Matt Yglesias makes a fair point about word choice in yesterday’s op-ed:
I guess I’m not thrilled with the word choice around “bad for the software industry.” Patents are bad for the development of new software. If you define “software industry” as “incumbent for profit software firms” it may be good for the “industry.” The thing to keep in mind with any sort of IP protection is that strong IP creates, on the one hand, an incentive for innovation but at the same time it also creates a barrier to innovation. In the case of software patents, the balance tips overwhelmingly in the direction of creating barriers — indeed, the main incentive it creates is merely for the innovative production of patents rather than of actual products.
Right. What I should have said is “bad for competition and innovation in the software industry.” For a variety of reasons I’ve discussed at length here on TLF, the incentive for innovation caused by software patents is pretty small. Therefore, the primary effect of software patents is to give an advantage to companies who primarily have good patent lawyers at the expense of companies who have only good engineers. The larger, less dynamic parts of the software industry are probably helped by software patents.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.