Software patents?
p2pnet.net News Feature:-Following Altnet’s laughable efforts to make hay out of the so-called TrueNames hash patent, Freenet founder Ian Clarke has sharpened his interest in the subject.
Here’s what he has to say in his blog.
Read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What is wrong with software patents?
By Ian Clarke – Ian Clarke’s blog
The European Union is attempting to pass a Directive that will force many European governments to permit patents on software despite growing protests from software engineers and small European software companies. Opponents fear that software patents will stifle innovation and competition in their industry, increasing their legal costs, while leaving them at the mercy of large companies who have the resources to acquire large numbers of patents. The Directive is supported by trade groups dominated by large multinational software companies, along with national patent offices who generate revenue from patent applications.
A patent is a fearsome weapon, not only does it prevent someone from copying an invention, it also prevents them from independently inventing the same thing. This means that you could spend your entire life sitting in a cave, with no contact with the outside world, and anything you invent could still infringe other people’s patents. In contrast, a copyright only prevents other people from copying your work. If you copyright a poem and someone else, by chance, happens to write the same poem without copying yours, then they are not infringing your copyright.
The purpose of patents, indeed all forms of intellectual property, is to promote the arts and sciences. Patents achieve this by granting an inventor exclusive control over their invention for a limited time. In return, the inventor is required to disclose their invention so that after the limited time expires, it is freely available to the rest of society. Society benefits when this provides an incentive for inventors to invent, where otherwise they might not have bothered.
A patent isn’t just granted on an idea for an invention, it can only be granted once you have a prototype, or at least the ability to teach someone how to build a prototype, this is known as a “teachable invention”. Patents therefore motivate an inventor to take their idea and invest the time and money to develop it into a teachable invention. In return for this, and a small fee, inventors are granted a 20 year monopoly over their invention.
This monopoly is not granted without a price. Every invention builds on those that came before, yet for the duration of a patent nobody else can build on a patented invention without the permission of the inventor. This creates a cost for society, and other inventors. Patents work when the benefit to society of having the invention outweighs the cost of the inventor’s monopoly over it.
In a field such as pharmaceuticals, a vast investment may be required to get from an idea for a new drug, to the drug itself. In this case, it is easy to see how a patent on this drug will benefit society if it provides sufficient motivation to the drug’s inventor to make the investment required to invent it.
Software, however, is very different. Getting from an idea to a prototype in software requires very little investment and risk. This is the great strength of software. Its why Bill Gates, a college drop-out, could build a multi-billion dollar company out of nothing but the ideas in his head. Its why Linus Torvalds could later sow the seeds of an operating system built by volunteers that would challenge that multi-billion dollar company.
Patents should not apply to software for the simple reason that they would do far more harm than good, harming creativity rather than promoting it. Software doesn’t need patents, copyright is more than adequate to provide the incentive software engineers need to turn their ideas into software. The cost to society of a 20 year monopoly over a software invention will never be justified, because it is inconceivable that any software invention could require such a powerful incentive. The price for this monopoly is paid by other inventors, and so the effect is to stifle innovation, not to promote it.
Unfortunately software is not the only field where patents do more harm than good. Those advocating software patents often ask “Why should software creators be denied patent protection, while those in other fields are not?”. This begs the question. When patents do more harm than good, as they do in software, patents do not afford protection, rather for most software creators they are a threat. One should therefore ask “Why must software creators endure patents just because those in other fields do?”
Something you think we should know about? tips[at]p2pnet.net
===================
See:-
laughable – Altnet’s bizarre campaign, p2pnet, January 19, 2005
January 22nd, 2005 at 11:05 pm
What needs to be done is a rewrite of the entire copyright and patent law.
To make it one IP law – limited length for all inventions/creations
5 years max (to reap the initial costs out)
after that the business can still make money from it, but he has to compete in competition with other producers ( A benefit to the public)
I see no reason for anything longer in this day and age, Usually your competitor has a competing produc by then anyways against your product.
For Art or books is the same deal – most of the money is made in the first few years , after that bookstore will not carry the books due to it’s age.
limiting the length doesn’t stop the initial inventor or creator from making money from his product. It just forces him to adapt or compete against others who will produce his product. He should however have the edge competitively since he already has the plant and process down pat, and the initial cost paid for by then. It would still benefit the initial inventor/creator, just not as much.
And it should only refer to people or businesses profiting from works. If “NO Profit” is intended or ever made and is of a personal or educational use, – such as teaching or educating the public on art, music, culture, language, poetry, or science. It should not be a infringement.
Is it is then playiing your CD or DVD in your car where anyone can see or hear would be infringement (public performance of a work)
or whistling your favorite tune will get you sued for copyright infringement. Now if the person next to you picks up the tune and writes the notes, it’s not infringement, or he records it, it’s not, and then adpats it to a midi file it’s not, or plays it on his piano , it’s not, or makes his own recording he wishes to share it’s not. It’s only when someone tries to take recognition or benefit from someones work that it should be infringement, and only then.
The public has rights too, rights to culture, education, art, & etc.
The challenge is to limit the right to exclusivity for 5 years and after that to make them public for commercial use for a reduce royalty rate to the inventor/creator. Remember the inventor can still sell his creation albeit , they will have to compete against others (while collecting royalties from them too – like socan fees).
If the work is shared or communicated – not for profit – I.e. Public displays on the street, your car radio/stereo, or any other form (as long as their is no profit there is no infringement.
If you don’t wish to go that road then regulate the Copyright/Patent law to make sure that the inventors are properly rewarded (ie.e RIAA cheating artists out of money) or Pricefixing is thwarted. That means independent audits every year by the government of which the industry pays for in addition to it’s taxes. And to open the source Code/process to Governments to make sure you aren’t infringing – unbenounce to you on someone else’s work and they made to pay for every bit of infringement you did on someone else work.
That way everyone gets whats due to them. It’s either one way or the other way. The Statis quo doesn’t work fiarly to the creator or to the consumers.
January 23rd, 2005 at 12:45 am
The idea is to promote inventions without stifling further inventions.
The solution is obvious: to grant the use of an invention to anyone who pays a flat fee valid for anyone to be paid to the original inventor for a limited period of time.
That means that inventors WILL make money without having to sell their inventions to big companies that can exploit them (as is usually the case). It means people can add to an invention while paying a small fee and in return get a small fee too when his invention gets used. Even if the inventor has lots of money and maket his invention himself, by allowing universal compulsory licensing they would benefit from inprovements by others that they could incorporate “for free” without any effort since they would receive money from anyone marketing the new invention too.
Obviously software should still not be patentable since source code is not an invention but rather at the core it is mathematical formulas to transform some input into some output. It would be like giving patents to mathematician that “discover” theorems. It would artificially force people to use clones of theorems that do the exact same thing differently, which is wasted efforts and counterproductive.
One could argue that you might want to patent the BINARY form only of a software, so that you could still make your own equivalent binary without breaking any patents. But it wouldn’t make any sense since passing from source code to binary is not risky or costly at all and thus should not be protected since it does not help innovation to do so.
January 23rd, 2005 at 1:09 am
“The solution is obvious…”
Actually, in the case of software, the solution is even more obvious than that. Don’t change anything, becuase it was working just fine the way it was before software patents.
January 23rd, 2005 at 5:52 am
Well said. Great ideas.
February 3rd, 2005 at 3:29 pm
For those interested in Software Patents in Canada, please look at:
Information/Mental Process Patents
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/page/or/360
I will be trying to coordinate efforts to erradicate Software Patents in Canada.
Russell McOrmond — http://www.flora.ca/