a computer program is not a patentable invention

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <4bc84ce3$0$1996$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>,
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

On 16/04/2010 12:47, whygee wrote:
David Brown wrote:
snip
There are occasional areas in which patents /do/ make sense - drug
research is an oft-quoted example since there the big companies pay a
great deal of money to develop the drugs covered by the patents. But
in most cases, innovation, economic growth, consumers and companies
would be far better served by scraping patents entirely. A good start
would be a gradual reduction in the time for patents down towards a
couple of years (with exceptions such as ten years for drug patents).

The patent situation in Europe is not nearly as bad, but there is
progression towards the American mess.

I agree 100% with your whole analysis.


It's not often that happens! Usually I'm considered a bit extreme when
I write that sort of rant...

No, it is spot on. Actually I stored the article, in order to discuss
it with friends. Thanks.

mvh.,

David

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <MPG.263147bc14bcf30e98b056@news.east.earthlink.net>,
WangoTango <Asgard24@mindspring.com> wrote:

In article <l0xpro.40a@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl
says...
In article <81uukiFepfU1@mid.individual.net>, Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> wrote:

This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
Tuesday, 06 April 2010

========================

Thumbs down for software patents in NZ
Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions

Open source software champions have been influential in excluding
software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.

It is pretty .......... to post news about a bill on an international
forum without even mentionning the country it is in.

SNIP

Did I miss something here, or did you?

I mean "Thumbs down for software patents in NZ" is pretty obvious to me.

Sorry, I missed it because NZ didn't ring a bell, and I overlooked.
Now I understand it is New Zealand.

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:32:52 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is
already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet
you provide your own contrary evidence.

Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
The choice to exercise them is not always made.

By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you
seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
much because they have patents, but that if software patents
are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
copyright violations more than before? Is that your point?

The comment you are referring to came in response to the
apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of
software patents. My arguments have been consistently that
copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than
software patents.

I'm not sure I follow the semantic intent of your words here.
Each word makes sense by itself. But not together. So I
suppose this is why I didn't make much of this paragraph,
yesterday.

I base that on significantly longer protection and court
precedents over damage awards that could be based on
actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
change actual over all practice.

Since I didn't get the first paragraph, this "based on" part
doesn't add much for me.

Software patents give a
lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
redefined claims for short period of time.

I think I understand this. But I don't fully agree with the
thrust. Patents can last around two decades and in the
computer field that is "almost forever." In other words,
about the "same as" copyright protection. And copyright can
be "worked around." Patents cannot be nearly so easily.

In other words, I don't place nearly as much emphasis on the
difference of duration as you seem to make of it.

Copyright
gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
for a long period of time.

Since folks without very deep pockets (a term I read you
using elsewhere, today) don't really have access to patent
protection (I've had the luxury to work with patent attorneys
on two uncomfortable stretches in my life and in both cases
the costs were about US$60k/loose-man-month), copyright
provides _stronger_ protection, since it exists at all for
them. As you mentioned elsewhere, individuals and small
companies actually win such cases.

For those with deep pockets, of course, I will agree that
copyright does provide weaker protection. But I think I read
you saying that removing patent protection would cause more
teeth in copyright protection. I'm still not following that
thread of thought and the above doesn't help me. Yet.

Would the dropping of software patents make copyright
protection stronger?

I think that is the question you already answered, expressing
an opinion that it would.

I don't

And here is a broken fragment that I'm not sure about. Did
you mean to retract the earlier point [by adding 'think so'
to the above?] Or?

but the sheer threshold of
getting a software patent made a lot of patentable
software relatively unprotected because the authors
didn't know that copyright protection could also
have provided them with a lot of adequate protection
through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases

And this is where I am still hung up. It feels like you are
suggesting what I earlier thought you were and which doesn't
make any sense to me. Let me take this slowly.

(1) Copyright exists on works, today, even if you don't
register them officially. (I think.) One only needs a few
words, at most, with software anyway.

(2) As you mention elsewhere, only deep pockets have access
to patent protection. Such folks certainly have ALL the
necessary advice they need with copyright.

(3) Parsing your words above, I gather that you are talking
about a group of people/companies that had "patentable
software" that was "relatively unprotected" because the
authors were ignorant about copyright? Isn't that an
argument that they _use_ copyright?

(4) You mention a "sheer threshold" regarding patents and I
take your meaning to be that this "patentable software"
couldn't reach that threshold. Yes? Because they don't have
enough money? If so, the loss of software patents won't
affect them, anyway.

I'm still not following the argument about why you think that
the loss of software patents would add _more_ teeth to
software protection in the US than it already enjoys.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:45:24 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

Albert van der Horst wrote:

In article <3slhs5tkibsfl52ptthqsc0jd5nbev82us@4ax.com>,
Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

SNIP

But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble
parsing all this, correctly and well. I doubt they are in
nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics
and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the
judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases.

And of course they *should* be based on domain expert
witnesses, impartial and in good faith.

I would agree. Copyright cases have been generally less
expensive than patent cases. I don't know many patent cases
that haven't been won without very deep pockets or a
legal firm as a partner. Individuals and small publishing
houses do win copyright cases .

I also agree, having worked with patent attorneys charging
upwards of US$60k/loose-man-month.

So this suggests dividing the entire patent and copyright
issue into at least two separate categories: as it applies
to "deep pockets" and as it applies to "shallow pockets."
Patents are largely off the table for shallow pockets, so all
there is is copyright.

Jon

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:21:44 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:

And of course they *should* be based on domain expert witnesses,
impartial and in good faith.

Now that would be interesting to actually see, one of them impartial
expert witnesses, rather than just another mouthpiece for hire.

 

[Tom]

terryc wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:21:44 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:


And of course they *should* be based on domain expert witnesses,
impartial and in good faith.

Now that would be interesting to actually see, one of them impartial
expert witnesses, rather than just another mouthpiece for hire.

I always thought there is a reason why they are called Court of Law and not Court of Justice...

Tom

 

[David Brown]

On 19/04/2010 03:32, Walter Banks wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is
already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet
you provide your own contrary evidence.

Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
The choice to exercise them is not always made.

By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you
seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
much because they have patents, but that if software patents
are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
copyright violations more than before? Is that your point?

The comment you are referring to came in response to the
apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of
software patents. My arguments have been consistently that
copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than
software patents.

I base that on significantly longer protection and court
precedents over damage awards that could be based on
actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
change actual over all practice. Software patents give a
lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
for a long period of time.

I agree with Jon that it is very difficult to see what your argument is
here.

Would the dropping of software patents make copyright
protection stronger?

Remember, software patents are a peculiarity of the USA (there are a few
patents issued by other countries that are arguably "software patents",
but these are not common). You don't have to speculate about what would
happen without software patents - you simply have to look to Europe.

If the USA dropped software patents, it would become more common to
bring copyright cases to court - in a country with companies addicted to
suing each other, if software patents are removed then they will use
copyrights. Since to some extent American courts make up the law as
they go along ("precedence"), this may lead to some changes in copyright
law, or its interpretation, in the USA.

I don't but the sheer threshold of
getting a software patent made a lot of patentable

The "sheer threshold of getting a software patent" !?! Have you ever
/looked/ at the sort of junk that gets patented in the USA? All you
have to do is use long technical words that the patent "examiner" can't
understand, drown the document in soporific legalise, pay your fee on
time and you get your patent. There are certainly some people that take
patent applications seriously and only apply for inventions that are
truly innovative and useful. But patent offices are swamped with
nonsense patents (in all countries, but the USA more than others, and in
all fields, but software more than others). Most are granted to large
companies that have employees specialising in making as wide and vague
patents as they can.

software relatively unprotected because the authors
didn't know that copyright protection could also
have provided them with a lot of adequate protection
through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases

Are you trying to say that there are lots of people out there writing
new, innovative and useful software, who understand about software
patents (but don't have the time, money or expertise to get one), yet
don't understand even the basics about copyright? Have these mythical
developers never looked at any other software? Never seen a "Help
About" box with a copyright notice? Never read a book? I can well
believe they don't know the rights they have with copyrights, or even
that copyright is automatic (many people think you have to register it
in some way). But I simply don't believe that anyone capable of writing
software that has a valid claim for a software patent (by USA standards)
is incapable of googling for "copyright".

 

[Chris H]

In message <l156t9.lio@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst
<albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes

There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for
economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US
and China would be certain.

The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military
action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

 

[Chris H]

In message <7199c47f-3c95-4aa1-96d6-87bc91909f7f@f17g2000vbd.googlegroup
s.com>, Didi <dp@tgi-sci.com> writes

On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
In message <l156t9....@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst
alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes

There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for
economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US
and China would be certain.

The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military
action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war.

Well if they (or anybody else) cannot afford a war things are OK.
It gets really bad when someone cannot afford not to go to war...
If things get to a large scale war finances are no longer a factor.
They are that only while preparing for this war, building up reserves,
fuel included.

The Chinese can sink the USD in matter of hours. Then the US can not
buy fuel or food on the international markets. Actually the US could
not by anything or do any business..... no matter how many tanks it
has.



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

 

[Walter Banks]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

Software patents give a
lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
redefined claims for short period of time.

I think I understand this. But I don't fully agree with the
thrust. Patents can last around two decades and in the
computer field that is "almost forever." In other words,
about the "same as" copyright protection. And copyright can
be "worked around." Patents cannot be nearly so easily.

A few years ago I would have agreed with you on speed
of the computer field. I don't see the speed now. We are still
selling tools for processors whose instruction sets were
developed in the mid to late 70's.

One of my current projects started in 1998 and we have
support contracts to 2016 that are very likely to be extended

15 or 17 years is is not a long time anymore. It now takes
5-8 years to launch new processors and about as long again
to get them designed in.

A major reference document that we use was written in 60's
and revised in the 70's. It has a copyright and has outlived many
patents.

copyright can be "worked around." Patents cannot
be nearly so easily

I don't agree. Patent's are far more protective of a narrow
range of claims that need to be predefined. The copyright
control of derivative works makes the copyright holder able
to control material in ways that were not even imagined
when the copyright was issued.

Had the LCD control patent been a copyright there would
still be a lot of licence fees being paid. This patent was
organized the way a copyright could have been. LCD material
requires that the average voltage be across the material be zero.
The patent author detailed essentially all the ways an LCD
display could be driven or scanned and keep the average
display voltage zero.

Once usage goes beyond fair use a copyright can be powerful
protection. In general fair use does not allow someone to
profit from the use of a copyright they do not own. (I know
there are exceptions to this)

Regards,


Walter..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com

 

[Walter Banks]

David Brown wrote:

I base that on significantly longer protection and court
precedents over damage awards that could be based on
actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
change actual over all practice. Software patents give a
lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
for a long period of time.


I agree with Jon that it is very difficult to see what your argument is
here.

The key to my comments are that patents require
a list of claims be defined when the patent is filed.

This not only means that the invention must be novel
but the inventor must have specific vision on how the
invention is going to be used.

Copyrights don't have the requirement of vision.

Jon, David the / redefined / predefined / typo is mine
and confused my earlier comments.

Regards,


Walter..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com

 

[David Brown]

On 20/04/2010 16:46, Walter Banks wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

Software patents give a
lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
redefined claims for short period of time.

I think I understand this. But I don't fully agree with the
thrust. Patents can last around two decades and in the
computer field that is "almost forever." In other words,
about the "same as" copyright protection. And copyright can
be "worked around." Patents cannot be nearly so easily.

A few years ago I would have agreed with you on speed
of the computer field. I don't see the speed now. We are still
selling tools for processors whose instruction sets were
developed in the mid to late 70's.

One of my current projects started in 1998 and we have
support contracts to 2016 that are very likely to be extended

15 or 17 years is is not a long time anymore. It now takes
5-8 years to launch new processors and about as long again
to get them designed in.

A major reference document that we use was written in 60's
and revised in the 70's. It has a copyright and has outlived many
patents.

You are referring here to a tiny niche market. In the huge majority of
the software world, a couple of years is a long time. Support contracts
lasting as long as 3 years are extra cost. If you are a large company
and want long-term support from a small company with a great new
product, you can't rely on that company existing in a few years time -
you just buy the company.

If patents, and software patents in particular, were only given for
truly new, innovative and useful ideas, then I might agree with you
somewhat - there have been relatively few good "inventions" in software
(or processor design, since you mentioned that) in recent times.
There's been plenty of progress, but little in the way of revolutionary
ideas that justify a patent.

copyright can be "worked around." Patents cannot
be nearly so easily

I don't agree. Patent's are far more protective of a narrow
range of claims that need to be predefined. The copyright
control of derivative works makes the copyright holder able
to control material in ways that were not even imagined
when the copyright was issued.

Patents are typically written as broadly as the author can make it.
When Jon says you cannot easily work around them, what he means is you
can do your own development totally independently of the patent -
typically with no idea the patent exists - and still fall foul of it.
And because of the way patents are granted, and the way the courts work
in the USA, it really doesn't even matter if you wrote the software long
before the person who got the patent. If the patent-holder wants to sue
you, it's going to cost you a great deal of money - whether you are
"innocent" or not, and whether the patent is valid or not. And that's
just because you came up with an idea that someone else also had.

Copyrights, on the other hand, are very much narrower - they cover an
implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. Thus you are perfectly
at liberty to do a clean-room re-implementation of the same ideas. Thus
you are not allowed to steal other people's work, but you /are/ allowed
to do the work again yourself.

Had the LCD control patent been a copyright there would
still be a lot of licence fees being paid. This patent was
organized the way a copyright could have been. LCD material
requires that the average voltage be across the material be zero.
The patent author detailed essentially all the ways an LCD
display could be driven or scanned and keep the average
display voltage zero.

Your example doesn't make sense. You can't copyright an idea, or a
method, or a way to control an LCD. You can copyright a datasheet or
instruction manual for the LCD. Patents and copyrights apply to
different things.

Note that I don't think anyone here has argued against the idea of
patents for this sort of thing. While many people (myself included)
would like to see wide-ranging changes to the way patents are granted,
the duration, and the way conflicts are resolved (in the USA in
particular, but also more generally throughout the world), I don't think
patents should be abandoned entirely. /Software/ patents should be
abandoned in the USA, like the rest of the world. But I see nothing
wrong with the inventor of the LCD (or its control mechanisms) having a
patent for that, for a few years.

Once usage goes beyond fair use a copyright can be powerful
protection. In general fair use does not allow someone to
profit from the use of a copyright they do not own. (I know
there are exceptions to this)

No one is arguing that copyright can give powerful protection - and that
one of the main aims is let people have use of the copyrighted material
without getting economic gain through its abuse.

The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.

 

[David Brown]

On 20/04/2010 16:37, Chris H wrote:

In message<7199c47f-3c95-4aa1-96d6-87bc91909f7f@f17g2000vbd.googlegroup
s.com>, Didi<dp@tgi-sci.com> writes
On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, Chris H<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
In message<l156t9....@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst
alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes

There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for
economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US
and China would be certain.

The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military
action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war.

Well if they (or anybody else) cannot afford a war things are OK.
It gets really bad when someone cannot afford not to go to war...
If things get to a large scale war finances are no longer a factor.
They are that only while preparing for this war, building up reserves,
fuel included.

The Chinese can sink the USD in matter of hours. Then the US can not
buy fuel or food on the international markets. Actually the US could
not by anything or do any business..... no matter how many tanks it
has.

Doing that would do enormous damage to China as well. What's that
saying - if you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem, but
if you owe the bank a billion, the bank has a problem? China is the
USA's bank - dropping the USD would mean giving up on the very large sum
of money owed it by the USA.

Of course, it's a useful last resort (from China's viewpoint). It's not
quite MAD, since the USA would come off a lot worse than China, but it's
no easy option.

 

[Didi]

On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In message <l156t9....@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst
alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes

There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for
economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US
and China would be certain.

The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military
action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war.

Well if they (or anybody else) cannot afford a war things are OK.
It gets really bad when someone cannot afford not to go to war...
If things get to a large scale war finances are no longer a factor.
They are that only while preparing for this war, building up reserves,
fuel included.

Dimiter

 

[Walter Banks]

David Brown wrote:

The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.

I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
protecting IP.

w..

 

[David Brown]

Walter Banks wrote:

David Brown wrote:

The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.

I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
protecting IP.

OK, we agree on that - thanks for clearing this up. I'm think we differ
a little on the weightings for the reasons for disliking software
patents - you say they are ineffective at encouraging innovation, while
I believe they directly discourage far more innovation than they
encourage. In other words, they are not just unnecessary, but a direct
hindrance to progress.

 

[David Brown]

Walter Banks wrote:

David Brown wrote:

I base that on significantly longer protection and court
precedents over damage awards that could be based on
actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
change actual over all practice. Software patents give a
lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
for a long period of time.

I agree with Jon that it is very difficult to see what your argument is
here.

The key to my comments are that patents require
a list of claims be defined when the patent is filed.

This not only means that the invention must be novel
but the inventor must have specific vision on how the
invention is going to be used.

Copyrights don't have the requirement of vision.

Jon, David the / redefined / predefined / typo is mine
and confused my earlier comments.

I see what you are saying now.

I think the confusion was at least partly because you are talking about
how the /theoretical/ requirements for software patents (it must be
novel, clearly described, and useful with a view to implementation),
while we have been talking about the /actual/ requirements to getting a
software patent in the USA (write enough words, pay the fee).

We agree that even if the patent office did a proper job, software
patents are unnecessary and provide little or no benefit to anyone. And
because of the way the USA patent office actually works, software
patents are directly harmful.

Note that this is not really due to incompetence or other failings of
the patent office itself, or its staff. The current USA patent system
requires the patent offices to earn money. Since they earn a fee on
each registered patent, while any work done checking the validity of a
patent application takes time and therefore money, the obvious profit
strategy is to rubber-stamp everything that passes a first-glance
inspection, and leave it to the courts to figure out if it should have
been issued or not. And since the USA civil courts are based on money
(with a little law on the side) rather than any requirement for truth or
justice, if you can afford lawyers you can get your dodgy patents
strengthened just by winning a game of lawyer expenses chicken.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

David Brown wrote:

The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.

I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
protecting IP.

But don't they appear to have played and still play a role
amongst large companies with deep pockets? I remember quite
a large payout by Microsoft.

Jon

 

[David Brown]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks
walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

David Brown wrote:

The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.
I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
protecting IP.

But don't they appear to have played and still play a role
amongst large companies with deep pockets? I remember quite
a large payout by Microsoft.

Yes, software patents play a role in the USA - especially amongst large
companies. But patents were designed, as Walter says, to encourage
innovation and to protect IP, neither of which is at issue in the
majority of cases (though patent owners /claim/ they are defending
"their" IP. The role played by software patents does neither - it's a
protection racket to squeeze licence fees out of people and sue those
who don't quietly pay up.

There's a reason companies whose businesses revolve around patents are
known as "patent trolls". And it's not because trolls are renowned for
being innovative or protective.

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:44:21 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks
walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

David Brown wrote:

The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary -
copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers'
rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers,
innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.
I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they
have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and
protecting IP.

But don't they appear to have played and still play a role
amongst large companies with deep pockets? I remember quite
a large payout by Microsoft.

Yes, software patents play a role in the USA - especially amongst large
companies.

And amongst smaller companies if the leave the "living in the
cracks" and start looking like they are muscling into more
profitable territory.

But patents were designed, as Walter says, to encourage
innovation and to protect IP,

***were*** designed. I think that is long gone.

neither of which is at issue in the
majority of cases (though patent owners /claim/ they are defending
"their" IP. The role played by software patents does neither - it's a
protection racket to squeeze licence fees out of people and sue those
who don't quietly pay up.

There's a reason companies whose businesses revolve around patents are
known as "patent trolls". And it's not because trolls are renowned for
being innovative or protective.

Yes.

Jon