Formulating arguments
From en.swpat.org
When writing letters or discussing patent policy, it's important to plan what message you want to get across.
[edit] Knowing your message
How do we develop a way of describing the problem?
Software patents harm the software market, BUT the software market is not the only concern.
Same for SMEs.
Same for standards. (kinda)
Same for innovation.
The patent system's timelines don't work for software, but if they were improved, software still shouldn't be patented.
Many software patents are of woeful quality, but if quality was upped, the remaining ones would still be bad.
Should it always be a three step argument?
"swpats are not necessary for X, in fact they harm X, but moreover they harm Y"
- Harm to standards
- Software innovation happens without patents
- Software patents stiffle innovation
- Software patents harm SMEs
- Incompatible timespans
- Quality of software patents is particularly bad
- Preventing competition and entrenching monopolies
- Freedom of expression
- Abstraction Physics
[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org
| This wiki is part of the End Software Patents campaign (donate). For more information, see: |
