4 ms·
That's _a_ solution, though it's arguable whether it's a good one. Obviously the current implementation of patents has numerous downsides. The costs are high.
by adamtj 13y ago
That's _a_ solution, though it's arguable whether it's a good one. Obviously the current implementation of patents has numerous downsides. The costs are high. But what are the benefits? If they even slightly outweigh the costs, then having patents is better than not having them. And regardless of the cost/benefit ratio, is there a better implementation of the idea?
The intention behind patents is clearly a good idea. Who can argue with fostering innovation in a way that requires open publication? (Open source your idea, receive profits!) If anything, software patents are even more important than other kinds, in this age of the cloud and web services where there are no physical artifacts that can be taken apart and studied. We can take apart a cotton gin, but we can't see Google's source code. At least we get the PageRank patent.
There is less need in software for the monopoly benefit, and more need for open publication requirement. That's what makes software patents different than other kinds.
- nitrogen 13y agoSoftware patents are not as useful as a cotton gin patent because: 1. Most software can be reverse engineered through observation, without disassembly. 2. A sizable chunk of software innovation is already publicly documented in the form of research papers.
- sologoub 13y agoThe patent expiration on a drug is a huge event and it provides tangible benefits - creation of a drug, and then wider availability. The same is hardly true with software and many other technologies. By the time the patent expires, the described technology is frequently obvious and offers little additional value. Patents may be a good thing when applied correctly, but use of software with a vague tie to some physical hardware is not the right way to apply it, as evidenced by the these extortions. If one actually examines how the software is being patented and the problematic linkages to hardware that make it patentable, the entire argument falls apart in my eyes. "For computer implemented processes, the “machine” is often disclosed as a general purpose computer. In these cases, the general purpose computer may be sufficiently “particular” when programmed to perform the process steps. Such programming creates a new machine because a general purpose computer, in effect, becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software." [1] In other words, the only thing that separates software from a business methods, which enjoy much less protection, is the fact that instead of a human performing the tasks, a general computer is performing the tasks. If you consider a software program is nothing more than a collection of instructions, it then can be considered similar in nature to a operator's manual given to a worker processing something. [1] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html