Critic of Software Patents Wins Nobel Prize in Economics

doom writes "You've probably already heard that the Nobel Prize for Economics was given to three gents who were working on advances in mechanism design theory. What you may not have heard is what one of those recipients was using that theory to study: 'One recent subject of Professor Maskin's wide-ranging research has been on the value of software patents. He determined that software was a market where innovations tended to be sequential, in that they were built closely on the work of predecessors, and innovators could take many different paths to the same goal. In such markets, he said, patents might serve as a wall that inhibited innovation rather than stimulating progress.' Here's one of Maskin's papers on the subject: Sequential Innovation, Patents, limitation (pdf).

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[MoonFog]

Easy mistake to make since they are listed on the Nobel Prize's official web page [nobelprize.org]. They are listed as receiving a price in economics though, not a Nobel price in economics, even though they are under the "Nobel Prizes" banner.

Re:

[jkrise]

It's the Swedish Bank's Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Nobel's estate doesn't recognize it..

Okay, I can see where you com from. We'll call it the SBP-Nobel Prize... just like GNU-Linux, does it make you happy now?

Re:

[famebait]

That would have be the INN-Economics prize.
INN's Not the Nobel foundation.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[timster]

That's partially because, despite what the people posting here would have you believe, the economics prize is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences -- the same organization that awards the prizes in physics and chemistry. It was established and funded by a grant from the Swedish central bank, but the bank does NOT determine the laureates.

Re:

[jandersen]

Sweden is a Scandinavian socialist state

I am not sure that Swedes would agree that their country is 'a Socialist state'; but then of course, they are only Swedes, so what do they know. How exactly do you reach the conclusion that Sweden is a socialist state? Or perhaps to you 'Socialist' means anything that isn't as radically in the pockets of rich people as the Good Ole US of A?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Copid]

In the US, "socialist" means "requiring taxes" and labeling something as such is the fastest and easiest way to shoot down any suggested action by the government. You should usually be screaming when you use the word, though.

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[SgtChaireBourne]

-1 disinformative for you there.

Sweden has never been socialist. It has, during nearly all of the previous century, followed a policy of the "Middle Path" choosing the elements from the free market where they are best applied and elements from socialism where they are best applied.

Nowadays it is following a Bush/ Bliar/Thatcher-style neoliberalism with heavy emphasis on buracracy, privatization and corporate welfare.

Go look at the statistics. During the years Sweden prospered economically, had low debt or a surplus, had good services such as health care, low unemployment, it was during the periods of closest adherence to the middle path. Look at the times where services are few and of poor quality, the budget is in shambles, lots of debt and high unemployment, it is during times when deviation from the middle path has been strongest -- such as the last 15 years.

The Swedish banks are the worst examples of failure of unrestrained capitalism. They have collapsed and been bailed out twice. However, normally when one buys out the debt from a failed company, the buyer then owns the company. Stupidly in the last case, the buyer (the Swedish government) simply handed the banks back to the same asshats that bankrupted them in the first places. These are the clowns that then pick the recipients for the Swedish Bank's Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel. To try to lend credibility to their scam they, to their credit, have schmoozed into the Nobel celebration. However, the Swedish Bank's Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel is to the Nobel Prize what films like Ernest in the Army [imdb.com] is to fine cinema.

Re:

[Uart]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism [wikipedia.org]
"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct--exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils--or indirect--exercised on behalf of the people by the state."

The means of production CAN be owne

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[djmurdoch]

Honestly any economist who doesn't recognize the value of creating and protecting intellectual property rights in an information economy is a POORLY trained economist.

As far as I can see, Maskin isn't against IP, only patents. His article says "copyright protection for software programs (which has gone through its own evolution over the last decade) may have achieved a better balance than patent protection." Copyright is IP too.

Re:

[Otter]

As far as I can see, Maskin isn't against IP, only patents.

He's not against patents either, just against certain application of patents. To the degree that you believe that receiving this prize confers total authority, the anti-patent people certainly aren't coming out ahead on this one.

Re:

[Uart]

Software is written work? When was the last time your uncle sat down and READ Windows? Software is in fact more similar to a microwave, than it is to the collective works of Chaucer. The microwave, like software, performs an action. The works of Chaucer do not.

Re:

[Rary]

Being "read" is not a criteria for placing something under copyright. A painting is not "read". Besides that, Windows code is actually "read" all the time. My computer is doing it right now.

Nevertheless, that's all beside the point. You're trying to put things into the categories of "copyrightable" or "patentable" based on fairly arbitrary determinants. What makes much more sense is to categorize them based on what provides the most benefit. Maskin's argument, based on having actually studied the effects o

Re:

[jimstapleton]

there's a value in creating and protecting it, yes, but there is also a penalty in hoarding it.

In these third world countries, the leadership can be fairly well off - the problem is that all of the wealth is congealed into a very small space.

A balance is needed, as with anything.

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[smilindog2000]

As a country develops it's own intellectual property, it becomes important to protect it. For example, India seems to be moving towards proper copyright protection. However, this article is specifically about software patents, not copyrights. Of course software copyrights need to be protected. The authors need to have the rights to do whatever they want with their software, and it should not be stolen from them. Software patents are different. They don't protect your software, but restrict me from writing equivalent software. I can't recall a single example in history where a software innovator was rewarded by their patent - there are probably a few, but they are vastly outnumbered by the software patents that have restricted innovation. Instead of rewarding innovation, software patents make it possible for M$ to attack Linux, while doing nothing to help innovators break into the software market dominated by M$. Don't get me wrong... I'm a big supporter of M$ in general, but lets face it: software patents exist to protect M$ and other huge calcified players, rather than reward innovators.

Re:

[moviepig.com]

I can't recall a single example in history where a software innovator was rewarded by their patent - there are probably a few, but they are vastly outnumbered by the software patents

...in other words, a ratio similar to non-software patents.

Again, the purpose of patents is to motivate widespread innovation... which should apply in software as much as elsewhere, including the non-copyrightable creation of new software processes and methods.

The difference with software is merely its speed of researc

Re:

[Arthur B.]

The case for copyright itself may not be as strong as you think. You mention stealing, but stealing implies property rights. Property rights are rights we have in regards to objects, not information.

Let's say you buy a software from Microsoft and agree to a licence that prevents you from distributing copies. You do it anyway and distribute copies. They sue and they win - they should. But what about the persons you gave the copies to? They did not agree to anything with Microsoft, why should they be bound no

Re:

[smilindog2000]

Agreed. Copyrights lasting 100 years is just silly. I can see reasonable arguments for copyrights lasting the lifetime of an artist or writer, but who in history has ever copyrighted a valuable work, and lived another 100 years? Why do programmers need many years of copyright protection? Since we update the stuff every year, the copyright's always renewed, and if we stop updating it, it's typically no longer worth money.

Re:

[Mr2001]

Of course software copyrights need to be protected. The authors need to have the rights to do whatever they want with their software, and it should not be stolen from them.

Um, except you don't need copyright for that. Even without copyright, it's nearly impossible for anyone to prevent you from doing whatever you want with the software you write. What are they going to do, break into your home or office and prevent you from running it? Follow you around and prevent you from selling copies of it on CD? Nonsense.

Copyright isn't about allowing an author to do what he wants, it's about preventing everyone else from doing what they want. And because of the fundamental nature of i

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[mmcuh]

Seconded. The Nobel Prize in Economics is NOT a real Nobel, and is awarded by the socialist Swedish central bank. Their awards are biased.

Honestly any economist who doesn't recognize the value of creating and protecting intellectual property rights in an information economy is a POORLY trained economist. Hernando de Soto has pegged a lack of real property rights as the primary issue that prevents wealth from being created in the third world (agricultural economies).

You do realise that property rights have absolutely nothing to do with "intellectual property"? One says that you are not allowed to steal other people's things, the other says that you are not allowed to create certain things if someone else created it first. Property rights is a rather obvious concept derived from the simple fact that if you take something from someone else, they lose it. "Intellectual property" is a government-sanctioned privately owned monopoly that prevents other people from creating something identical to what you have, or in some cases even just slightly similar.

As government-awarded private monopolies, "intellectual properties" are artificial barriers for the free market and thus you can certainly be opposed to them without being a "socialist".

That said, I doubt the Bank of Sweden knew about Maskin's patent critique, or if they did, that they cared about it. They gave him a prize for some neat theoretical work.

Re:

[djmurdoch]

You do realise that property rights have absolutely nothing to do with "intellectual property"?

That's a popular thing to say, but it's just not true. IP is not the same as physical property, but the concept of owning an abstract thing (the monopoly granted by the patent) is pretty closely related to the concept of owning a physical thing.

One says that you are not allowed to steal other people's things, the other says that you are not allowed to create certain things if someone else created it first.

IP corr

Re:

[pipatron]

Would you argue that changing the number on your bank statement to zero doesn't take something from you?

I completely agree with you. As long as I can still go to the bank and withdraw the money I have deposit, the number means nothing to me, and they can write it the way they want. That's the nice thing with information.

Re:

[djmurdoch]

You must bank with Gringott's. With the banks I use, they don't actually keep my gold coins in a vault somewhere. The number on the statement is all there is.

Analogy is not identity

[Nicolas MONNET]

IP is not the same as physical property, but the concept of owning an abstract thing (the monopoly granted by the patent) is pretty closely related to the concept of owning a physical thing.

Analogy is not identity. Although I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Or something.

And the analogy breaks even more when you try to stretch it.

What the hell are you smoking?

[PMBjornerud]

The IP "thing" is the monopoly. The property right is the ability to own that thing.

A "monopoly" is not a thing. And there are laws that specifically prevent you from "owning a monopoly".

So when a monopoly is created, it's a thing? Then we cannot convict monopolist and split up the monopoly, because that would also be some kind of theft?

No. It does not work that way.

My take:

The essence of the Internet is to be the biggest, baddest information manipulation unit the world have ever seen. Not only did we build computeres - machines designed from the scratch for the purpose of copying, moving

Re:

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

One says that you are not allowed to steal other people's things, the other says that you are not allowed to create certain things if someone else created it first.

Incomplete. IP rights also says you cannot simply COPY something that someone else has created.

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[richie2000]

The Nobel Prize in Economics is NOT a real Nobel, and is awarded by the socialist Swedish central bank.

I'll let the IP-hugging mumbo-jumbo in your post slide, but The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was given the task to select the Economics Prize Laureates starting in 1969. The central bank just comes up with the cash, they do not select the winners.

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[Dunbal]

Honestly any economist who doesn't recognize the value of creating and protecting intellectual property rights in an information economy is a POORLY trained economist.

      Yes and I am going to take YOUR word for it over a published, Nobel Prize winning economist...

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[A beautiful mind]

Seconded. The Nobel Prize in Economics is NOT a real Nobel, and is awarded by the socialist Swedish central bank. Their awards are biased.

Honestly any economist who doesn't recognize the value of creating and protecting intellectual property rights in an information economy is a POORLY trained economist. Hernando de Soto has pegged a lack of real property rights as the primary issue that prevents wealth from being created in the third world (agricultural economies). It follows that in economies (such as the US/Europe) which derive their wealth, more and more, from intellectual property, that the ability to protect those rights is ultimately to our benefit.

Not to rain on your parade but you seem pretty biased or to be more accurate parroting certain right-wing dogmas. Intellectual property doesn't exist. It is an umbrella term at best, but mostly it is a word designed to mislead and cause confusion. The value created by creating and protecting patents and to a lesser extent copyrights is seriously outweighed by the bad effects of giving a monopoly on specific information or methods to private companies or persons.

Copyright and patents do not create wealth, they make all of us poorer, because they tend to inhibit progress as the professor who got the Nobel has shown in the specific case of patents and the IT industry.

Also, quoting wikipedia:

The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Sveriges Riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne), usually called the "Nobel Prize in Economics", is a prize awarded each year for outstanding intellectual contributions in the field of economics. The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics.

Re:

[Don853]

What is the incentive to innovate if someone else will immediately copy your idea and reproduce it? Pride and a sense of self satisfaction are great, but they don't put food on the table.

Re:

[A beautiful mind]

To produce a product. In a broader sense to compete in order to get income and turn a profit, that is incentive enough.

Re:

[Uart]

"Not to rain on your parade but you seem pretty biased or to be more accurate parroting certain right-wing dogmas."
Why because I called Sweden's Central bank socialist? Call them up, they'll agree with me. Or are you referring to my support of property rights? Right Wing dogma? It's a constitutional right to property -- 4th Amendment (check it out).

"Intellectual property doesn't exist. It is an umbrella term at best, but mostly it is a word designed to mislead and cause confusion."

Um. Ok, in the most abstra

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[Tim C]

Of course you realise that every single one of those economies started out by vigorously ignoring IP, especially that of other nations, until such time as it had some of its own to protect and only then implemented its own IP-related laws, don't you?

You do also realise that there are many other factors in why the US and Europe, Japan, etc are more prosperous than third world countries, don't you, and that blaming it all on a lack of IP laws is simplistic almost beyond belief?

Re:

[jejones]

>Of course you realise that every single one of those economies started out by vigorously ignoring IP, especially that of other nations, until such time as it had some of its own to protect and only then implemented its own IP-related laws, don't you?

Yup. In the case of the US, recall Samuel Slater, a guy with a really good memory who indulged in a bit of industrial espionage, going through an English textile factory and seeing how it worked, then coming to the US and building one.

Re:

[MECC]

Honestly any economist who doesn't recognize the value of creating and protecting intellectual property rights in an information economy is a POORLY trained economist.

Promote science and useful arts, indeed. Any system that lets - no make that encourages - someone buy someone else's idea then do exactly nothing at all with it except to sue others in order to leech off legitimate efforts at actually doing something useful is functionally broken, and doesn't make sense in terms of economics either. Wha

Re:

[Sique]

Anyone who calls priviledges "property" is a poorly trained economist. They might be assets, though.

Re:

[siddesu]

Key assumption for the existence of efficient economy is absence of information asymmetries. Intellectual property is an artificially created asymmetry -- information cannot be used to allocate resources efficiently, even if it is available.

Allegedly this 'compensates' the inventor and increases 'knowledge production', but I have yet to see a convincing theory as to why it would happen, and especially why "intellectual property" is the most efficient way to go about it. Conventional economic theory suggests

Re:

[cnettel]

A key fallacy of your argument is that it would be hard to prove that most kinds of intellectual property creates an information asymmetry in the economical sense. A very real asymmetry is created by the fact that you might avoid certain transactions (or creating certain products) just due to the fear of what patents migth already exist, but the presence of a patent in itself is not creating an asymmetry of that kind.

The fact that intellectual property is based on ownership of "information", in some form, d

Re:

[Mr. Slippery]

Honestly any economist who doesn't recognize the value of creating and protecting intellectual property rights in an information economy is a POORLY trained economist.

Honestly, anyone who doesn't recognize that using the term "intellectual property" to refer to several very different types of purely artificial monopolies created by government action is highly problematic, is ignorant on the subject. Copyrights are not patents and neither are trademarks; refering to them all as "intellectual property" is

Re:

[Uart]

"It does not follow at all, since ideas are a very different thing than land. You distort the issue by using the term "property" to refer to ideas."

They are different. Except in the eyes of the law and the United States constitution. Courts in this country, and almost anywhere in the first-world will support the definition of IDEAS as PROPERTY.

It is not a distortion, but rather, a legal fact.

Re:

[Uart]

"ou really ought to read the Constitution before you comment on it, you know. It only grants Congress the power (though not the requirement) to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". It in no way mentions "intellectual property"." Oh, I've read it. I have also read any number of Supreme Court decisions that interpret that and related aspects of the Constitution. The US Consti

Re:

[petrus4]

Careful. You're treading dangerously close to saying that in some scenarios, money might actually be a positive thing. Making those sorts of statements is likely to result in torches and pitchforks being brought out, around here. ;-)

Re:Not Nobel Prize in Economics

[russotto]

Hernando de Soto has pegged a lack of real property rights as the primary issue that prevents wealth from being created in the third world (agricultural economies). It follows that in economies (such as the US/Europe) which derive their wealth, more and more, from intellectual property, that the ability to protect those rights is ultimately to our benefit.

No, it does not follow. The differences between real property and IP have been hashed out over and over again; what holds for one does not necessarily hold for another.

Major relevant differences --
1) Lack of exclusivity. One user of intellectual property does not interfere with another.

2) Less limited resource -- with few exceptions, no one is making more land. New IP is created all the time

And a difference in the systems protecting them
3) With real property, a whole system of rights-of-way has been developed to prevent my use of my real property from interfering with your use of your real property, even if my real property stands between yours and some shared resource you need. With IP, it's the opposite -- your patent on your invention can easily prevent me from implementing mine.

Re:

[Uart]

"1) Lack of exclusivity. One user of intellectual property does not interfere with another."

Well, we can all plow your farm... I mean hell, you can't use every inch of it, right?
Property rights aren't about USE, they are about TAKING. In countries without property rights, the government will often come and TAKE from its citizens, properties that are valuable for its purposes.

It is possible for you to TAKE my IP as well, although it obviously occurs in a more abstract way.

"2) Less limited resource -- with fe

Re:

[Copid]

Well, we can all plow your farm... I mean hell, you can't use every inch of it, right? Property rights aren't about USE, they are about TAKING. In countries without property rights, the government will often come and TAKE from its citizens, properties that are valuable for its purposes.

The key point here is that patents are all about use. This is a fundamental failure of how the patent system is being abused now. If you come up with an idea, patent it, and then never use it for anything, essentially all

Re:

[DanielJosphXhan]

It would follow if the two were remotely the same thing.

But of course they're not. Intellectual property is only useful and valuable when it assists in the creation of real-world value, the very thing that third-world countries neglect.

Other than that, intellectual property has no value. No scarcity, none of the properties that make real-world property valuable.

The only value it can have, then, is the value that we (or they, or whomever) force upon it. IP can have value only by collective agreement. And, un

Re:

[famebait]

[the prize] is awarded by the ... Swedish central bank... ...the socialist Swedish central bank... ...Their awards are biased...

Anyone who can say any these things with a straight
face is a very POORLY informed commentator indeed, and could profitably shut the fuck up.

Cognitive dissonance ahoy!

[Medievalist]

You do realise that so-called "intellectual property" is a concept based on the SOCIALIST value system, and that rugged individualists and laissez-faire capitalists believe people should be able to build and sell whatever they can dream up regardless of whether somebody else already invented it?

It's quite amusing to see someone using "socialist" as a dirty word and then equating intellectual property "rights" with real property rights in the same post. Intellectual property laws are created to restrict the

Re:

[Uart]

The fact that my post was moderated as "troll" is in-fact the reason why I rarely post here anymore. Meta-moderation apparently doesn't work, since people -1 posts that they disagree with.

Slashdot is a community with no intellectual freedom.

Re:

[pipatron]

damn commies want to ban all parents

Actually I think you're referring to China and their One Laptop Per Child... err.. no.. One Child Per Family policy. You cannot apply that to all communist regimes.

Re:

[russotto]

What are you smoking? Their awards are biased towards laissez-faire, libertarian, capitalism good anything else bad, free market zealotry.

That's like complaining that the Nobel Prize in medicine is biased towards genetics and biology and away from beads and rattles...

Re:

[nomadic]

That's like complaining that the Nobel Prize in medicine is biased towards genetics and biology and away from beads and rattles...

Only unlike medicine, after a few hundred years of effort economists still have a lousy track record in predicting or affecting anything. It's not a real science. Economists aren't real scientists.

Has anyone else noticed...

[neokushan]

The similarities between software development and Evolution are striking. As this article states, software tends to progress slowly, building upon the previous generation, improving on it and occationally adding new features to give it the advantage over it's competition.
But when a software product progresses with little or no competition to speak of, it's innovation stops, it gets bigger, slower and more bloated.

Re:Has anyone else noticed...

[jimstapleton]

I'd argue that software in general tends to get bigger, slower and more bloated.

Typically, new releases of software tend to have more features - these added features are what cause the bigger-slower-bloatier effect, as the take space to store, time to execute, and not everyone wants them. I don't know of one piece of software that has managed to avoid this fate.

Re:

[AlXtreme]

Typically, new releases of software tend to have more features - these added features are what cause the bigger-slower-bloatier effect, as the take space to store, time to execute, and not everyone wants them. I don't know of one piece of software that has managed to avoid this fate.

How about Netscape -> Mozilla -> Phoenix?

I'll give you that Mozilla Firefox currently is comparable in bloat (and features, in many cases) to Netscape, however Phoenix and the earlier Firefox releases were a dream compared

Re:

[jimstapleton]

But, in most cases, weren't these either

(A) re-writes of the code base
or
(B) takeing a minimal functionality codebase/toolkit (i.e. Gecko), and adding fewer features than the competition?

In the case of (A), you can argue it's not really the same software any more, just a conceptual child. For B, it is at least larger than the base app, just better implemented in terms of size/speed/bloat than the competition.

Re:Has anyone else noticed...

[foniksonik]

Have you looked at DNA lately? In the ancient bacteria, fossil fishes and fungi of the world the DNA is svelte and cleanly coded.... all streamlined to do a few tasks very efficiently, then move forward a few billion years and you get rats and primates.... all bloated with junk and things like consciousness that are completely unnecessary to survival, just bells and whistles really.

I'm not sure what it is you're arguing against.. sounds like you're agreeing with parent post 100% ;-p

p.s. so when is the bloat in our software going to self-actualize and become our computer's soul? I hope it's not based on Windows... what a freakin mess that would be, all freaked out about security, indecisive and completely self-conscious about being genuine... ugh it probably WILL be windows, that sounds like 99% of the people I know.

Re:

[jimstapleton]

Reread my post, your comment, while partially ignorant of biology and genetics, is also completely irrelevant to my point.

You are talking beginning point and end point - which is irrelevant to evolution by the way. I was discussing the process.

Oh, and the stuff you see in in many multicelluar organisms (like conciousness), is not bells and whistles. There is junk DNA, but even it often serves a purpose (especially if you consider evolution).

Re:

[sacrilicious]

Have you looked at DNA lately?

Not... since surfing porn before breakfast, I guess...

Re:

[allcar]

At risk of starting a religious flame war, software engineers like to think that they design software. Evolution, as we know, requires no designer, but simply proceeds by trial and error.

Re:

[jimstapleton]

actually - software development is trial and error also.

The difference is not the trial and error part, but the fact that in evolutionary theory, the trials are random, in computer software design, the trials are not (and are usually kept unless the error is considered really bad)

Non-random trials?

[paladinwannabe2]

This gives me a great idea for the origin of life: moderately intelligent design! Each extinction event could be a restart of the code base!

Re:

[asliarun]

The similarities between software development and Evolution are striking. As this article states, software tends to progress slowly, building upon the previous generation, improving on it and occationally adding new features to give it the advantage over it's competition.

Hey, that sounds like my relationship! Since it is not intelligent design, it is probably evolution.

Re:Has anyone else noticed...

[Comatose51]

Yochai Benkler[sp?] called it the "Shoulder of Giants" effect in his book the "Wealth of Networks". He noted that innovations is one of those processes where the output serves as an input for the next cycle, meaning when you innovate your discovery can be used for more innovations. Needless to say, he argues against patents and this is coming from a law professor who gained an incredible insight into open source software development. Highly recommend his book.

In the "Myth of Innovations", the author, who I forgot, also talks about innovations are not inevitabilities but as a tree with different ideas branching off. A lot of them will be pruned and turn out to be failures in their environment but a few will survive. His insight was that innovations are more like trees, not lines, and their success depend on the environment they were developed in. The right solution for the wrong problem is still a failure. The two makes it sound awful lot like evolution like you mentioned.

Re:

[knight24k]

But when a software product progresses with little or no competition to speak of, it's innovation stops, it gets bigger, slower and more bloated.

I guess that explains Vista.

Re:

[theantipop]

I would say software more closely resembles "intelligent" design. Unless you are talking about my software, in which case it could best be described as "I hope no one sees this" design.

Yes

[Per Abrahamsen]

My main contribution to "discussions" with creationist is that in my experience as a programmer, complex (software) systems are a result of evolution rather than intelligent design.

Re:

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Most technology progresses slowly. As people understand the technology they figure out ways to make it better. Examples include cars, airplanes, electronics and nuclear weapons. Software is hardly unique in this regard.

Re:

[darkmeridian]

I am in the minority here, but I think the biggest problem with software patents is how long the patent term is compared to the progress of the art. In the United States, you get twenty years from filing. Imagine the progress made in the software in that time frame and compare it to the progress in the field of airplanes, or carpet manufacture.

Much of scientific progress is evolutionary, which is fitting in some way. Everyone stands on the shoulder of giants. Watson and Crick didn't just discover the struct

Re:

[Dunbal]

Kill the competition. Bigger, slower and more bloated. Reminds me of America. *ducks and runs*

      Valid point. Only the competition is not "dead". In fact, it's only beginning.

Thats all nice, but

[should_be_linear]

since when geniuos minds play any significant role in politics? I imagine politician thinking "This guy would would give me half a million if I support software patents BUT there is this famous research study... Oh god, if I only could support both!".

Well Duh!

[Citizen of Earth]

In such markets, he said, patents might serve as a wall that inhibited innovation rather than stimulating progress.

Do I get a Nobel Prize for saying "No shit, Sherlock!"?

Re:

[AusIV]

He didn't get a nobel prize for researching software patents. He got a prize for research into a new Economic theory, it just happens he's applying that theory to his research of software patents.

I guess I'll be devils advocate...

[distantbody]

(emphasis mine)

He determined that software was a market where innovations tended to be sequential, in that they were built closely on the work of predecessors, and innovators could take many different paths to the same goal. In such markets, he said, patents might serve as a wall that inhibited innovation rather than stimulating progress.

...That still leaves the opposition with plenty of wiggle room; they don't exactly sound like the words for an open-and-shut case...

Re:

[Watson Ladd]

Why do you think economics is the dismal science?

This may not lead to patent reform very soon

[Anonymous Coward]

The USofA makes a lot of money selling its IP to the rest of the world. Getting countries like China to play nice with our copyrights and patents is a 'big deal'. It is therefore unlikely that Uncle Sam will soften his position on either. Mickey Mouse will be copyrighted forever. Ridiculous patents will still be granted and enforced. Patent trolls will continue to get rich.

The trouble with the above is that innovation will move to other countries and America will be left behind. I can easily envisage

Driving Linux out of America? To Finland, maybe?

[argent]

I can easily envisage a scenario where Linux is driven out of America by a patent troll for instance.

You think they're gonna send them furrin operating systems back to where they came from?

What is obvious to the dev community...

[zullnero]

Is mindblowing to the average person. This is the sort of paper that really needs to be distributed as much as possible (but rewritten to be understandable to the layman), because there really needs to be a great deal of political support for such an exemption from the patent process here. The biggest problem is that the software industry has already defined a piece of software as a patentable product, similar to a car or a monitor, and the general populace believes that to be true. However, you don't make a new car by tearing out the carburetor of a 1995 Ford, clean it up, add a couple parts from a 2002 Chevy to it, and stick it into your new car. However, that is precisely how software is generally made. There's your layman's explanation right there.

Re:

[pipatron]

This is the sort of paper that really needs to be distributed as much as possible (but rewritten to be understandable to the layman)

There's your layman's explanation right there.

So write it up into a nice form and publish on your blog! (you do have a blog, don't you? It is the year 2007 after all).

Re:

[Darren Bane]

You say that "the software industry has already defined a piece of software as a patentable product". This is only the _American_ softare industry--if you want to destroy your own international competitiveness, nobody will stop you. Software patents are illegal in Europe (although we're fighting hard to keep it that way).

Re:

[CodeBuster]

However, you don't make a new car by tearing out the carburetor of a 1995 Ford

Incidentally, the last new production carbureted car sold in the US was the 1990 model year of the Subaru Justy [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[Husgaard]

Yes, this paper is mindblowing, and more people should know about it. But this paper is also theoretical, so it can be disputed by IP fundamentalists as having little to do with the real world.

But Research on Innovation [researchoninnovation.org] has a lot of other interesting papers.

In particular I like the paper AN EMPIRICAL LOOK AT SOFTWARE PATENTS [researchoninnovation.org]. This paper is an empirical investigation of the effect it had on innovation in the IT industry when software patents were legalized in the US.

From the abstract:

We find evidence

Hmmm.... let's see...

[idontgno]

On the side opposed to software patentability, an eminent Nobel-prize-winning economist.

On the side supporting software patentability, we have Steve Ballmer.

Which side seems more credible to you? I'm going with the Nobel-winner myself. Even if Dancing Monkeyboy meanaces me with chairs while screaming "DEVELOPERS!" at me.

Re:

[sacrilicious]

On the side opposed to software patentability, an eminent Nobel-prize-winning economist. On the side supporting software patentability, we have Steve Ballmer. Which side seems more credible to you?

Agreed. Though I note that even if roles were reversed, and Balmer was pulling for OSS while a Nobel winner promoted patents, I'd dismiss the Nobel winner's position(if all I had to go on was WHO was making the statements, as opposed to lines of reasoning). So my agreement is not that with the idea that *I'

Counterexamples?

[jc42]

So are there any documented cases where patents (or copyrights) did actually enhance "progress of science and the useful arts", as the US Constitution phrases it?

All the histories I've read say that when patents have had any measurable effect at all (and most don't), the effect has been to block both progress by everyone and profit by the patent holders.

But this could be a result of biased reporting, similar to the general case that bad news tends to get reported but smooth operations aren't considered news

Silicon Valley

[jbeaupre]

May I direct you to the example of Silicon Valley and the numerous start up companies there. Patents help maintain that ecology of inventors, business folks, and investors.

Most companies can't just start in a garage and bootstrap themselves into being a large corporation without someone investing. Investors are reluctant to invest if some third party can just copy the technology. So what's a start up to do? Ah-ha! Patents! That's right, a large number of start ups rely on patents to assure investors t

Re:

[argent]

The Yao paper doesn't actually appear to include any counterexamples in favor of strong patents, nor does it seem to address the social good of strong patents.

* The closest thing to a counterexample is the case of the blue LED, and I am not clear on how it applies to patents at all. How would a strong patent system similar to the current system in the US protect an employee under a strong work-for-hire contract?

* The arguments in the paper are very focussed on the potential value of the patent to the patent

Re:

[jc42]

Hmmm ... That paper seems to be purely theoretical in nature; it didn't seem to include any actual examples of what I asked about. At least I didn't spot any in a quick reading. A closer reading of the intro and conclusions shows that the authors' intent was theoretical in nature, not case studies. And their phrasing implies that they think interference with others' use of the ideas is the point of a patent. So they'd probably treat "advancement of science and practical arts" as a failure of the patent

Now a Major Motion Picture!

[Doc Ruby]

Even though TV is packed with "business news" shows, I don't expect to see this strong argument against SW patents even mentioned anywhere near people who determine the rules that govern inventors, who drive the entire economy.

All we'll ever hear about is "incumbent economics", which is how the rich always get richer, despite the actual economic values.

Here's the abstract

[nbauman]

Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation

by James Bessen and Eric Maskin c 1999

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article for noncommercial use are permitted in any medium provided this notice is preserved.

Working Paper 11/99

Abstract: How could such industries as software, semiconductors, and computers have been so innovative despite historically weak patent protection? We argue that if innovation is both sequential and complementary -- as it certainly has been in those industries -- compe

Re:Nobel Validity

[richie2000]

So, if the Nobel committees can so blow this prize, going back to giving it to the dictator Yasser Arafat, do the other prizes have meaning? Are they better vetted than the Peace Prize? How and Why?

Because the peace prize is awarded by Norwegians, the others are all awarded by Swedes. http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/ [nobelprize.org]

Re:

[Hatta]

So when are the Finnish going to come out with a Nobel Prize for Cartooning?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a quote from the official statement put out by the committee on why Gore was selected:
"Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

One point a lot of people are missing is that of

Suicide Solution

[Belial6]

I don't know what your talking about. If we all followed Gores plan and commit suicide, no human would ever go to war again. Dead people are peaceful after all.

"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero." [google.com]
Al Gore

Re:

[nomadic]

So, if the Nobel committees can so blow this prize, going back to giving it to the dictator Yasser Arafat

They've blown the prize a hell of a lot earlier than that. Hell, they gave it to Kissinger back in the 70's.

Re:

[Xiaran]

One I can think of would be CPU development...

Re:Great, but not an actual Nobel Prize

[gerf]

http://nobelprize.org/

Um, looks like Medicine, Chemistry, Peace, Physics, Literature, Economics. Further digging in their site shows that the Economics Prize was started in 1968. Well, perhaps Nobel didn't originate it, but it is selected by the same method as the others. Not that I'd consider that spectacular; They gave Al Gore and Jimmy Carter Peace Prizes after all.

Re:

[Copid]

Economists are snake oil salesmen anyway. Nobel prize winners routinely have 50% of their "theories" or models disproved by real life. How about a physicist that has one theory disproved? Nobel prize?

That depends. Did the theory, while flawed, improve our understanding of the topic in a significant way? How many of the most brilliant physicists in history have been wrong? Depending on your standard of wrongness, Newton was a snake oil salesman when he wrote his Principia.