Recipient of First Software Patent Defends Them 392
Arguendo writes "Martin Goetz, who obtained the first software patent in 1968, has penned a thoughtful defense of software patents for Patently-O. Goetz argues that there is no principled difference between software and hardware patents and that truly patentable software innovations require just as much ingenuity and advancement as any other kind of patentable subject matter. The Supreme Court is of course currently considering whether to change the scope of patentable subject matter in the Bilski case, which we've discussed before." Does it weaken Goetz's argument that his description of the software lifecycle harks back to the waterfall days and bears little resemblance to current development practice in open source and/or Internet contexts?
Re:Patents aren't the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. I though TFA was very weak. His points were:
Only the first point is anything resembling an argument, and that one we've heard a dozen times before.
If anyone wants a soild exploration of what should and should not be considered software, and why it ought not to be patentable, I'd recommend PoIR's An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers" [groklaw.net] over on Groklaw. It's well-researched, well-argued, and informative.
Re:Patents aren't the problem (Score:3, Informative)
Since we're exchanging links - if anyone wants to go really nuts over the matter of what knowledge can be owned and how, there's this philosophy thesis:
http://www.archive.org/details/OwnershipOfKnowledgeIsThereANaturalRightTointellectualProperty [archive.org]
Full disclosure: it's mine.
Re:Patents aren't the problem (Score:4, Informative)
There's nothing wrong with the patent system other than a few greedy idiots abusing it by publishing obvious patents, and you /.ers want it abolished for some naive socialist agenda where the inventors simply hand over their hard work for free to companies and general public.
No one here is asking inventors to work for free, so you can lose that strawman.
By the way, you realize patents are government-enforced monopolies, right? Walling off sections of the free market through legal force? If you think opposing patents is "socialist", you don't know what the word means.
Re:Patents aren't the problem (Score:1, Informative)
An invention that can easily be examined and cloned doesn't need patent protection.
Did you mean to say "that can't easily be cloned"?
No. He meant to say something more like "The benefits that patent law seeks to achieve are not relevant in the case of an invention that can easily be examined and cloned anyway". As he said, the purpose of patent law iwas originally to encourage disclosure of how the inventions work. So if anyone could tell how it worked anyway then no patent should be given. However, what he's missing is that the purpose of laws evolve over time. The purpose of patent laws today is primarily to protect the flow of money to certain entrenched interests. In serving that purpose, it makes a lot of sense to grant patents even when someone can trivially tell how the invention works anyway.
Re:Patents aren't the problem (Score:5, Informative)
If you come up with an amazing new algorithm your implementation is protected, and cannot be copied by other people.
Wow, how did that get marked up. I'm really starting to wonder about the moderation system.
There are so many examples in real life that contradict that.
Lets start off with the bios chip in computers. That was copyrighted.
They got around it simply by having 2 teams
Team A disected the chip, and wrote the specs of what it did, and how it operated.
Team B took the specs and had nothing else to do with team A, and using only those specs made a new bios chip that matched the specifications written.
The courts decided that copywright didn't come into play, because they didn't copy the chip. (They indeed made their own version)
If it was patented it would of been a different matter.
Theres also the matter of the magic key that allowed decoding of HD-DVDs. I don't believe copyright is able to do anything about that (Although the DMCA might say otherwise, i'm unsure since its DRM and DMCA changes the game with DRM)
You could also try talking to apple, about how their court case vs microsoft went when MS copied how apple looked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation [wikipedia.org]
I could go on, but in short you can't copywright the look and feel of software either.
So if the detailed innerworkings (or algorithms) aren't protected by copywright, and if the look and feel isn't protected either. What does copywright stop.
It stops outright ripoffs and direct copies, but it doesn't stop other companies producing compeating products.
Patents however do stop compeating products. (A little too effectivly some would argue)
If the bios chip was patented, it would of been illegal.
If it wasn't for the fact that the GUI had already been proven and demostrated by xerox before being handed over to apple. Apple could of patented the "look and feel".
So back to the orginal point.
Copywright Law protects you against people copying your software. It isn't very effective against people that DEVELOP compeating products. Patents are.
You can hate or love what patents are, but don't be confused about the differance. To discard what patents because [software] copywrite exists, defeats the purpose of patents themselves.
Reform is needed for both, but not an abolishment.
Re:Patents aren't the problem (Score:4, Informative)
Read what he wrote. He claims that patents aren't intended for the benefit of the inventors, but for the benefit of society. They offer inventors a limited monopoly in exchange for sharing their inventions, rather than keeping them secret.
For inventions that are easily reverse-engineered or duplicated in a slightly different fashion (like software), society doesn't need to entice inventors to share their inventions, because that sharing happens automatically. Only for inventions that can be kept secret is it necessary to offer a monopoly in exchange for sharing the invention.
Re:Patents aren't the problem (Score:3, Informative)
the fact that they can't be proactively challenged
This is not correct. Any person can file a reexamination request and present a substantial new question of patentability with the USPTO. Here is a wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination [wikipedia.org]. So if anyone has some publication that should invalidate a patent, by all means attack it. Also, there a declaratory judgment actions that can be used to initiate a lawsuit before the patent holder sues you. However, the patent holder needs to take some action that makes the likelihood of a future lawsuit quite high.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Patents aren't the problem (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)