Should The US Do Away With Software Patents?

[jillian]

Actually I do.

er... no. you can decide when YOU choose not to participate. but your 'no', when this issue is being debated internationally is kind of a major fail.

but if you can't substantiate your 'no', that's fine. i can't say i'm surprised.

[Chris]

er... no. you can decide when YOU choose not to participate. but your 'no', when this issue is being debated internationally is kind of a major fail.

but if you can't substantiate your 'no', that's fine. i can't say i'm surprised.

Topic?

[countryboy]

er... no. you can decide when YOU choose not to participate. but your 'no', when this issue is being debated internationally is kind of a major fail.

but if you can't substantiate your 'no', that's fine. i can't say i'm surprised.

Why would the concept of intellectual property, or property in general, need substantiation? It's a given. Except in the minds of libs, who always think they have a right to other people's property.

[jillian]

Why would the concept of intellectual property, or property in general, need substantiation? It's a given. Except in the minds of libs, who always think they have a right to other people's property.

intellectual property is only protected to the extent of the copyright, patent and trademark laws.

so what is it you think is a "given"?

i'm a big supporter of copyright and trademark laws, btw, so i'm not sure what the little partisan slur at the end of your post was for... especially when it's false.

i'm pretty sure the randians gubmint haters would be much more likely to think they have the right to others' intellectual property because they hate regulation.

[Mr Happy]

I think software patents should be held by those who invented them. Like music, film, writings or anything similar. I always like Metallica's Lars Ulrich's POV. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here): If my local mechanic wants to download my music for free, he can go for it. But he better expect to service all my cars for free, too"...Something along those lines.

[jillian]

I think software patents should be held by those who invented them. Like music, film, writings or anything similar. I always like Metallica's Lars Ulrich's POV. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here): If my local mechanic wants to download my music for free, he can go for it. But he better expect to service all my cars for free, too"...Something along those lines.

i understand. and for music and copyright/trademark issues, and most other patents, i absolutely agree.

but vis the software patents, it does seem they're being abused by software trolls and not really a huge factor in software creativity... which is why NZ just outlawed those patents and the EU is considering it.

[Chris]

intellectual property is only protected to the extent of the copyright, patent and trademark laws.

so what is it you think is a "given"?

i'm a big supporter of copyright and trademark laws, btw, so i'm not sure what the little partisan slur at the end of your post was for... especially when it's false.

i'm pretty sure the randians gubmint haters would be much more likely to think they have the right to others' intellectual property because they hate regulation.

More legal positivism.


CountryBoy said property, even intellectual property rights are given.


Why the flame bait at the tail end of your post?

[Chris]

i understand. and for music and copyright/trademark issues, and most other patents, i absolutely agree.

but vis the software patents, it does seem they're being abused by software trolls and not really a huge factor in software creativity... which is why NZ just outlawed those patents and the EU is considering it.

I read "it does seem they're being abused by software trolls" and I think you finally read your source, but then read "and not really a huge factor in software creativity" and realize you haven't or have yet to comprehend it. What is says is "while trolls get a disproportionate amount of press, the GAO found little evidence that they’re responsible for the growth in patent litigation."

[Mr Happy]

i understand. and for music and copyright/trademark issues, and most other patents, i absolutely agree.

but vis the software patents, it does seem they're being abused by software trolls and not really a huge factor in software creativity... which is why NZ just outlawed those patents and the EU is considering it.

Nope, creating is creating. Why does software get a free pass and not music...If I invented some super fantastic piece of software and the govt got rid of the patent, I'd be spewing.

[jillian]

Nope, creating is creating. Why does software get a free pass and not music...If I invented some super fantastic piece of software and the govt got rid of the patent, I'd be spewing.

well, it's not i giving software a 'free pass'... it was NZ...and now probably the EU as well.

from the article:

The GAO says that “many recent patent infringement lawsuits are related to the prevalence of low quality patents; that is, patents with unclear property rights, overly broad claims, or both. Although there is some inherent uncertainty associated with all patent claims, several of the stakeholders with this opinion noted that claims in software-related patents are often overly broad, unclear or both.”

Why is software-patent quality so low? The GAO speculates that “language describing emerging technologies, such as software, may be inherently imprecise because these technologies are constantly evolving.” Also, it says, “claims in software patents sometimes define the scope of the invention by encompassing an entire function — like sending an e-mail — rather than the specific means of performing that function.”Another problem: the complexity and rapid development cycle of software makes patent research impractical. “Representatives from a software start-up company we spoke with told us that searching for relevant patents before developing new products is unrealistic and diverts already scarce resources, particularly because their product development process can be as short as 2 months,” the GAO says, echoing a point I’vemade before.“A few representatives of venture capital and software start-up firms told us that they do not always apply for patents until their companies are well established because patent attorneys are expensive, and the process is time-consuming. They told us that the cost of R&D is low relative to the cost of applying for a patent, so there is minimal incentive in the software industry to patent in order to recoup R&D costs.”That’s very different from the pharmaceutical industry. The GAO says that “several representatives from the pharmaceutical industry told us that patents are actually critical to their ability to recoup the costs of developing a new drug, which can cost as much as $1 billion and take from 10 to 15 years.”

so the answer at least according to the article: the relatively low quality of software patents (leading to suits by patent trolls which victimize business owners); the low cost of R and D into software patents (unlike, say, pharmaceutical patents); and the fact that there seems to be little effect on innovation once patent protection is taken out of the equation.

again, i'm not decided about how i feel on this subject. i thought the article raised interesting questions.