A Generation of Software Patents Examined 53
pieterh writes "Boston University's James Bessen has published a landmark study [abstract; full paper available at the link, free of charge] on a generation of software patents. Looking at almost 20 years of software patents, he finds 'that most software firms still do not patent, most software patents are obtained by a few large firms in the software industry or in other industries, and the risk of litigation from software patents continues to increase dramatically. Given these findings, it is hard to conclude that software patents have provided a net social benefit in the software industry.' Not that this surprises anyone actually innovating in software."
Re:Interesting Points (Score:4, Informative)
If software patents do not promote the progress of science and useful arts are they not unconstitutional ?
Lawrence Lessig tried to argue that about retroactive copyright extension before the Supreme Court. He lost.
Re:Oh Patents (Score:5, Informative)
The current case of LodSys (Google it or search on SlashDot) suing small iOS app developers and individuals is one example that little people can get in big trouble because of software patents.
Re:Interesting Points (Score:5, Informative)
Really useful (Score:5, Informative)
To slashdotters, this may be "duh" science, but it's really important to have this on paper when we talk to judges and legislators. Otherwise, we're left explaining the problems and hoping that the legislator will agree that our logic is "obviously" correct.
Bessen also co-authored Patent Failure with Michael Meurer and a previous study An Empirical Look at Software Patents, along with Robert Hunt.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Studies_on_economics_and_innovation [swpat.org]
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/James_Bessen [swpat.org]
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/An_Empirical_Look_at_Software_Patents [swpat.org]
Re:Oh Patents (Score:4, Informative)
Actually no, you can't start your own corporation. I mean, you can, but it won't protect your personal assets if the person suing you can show that the corporation exists only to serve as a firewall. If the corporation is a real company that employs real people, that's a different story, but if it's just a shell, it's of very limited value. The only lawsuit it will protect you from is one where the additional cost of making the case that the corporate veil should be pierced is prohibitive. That's not the sort of situation that you'd be in if a patent troll came after you and you had significant assets.
Think about how it looks to a court: you make a corporation, and the corporation makes a bunch of money, infringing some patent in the process. All of that money is paid out to you, or else goes to pay the minimal expenses that are involved in operating a corporation of this type. And then when someone comes after the corporation to be made whole as a result of the patent infringement, there's no money, because it's all been drained into one bank account: yours. Making the case to pierce the corporate veil here is a slam-dunk.