ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Why abolish software patents"

m (A hopefully different argument)
(Arguments specific to software patents)
Line 35: Line 35:
 
* As of 2009, firms involved in developing [[HTML5|HTML]] as an open [[standard]] with embedded [[video]] support could not recommend a video format because of the risk of patent encumbrances.
 
* As of 2009, firms involved in developing [[HTML5|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).
 
* 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).
 +
* The computer, which can perform any computation specified by a table of numbers ("instructions") is already patented.  Any particular computation thus performed is a subset of behavior already patented in the patenting of the computer itself.
  
 
===Software arguments that could apply to patents in general===
 
===Software arguments that could apply to patents in general===

Revision as of 23:00, 8 September 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.

Existing articles

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.[1]
  • 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).
  • The computer, which can perform any computation specified by a table of numbers ("instructions") is already patented. Any particular computation thus performed is a subset of behavior already patented in the patenting of the computer itself.

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

Extenal links