Patent Failure

[jducoeur]

It's hard to be in the software business without having an opinion on software patents. Some folks like them, some don't (personally, I think they are the greatest blight on the industry), but they certainly have a considerable effect on things. There's a lot of pressure to reform the system.

If you have an interest in the topic, I commend this article in Ars Technica, talking about the new book "Patent Failure". I may have to pick up the book (which sounds a tad dense), but the article gives a fascinating overview of the high concepts there, including a concise and clear economic demonstration of just *how* broken the system is. (They demonstrate that the cost of litigating patents in most industries appears to greatly exceed the profits derived from those patents -- in other words, the system is a huge net negative for these industries.) They also talk about the fundamental problems of the patent system, especially the ambiguities that makes it difficult and expensive to work within.

The authors apparently take a deliberately cautious view -- they're advocating reform rather than my preferred approach of simply nuking software patents from space. But I appreciate at least the principle of careful reform, and it's good to see someone taking a hard look at the nuances of the problem...

Comments

[dragonazure.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, there are a number of s/w patents out there that should never been granted considering how other patents on physical devices and processes are ususally handled. Litigating over those is an incredible drain on resources--which is what many of those patent-holders hope for. Make it enough of a headache that paying for use of the patent is cheaper and less trouble than dealing with it in court.

[laurion]

M understanding too is that patents only apply to physical goods, so software manufacturers effectively have to describe their software as if it were a piece of hardcoded electronics, no? Or is that no longer the case? And business process patents? I have no idea how that works. I'm much more understanding of someone trying to copyright their code, but then, of course, that wouldn't prevent anyone from making a similar and competing product. Between patents, EULAs and other shrinkwrap licenses redefining 'ownership', defining anything in RAM as a copy, and other legal hinkiness the industry is a real mess in ways. You shouldn't require more lawyers than programmers. I'm certainly not against the right of a software developer to turn hard effort into real income. The amazing thing is how ideas developed in the software world are now trickling into other arenas, like the RIAA trying to redefine music purchasing into music licensing; something that would have been phenomenally absurd even 30 years ago.

[jducoeur]

M understanding too is that patents only apply to physical goods, so software manufacturers effectively have to describe their software as if it were a piece of hardcoded electronics, no? Or is that no longer the case?

No, really not -- ever since the business process patent change, you've been able to essentially patent algorithms. I've written a couple of these myself, and while they're rather weird (the patent office has an unhealthy fetish for flowcharts), it doesn't have a lot to do with electronics...