ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Why abolish software patents"
m (→Extenal links: make this the master article for the Arguments category) |
(*temporarily* reversing the order) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| − | ==The list== | + | ==Existing articles== |
| + | * [[Harm to standards]] | ||
| + | * [[Blocking innovation and research]] | ||
| + | * [[Freedom of expression]] | ||
| + | * [[Less choice, more monopolies]] | ||
| + | * [[Preventing competition]] - lower quality, higher prices | ||
| + | * [[Software patents harm SMEs]] | ||
| + | * [[Preventing competition and entrenching monopolies]] | ||
| + | * [[Patent trolls]], or "parasites" | ||
| + | * [[Used for sabotage rather than competition]] sometimes called "business weapons" | ||
| + | * [[All businesses are targets]] | ||
| + | * [[Jobs and skills]] | ||
| + | * [[Incompatible timespans]] | ||
| + | * [[Costs of the patent system to governments]]he | ||
| + | * [[Quality of software patents is particularly bad]] | ||
| + | * [[Software is math]]==The list== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==List of ideas== | ||
===Arguments specific to software patents=== | ===Arguments specific to software patents=== | ||
| Line 25: | Line 42: | ||
* When a [[standard]] it patented, the only way to avoid the patent is to avoid the standard | * When a [[standard]] it patented, the only way to avoid the patent is to avoid the standard | ||
* Since patents are written in a specialized language nicknamed "patent quak", which is not understandalble to "experts skilled in the art", there is [[no real disclosure]]/publication. | * Since patents are written in a specialized language nicknamed "patent quak", which is not understandalble to "experts skilled in the art", there is [[no real disclosure]]/publication. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Bibliography== | ==Bibliography== | ||
Revision as of 21:16, 11 August 2009
This is a rough article to make a long list of all the arguments against software patents. This will be used as a base for drafting work in the coming weeks and months as well as in the upcoming Bilski case and maybe the New Zealand legislative proposal, and other Current events.
Contents
Existing articles
- Harm to standards
- Blocking innovation and research
- Freedom of expression
- Less choice, more monopolies
- Preventing competition - lower quality, higher prices
- Software patents harm SMEs
- Preventing competition and entrenching monopolies
- Patent trolls, or "parasites"
- Used for sabotage rather than competition sometimes called "business weapons"
- All businesses are targets
- Jobs and skills
- Incompatible timespans
- Costs of the patent system to governmentshe
- Quality of software patents is particularly bad
- Software is math==The list==
List of ideas
Arguments specific to software patents
- (Software is math) Since the logic (idea) of software can be reduced to mathematical formula (idea) with Church-Turing Thesis, and because mathematical formula (idea) is not patentable, software should not be patentable as well.
- Since the only requirement to develop software is a commodity computer, which is very cheap, software should not be patentable just as authoring a book that only requires paper and a pen, which are very cheap, is not patentable.
- The now obvious "auto-filling" feature of spreadsheets is patented and not available in builds of free software office software for certain distributions. (GOT A LINK?)
- Working with unencrypted (no copyright protection) DVDs is not possible without violating patented codecs.
- As of 2009, firms involved in developing HTML as an open standard with embedded video support could not recommend a video format because of the risk of patent encumbrances.
- Most software patents describe the problem that the claimed "invention" solves but they don't detail *how* it is solved e.g. at least with design and implementation. As a result, all solutions to the problem are patented (and not just the one which is implemented by the patent applier).
Software arguments that could apply to patents in general
- After 20 years, the disclosed ideas are almost all useless
- Companies in the software industry are banding together for the sole purpose of patent defense (ex: OIN), illustrating the system is broken.
- In the United States, the Constitutional purpose of patents is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", but there are numerous studies and reports showing that software patents retard progress, and have a great cost to the economy.
- Software is usually built upon thousands of different ideas, which all could be patented. There is not one patent for one product, as it is mostly the case for physical products.
- Arguments /against/ software patents really shouldn't even be necessary and the anti-software patent side should not allow itself to be forced into a defensive position simply because of the historical status quo. The burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of software patent defenders and advocates. The only acceptable justification for the negative ethical and economic consequences of patent eligibility for software would be hard evidence demonstrating that it substantially increases technological progress and economic and social welfare despite the harm it does.
Arguments against patents in general
- SMEs and individuals can't afford to do patent searches
- SMEs and individuals can't afford to defend themselves
- When a standard it patented, the only way to avoid the patent is to avoid the standard
- Since patents are written in a specialized language nicknamed "patent quak", which is not understandalble to "experts skilled in the art", there is no real disclosure/publication.
Bibliography
- Math You Can't Use by Ben Klemens (2006)
