Recipient of First Software Patent Defends Them

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?

Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

patents protect the little guy who can't afford lawyers from big corporations.

I agree with him - there's no difference

[Rogerborg]

I think that software patents are every bit as valid and valuable as every single patent on the wheel [google.com].

Re:Patents aren't the problem

[LordAndrewSama]

Mine too now, Mwuhahahahaha, fool, I've just robbed you blind!

Re:Patents aren't the problem

[CodeBuster]

I have a patent on plagiarism and I want a license fee of $23,148,855,308,184,500 for the use of my valuable intellectual property.

Re:Patents aren't the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, but I have the patent on plagarism on the internet. So there.