Should software patents exist?

http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/06/e...nough.html

Quote : I believe that software patents should not exist. They are a tax on innovation. And software is closer to media than it is to hardware. Patenting software is like patenting music. The mess around the Lodsys patents should be a wake up call to everyone involved in the patent business (government bureaucrats, legislators, lawyers, investors, entrepreneurs, etc) that the system is totally broken and we can't continue to go on like this. ......... The whole thing is nuts. I can't understand why our goverment allows this shit to go on. It's wrong and its bad for society to have this cancer growing inside our economy. Every time I get a meeting with a legislator or goverment employee working in and around the innovation sector, I bring up the patent system and in particular software patents. We need to change the laws. We need to eliminate software patents. This ridiculous Lodsys situation is the perfect example of why. We need to say "enough is enough."

Some background WRT Lodsys:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/ar...onomyId=18

Quote : If you thought that the news that Apple was backing its iOS developers would scare off the patent-infringement allegations of intellectual property firm Lodsys, think again. On Tuesday, Lodsys filed suit against seven developers for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The company also once again took to its website to clarify its position and restate its earlier claims. ..... The legal action follows a series of back-and-forth claims and counterclaims by Lodsys and Apple. In its letter to Lodsys last week, Apple maintained that the company "is undisputedly licensed to these patents and the Apple App Makers are protected by that license." Despite Apple's position, Lodsys has gone ahead and disputed the claims anyway, stating that it has been engaged in confidential discussions with Apple and that "there was clearly disagreement on the interpretation of the license terms of Apple's agreement."

Lodsys blog - http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011...elves.html

----------------

Agree or Disagree?

Quote from highfloydelity : http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/06/e...nough.html Some background WRT Lodsys: http://www.computerworld.com/s/ar...onomyId=18 Lodsys blog - http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011...elves.html ---------------- Agree or Disagree?

I agree they should be abolished. Mostly because of what they are allowing to be patented. If you look at the patents, they are for silly things like an "upgrade button", "links that redirect to you another website" or even things like "grids".

With software, the intellectual work is the coding behind the button, that is what should be protected. You take 10 developers and ask them to create button that allows you to upgrade version, all 10 developers will likely come up with something unique.

It would be like patenting the idea "a vehicle using wheels and automatic or manual automation to deliver passengers to another desination", then sueing everyone from car manufactures to bike shops.. Patents like that stiffle innovation and should be abolished.

I think they should exist, because there are some truly innovative and unique things that people come up with at great time and expense, but that the system needs some heavy reworking to avoid the abuses that are occurring now.

Quote from 808Lurker : I agree they should be abolished. Mostly because of what they are allowing to be patented. If you look at the patents, they are for silly things like an "upgrade button", "links that redirect to you another website" or even things like "grids". With software, the intellectual work is the coding behind the button, that is what should be protected. You take 10 developers and ask them to create button that allows you to upgrade version, all 10 developers will likely come up with something unique. It would be like patenting the idea "a vehicle using wheels and automatic or manual automation to deliver passengers to another desination", then sueing everyone from car manufactures to bike shops.. Patents like that stiffle innovation and should be abolished.

I agree that vague and ill defined patents of all stripes need to go. But well defined software patents have their place, IMHO.

Yes, software patents should exist. How do you reward innovation if you can't protect IP? If another guy invents a new engine block shape, then you figure out a new piston shape that works especially well in the new engine block, you still have to license the technology to make the engine block with your pistons. Same thing for software. I think the main problem is the patent office giving patents to ideas that should be declared obvious (thus not patentable). Like polling the battery and displaying the status. Something less obvious like a unique method for handling multiple tasks, should be patentable.

EDIT: I agree with 808's previous post. I brought up the page a while ago and didn't have time to post until now.

How do you get rid of software patents without outlawing all business process patents?

Quote from redmaxx : How do you get rid of software patents without outlawing all business process patents?

Business method patents are VERY suspect as well.

Quote from farnan : Business method patents are VERY suspect as well.

What kinds would you say aren't?

Quote from Xygonn : Yes, software patents should exist. How do you reward innovation if you can't protect IP? If another guy invents a new engine block shape, then you figure out a new piston shape that works especially well in the new engine block, you still have to license the technology to make the engine block with your pistons. Same thing for software. I think the main problem is the patent office giving patents to ideas that should be declared obvious (thus not patentable). Like polling the battery and displaying the status. Something less obvious like a unique method for handling multiple tasks, should be patentable. EDIT: I agree with 808's previous post. I brought up the page a while ago and didn't have time to post until now.

I am not against patents. Take your example, if a guy creates a new engine block shape and someone uses that example same design he should get paid for it. However, that is not is what happening with software patents.

However that is not what is happening with software patents. Since you can't patent the specific code they allow them to patent vague ideas and processes. Then these patents to attack other businesses.

That's the main problem I have with software patents, it should be specific and clear enough so that it is easily recognized.

Take for example this (which is just in the news now)...

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news...ammers.ars

Quote : Lodsys is accusing the developers of infringing a patent related to the usage of an “upgrade” button that customers can use to upgrade from a free version of an app to a paid version, or to make purchases from within an app.

Not only is it very obvious, but it can apply to just about anything. Phones, computers, TV's, car navigation systems. I mean you could set up a program to pay a roadway toll their your car's GPS, that could be considered a purchase within a GPS application, even though the patent holder had 0 contribution.

Think how bad capitalism would have be stiffiled if someone patented "cars" or "trucks" instead of things like a specific items. A Patent should be specific and clear and not encompass more than the origional work.

Quote from redmaxx : How do you get rid of software patents without outlawing all business process patents?

Get rid of those as well. My litmus test is the following:

Is the patent specific enough so that it is not only something that isn't obvious but there would be no confusion with anything existing process.

Quote from 808Lurker : Get rid of those as well. My litmus test is the following: Is the patent specific enough so that it is not only something that isn't obvious but there would be no confusion with anything existing process.

Those two statements are in conflict, since you can have business processes and software processes that are not obvious and not confused with anything else in existence.

Quote from redmaxx : Those two statements are in conflict, since you can have business processes and software processes that are not obvious and not confused with anything else in existence.

I can see ..

I feel that the abuses in those 2 area's far outweighs the legitamate benefit. So while there might be some software and business processes that would warrant patents, most of the ones granted are abused.

Hard to say, they are just so abused. Having worked for a large software company that was bought out essentially for a couple large patents, I have seen the evil of them. Essentially every large software company IBM, Google, Oracle violates them right and left but keeps track of others who violate their patents so if they ever get sued they can counter. How is this good?

Quote from Xygonn : Yes, software patents should exist. How do you reward innovation if you can't protect IP?

It's a fine line between rewarding innovation and stifling it. Lodsys is going after every single developer on iOS and Android that does in-app purchasing. Keep in mind that Apple and Google are already paying Lodsys for this patent but Lodsys believes that it doesn't/shouldn't cover individuals developers.

The funny part about it is that Lodsys bought the patent from someone else and didn't even come up with it themselves.

Another example was Amazon patenting the 1-click checkout method. If that's not an obvious innovation, I don't know what is.

Quote from 808Lurker : I am not against patents. Take your example, if a guy creates a new engine block shape and someone uses that example same design he should get paid for it. However, that is not is what happening with software patents. However that is not what is happening with software patents. Since you can't patent the specific code they allow them to patent vague ideas and processes. Then these patents to attack other businesses. That's the main problem I have with software patents, it should be specific and clear enough so that it is easily recognized. Take for example this (which is just in the news now)... http://arstechnica.com/apple/news...ammers.ars Not only is it very obvious, but it can apply to just about anything. Phones, computers, TV's, car navigation systems. I mean you could set up a program to pay a roadway toll their your car's GPS, that could be considered a purchase within a GPS application, even though the patent holder had 0 contribution. Think how bad capitalism would have be stiffiled if someone patented "cars" or "trucks" instead of things like a specific items. A Patent should be specific and clear and not encompass more than the origional work.

Fully agree.

---------------------------------

Software is copyrighted today. Why is that not good enough? Why does software need to be patented as well?

The original intent of patents is to spur innovation by allowing inventors to recoup the [usually substantial] costs associated with building a device. This makes sense for large or complicated objects, which require a large amount of resources to build, refine, and produce at any appreciable scale.

This is not what is happening with software patents. Most software patents are used to either:

• To stifle the innovation of one's competitors (Suing smaller groups who can't financially defend against a lawsuit)
• To defend against a patent attack (by threatening to sue over your own patents)
• To leach off the true innovation of others (Patent Troll)

Software can quickly and cheaply be modified, executed, and distributed. In today's environment, the landscape is changing dramatically all the time. Software patents are merely used as weapons to slow innovation. And since this is the opposite of their original intent, I don't think they should be allowed.