Nobelist Gary Becker Calls For an End To Software Patents 147
GigaOM notes that (excerpting) "Gary Becker, a Nobel-prize winning professor at the University of Chicago, stated this week that the U.S. patent system is ”too broad, too loose, and too expensive” and called for the end of software patents: 'Disputes over software patents are among the most common, expensive, and counterproductive. Their exclusion from the patent system would discourage some software innovations, but the saving from litigation costs over disputed patent rights would more than compensate the economy for that cost.'" Here are Becker's comments, from the always-fun Becker-Posner Blog.
Here here .... (Score:5, Insightful)
It boggles my mind that the Government expects that software developers will do patent searches as they write their code rather than simply implementing what is obvious at the time to implement. Software patents are written in such a way as to make them difficult to interpret and appear broad even when they aren't. It simply isn't practical for software developers were to do their "due diligence" as they write their code, and if they did no appreciable amount of code would be written.
It is quite likely that most if not all software written violates at least a small handful of patents (remember the XOR patent?) -- creating an unfair advantage for the companies who have enormous in-house legal councils who can pursue purported patent violations.
I'd query one of his suppositions (Score:5, Insightful)
Their exclusion from the patent system would discourage some software innovations
Can anyone point to a single actual instance of a software innovation which wouldn't have become public without the benefit of patent protection?
Just software? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can apply his arguments to more than software. Patents discourage innovation. Under the current system small companies and individuals end up with a huge disadvantage. Huge companies have enough resources to try to patent everything hope a few are approved.
Re:how to delineate software patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] is there any company which says that it relies on software patents to do business in software, rather than as a defensive/offensive mechanism?
Yes, they are called patent trolls.
Re:No more SW Patents, but FW Patents.. yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should firmware be any different?
All your approach would lead too is software that requires a peripheral with some firmware in it to run.
Re:how to delineate software patents? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does any software company actually indicate that they would stop work if it were not for software patents? I.e. is there any company which says that it relies on software patents to do business in software, rather than as a defensive/offensive mechanism?
And if any software company says it needs software patents, are they actually telling the truth or just lying to maintain a position of unfair power over small competitors?
Re:No more SW Patents, but FW Patents.. yes (Score:4, Insightful)
The funny part is that that's a specific algorithm and explicitly excluded. It's the trivial crap that's getting patented.
Re:Proposal (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, let's be fundamental about this. Isn't it strange that we should consider "software" as different from other intellectual property? If X hours of work have been invested into the invention of a clever software routine, then, it would be strange if a patent could not be granted for that work while a patent would be granted for some physical apparatus that also took X hours to develop.
Fundamentally, software is already different from other intellectual property as it also has copyright protection. Why should one body of work be allowed to be protected under two completely different IP regimes? Copyright protection is enough to encourage the advancement of the arts and sciences of software. Patents appear to be a hindrance.