On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:37:02 -0400, Kagamin <s...@here.lot> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
You can't write software out of thin air. Let's suppose ranges increase
usability of a collections library. Can you write a collections library
without knowing about ranges concept? That's what patents are for.
patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that would
otherwise die with the inventor. The idea is, if you patent something,
you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the fruits of
your invention. In return, you bestow upon the world the secret behind
your idea. This allows people to build on your idea in the future,
instead of nobody ever being able to discover what your invention was.
Not to mention that no other IP protection exists for machine design --
you cannot copyright a car.
Given that any item of software can be reverse engineered and studied,
this can never happen with software. Add that to the fact that software
patents are *rarely* beneficial to the community. They are mostly used as
weapons to stifle innovation from others. In essence, software patents
have had an *opposite* effect on the industry compared to something like
building cars. In other words, there's no need for patents to allow
software ideas to be seen by others, it's possible to extract the ideas
from the code.
3. It is a very slippery slope to go down. Software is a purely
*abstract* thing, it's not a machine.
Software is a machine: concrete thing doing concrete job. Patent doesn't
protect the machine itself, it protects concrete design work put into
it. Design is a high-profile work, a good design has a good chance to be
more expensive than the actual implementation. So it's perfectly valid
to claim ownership for a design work and charge fees for it.
And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents? Again, copyright
already covers software. Plenty of software companies have large amounts
of IP and are successful without having any software patents.
It can be produced en mass with near-zero cost.
Dead software is seen as unusable. So - no, to produce software you need
continuous maintenance and development which is as expensive as any
other labor.
What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to recreating
the machine. Such manufacturing requires up-front investment that can
possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the design. Patents protect
the entity putting their product out there from having a larger company
who can throw money around beat you using your idea. In software, since
the software is protected by copyright, the competition must build their
own version of your software ideas first, and the distribution is
relatively insignificant. In other words, once you release your idea to
the world, it can be sold and installed for millions in a matter of days,
giving you the lion share of the market.
Maintenance costs are not part of distribution, they are part of
development. Of course maintenance is required, but maintenance does not
hinder you from making a profit like manufacturing ramp-up does.
And again, the software you write is already protected IP -- copyright.
4. Unlike a physical entity, it is very likely a simple individual,
working on his own time with his own ideas, can create software that
inadvertently violates a "patent" with low cost.
I don't see how this doesn't apply to physical machines.
When you are talking about patents for a machine or physical entity, there
is a large investment and cost in just designing the item, or the means to
manufacture it. It's less likely that a simple individual has the capital
necessary to create it, and if he does, or can raise it, a patent search
is usually done to avoid complications. He might also look at expired
patents to get ideas on how to do things.
However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in a
couple weeks. He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just
2 weeks time to create the software. Here, the patent system is just
getting in the way of innovation. It's having the opposite effect by
instilling fear in anyone writing software that some patent-holding
company is going to squash him out of business.
When was the last time you did anything with a patented software
technology except *avoid it like the plague*?
How to improve patent system is another question. GPL3 can actually play
some role here: there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a
patented technology in a GPL3 software.
IMO, there's no reason to ever use any form of GPL anymore. It's work is
done.
5. The patent office does *NOT UNDERSTAND* software, so they are more
apt
to grant trivial patents (e.g. one-click).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html
I don't get your argument there, that Australia has a lousy patent
system? That Australian "innovation patents" are indefensible? How is
this relevant?
-Steve
