Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday June 07 2018, @01:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the EU-got-something-right dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @08:45AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @08:45AM (#690247)

    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

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 08 2018, @09:48AM (#690257) Journal

    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

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday June 08 2018, @01:40PM (#690304) Homepage
    Oh you cynic - patents are way more complex than that.
    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