say in the business and legal aspects, or the future of their chosen industry!

You place far to much trust in your belief that programmers would be incapable of financially supporting themselves without the dubious skills of your purported “business men”. There have been more than enough examples to demonstrate the fallicy of this attitude. In fact, history shows the exact opposite; that it takes a really good business man to completely screw things up.

At the heart of it though, you have indeed answered Tim’s question. Patents are good for companies such as IBM, Microsoft or Apple, and good for “raising the barrier to entry” so as to protect these companies against those damnable programmers who would otherwise challenge their business through competition.

Noel, I really don’t know what you have been smoking, but I recommend you give it up before it affects more than just your sense.

You imply that the software industry would exist happily without programmers, who should at best shut up and quit complaining, and just get on with the “nitty gritty” stuff. Heaven forbid that programmers should have a say in the business and legal aspects, or the future of their chosen industry!

You place far to much trust in your belief that programmers would be incapable of financially supporting themselves without the dubious skills of your purported “business men”. There have been more than enough examples to demonstrate the fallicy of this attitude. In fact, history shows the exact opposite; that it takes a really good business man to completely screw things up.

At the heart of it though, you have indeed answered Tim’s question. Patents are good for companies such as IBM, Microsoft or Apple, and good for “raising the barrier to entry” so as to protect these companies against those damnable programmers who would otherwise challenge their business through competition.

Important in that it’s yet another failing of the patent system, especially with regards to software.

Important in that it’s yet another failing of the patent system, especially with regards to software.

I”ll report on some academic articles in the next few weeks to spell out my point about patents rather than copyrights.

I didn’t mention that patents do not allow independent invention, which is important. Also, that patents are harder to receive than copyrights (thats obvious) and finally patents terms are shorter than those for copyright.

Tim, who argues that copyrights work better for the software industry than patents. Aren’t you the one trying to repeal the DMCA?

The fifth argument above relates to market entry and patents. I should have explained it more completely.

As for your five arguments for software patents, why are these arguments for software patents rather than software copyrights? We already have a copyright system that almost everyone agrees works better for the software industry than the patent system. And it seems to me that the copyright system is quite adequate to your objectives 1-4. (I have to admit that your fifth argument doesn’t make any sense to me)

Notice that Tim uses the words “silly” or “preposterous” a lot, thereby not engaging fully in discourse over software patents. Tim declares that he’s not seen any arguments that convince him of the need for software patents; but thats because he’s not amenable to economic proof. In fact, Tim does not even consider persuasive economic arguments against software patents, b/c he’s stuck on his own moral theory of software patents.

My point was not to question Tim’s tech skills. Rather, I was emphasizing the fact that its odd he talks about the industry in terms of ideology and normative values. Those who’ve worked in the industry appreciate other aspects of software development.

As for why we need software patents (these are a few, I can send you articles supporting my positions):

1)to incent innovating activity that requires capital investment and risk. 2)to enable the decentralized “open” innovation model of the current industry, where firms can specialize and license for complementary technologies. 3)for firms to work on technologies without immediate applicability (basic R&D) while retaining the ability to prospect and commercialize those technologies. 4)for firms to leverage more efficient means of inward/outward knowledge transfer through licensing. 5)and controversially, to raise barriers to entry so that only innovative and commercially viable inventions get into the market ecoystem. (kind of like political candidates needing a number of signatures to get on ballot)

The second one Tim quoted above. My apologies if I didn’t give enough context.

The second one Tim quoted above. My apologies if I didn’t give enough context.

Instead of talking about what people think about software patents, why not just answer Tim’s question and give the best reasons you know that software patents are good?
Whether there are people that think software patents are good (or how much programming experience they have) is much less interesting than their arguments for supporting that view. Since Tim just complained that these arguments are seldom heard, you have the perfect excuse to list them.

Carme

Instead of talking about what people think about software patents, why not just answer Tim’s question and give the best reasons you know that software patents are good?

Whether there are people that think software patents are good (or how much programming experience they have) is much less interesting than their arguments for supporting that view. Since Tim just complained that these arguments are seldom heard, you have the perfect excuse to list them.

Carme

I worked in the for-profit software industry; doing first public policy research, and then knowledge-management developmment. I’d probably try to do corporate development or business development if I went back to round out the policy-technology-business experience.

Yes, Tim, Red Hat is a part of the industry, but whenever you talk about Red Hat, you talk about its virtues or ideology. Actually, whenever you talk about any company, you talk about those things, thus its hard to decipher when you’re actually trying to give concrete business analysis.

Lewis, what quote are you reading from.