SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Gervase Markham has a thorough blog post about a case for the total abolition of software patents. He makes his case based on their complete lack of promotion of innovation and aims at identifying the principles involved. The feasibility of eliminating them may be a ways off due to the heavy politics involved so the idea may seem like a very distant policy possibility.
One immediate question is: how does one define a software patent? Where is the boundary? Various suggestions have been made, but actually, this question is not as important as it appears, for two reasons. Firstly, if we can demonstrate that there is a group of clearly identifiable patents which are harmful, or harmful when enforced in particular situations, then we can adopt the principle that such patents should not be granted or should not be enforceable, and where one draws the exact line between them and other patents becomes a secondary, practical, definitional issue beyond the initial principle. Secondly, some methods proposed for dealing with the problem of software patents do not actually require one to define what a software patent is. For example, one proposal is that one could change the law such that no program written to run on a general purpose computer could ever be said to be infringing a patent. In this case, you need a definition of "general purpose computer", but you don't need one for "software patent". Given these two points, I don't intend to spend time on definitional issues.
Currently software patents are a problem affecting the US and prohibited in the EU due to Article 52 of the European Patent Convention in 1973 (EPC). However, they are currently being pushed by the European Patent Office (EPO) in the name of "harmonization" despite being invalid. Many consider the fact that Europe remains unafflicted by software patents to be a moderating influence on the US market, holding back a free for all.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by canopic jug on Thursday June 07 2018, @02:17PM (6 children)
No. It is your time scale that may be flawed. Software was ignored by copyright law at first and then during the growth decades was under copyright. It was only in recent years that it has also been encumbered by patents and the data is in on that. Software patents have hindered "innovation" [phys.org].
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by exaeta on Thursday June 07 2018, @05:18PM (1 child)
I would like to see software patents disappear. They're a huge pain to deal with.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday June 08 2018, @12:55PM
I like what Thomas Jefferson said on this subject. It's chiseled in stone on his monument:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Software patents are a form of tyranny over the mind.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Friday June 08 2018, @08:36AM (3 children)
How would it restrict even paper-printed book authorship if every phrase used was subject to copyright, and even worse, submarine patent, and all sorts of attribution had to be applied to use the phrase.
All this copyright crap has done is result in a bunch of stuff where no-one knows what's under the hood. The law intended to "protect" rightsholders is also providing a fertile breeding ground for malware writers, who use those same protections to keep people unaware of what they are doing while appearing to do something else.
To me, this is like giving contract writers rights to use invisible ink, making it so I can't see what I am agreeing to, yet finding Congressmen to pen the law that will hold me to it.
Personally, I feel my Congressmen sure dropped the ball on this one, signing the DMCA into law, without requiring those who use these laws to protect their interests be also held liable for what their "protected content" does. Much like a restaurant. We, the public, don't go into the kitchen to see how our food is prepared, but if we all come down with ptomaine poisoning, salmonella, whatever, some chef has a bit of explaining to do, and if it was found out he gave a bellyache to everyone so as to help out his friend who was selling bellyache remedy, all hell's gonna break loose.
But no, our Congressmen rolled right over and gave 'em what they wanted not asking anything in return for us, the people who pulled the lever under their name, at the polls.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @08:45AM (2 children)
At least copyright is for the specific work.
Patents on books would be something like "method of writing a love story".
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Friday June 08 2018, @09:48AM
Yep. Furthermore there are only a few basic plots in literature [ipl.org]. It would be within reach economically to patent them, since the US now allows software and business methods to be patented. Some corporation or individual could go out and file a patent on each one and then go after the small authors first, gather a war chest to take on progressively bigger authors or script writers or broadcasters. Since the patents apply to use, there's no need to limit the attacks to just the producers, the distrubutors, and audience are just as culpable economically.
As someone else pointed out here "innovation" is often defined by the number of patents granted in a field. If you eliminate that tautology is is clear that not only do they harm software severely their benefit can be called into question in many other fields as well.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 08 2018, @01:40PM
Claim 1) Method for having a boy meet a girl
Claim 2) Method for having a boy fall in love with a girl
Claim 3) Method and aparatus for having a girl fall in love with a boy
Claim 4) ...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves