ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Why abolish software patents"

m (Undo revision 6964 by 208.69.125.192 (Talk))
m (rv to last good version)
Line 29: Line 29:
 
* [[Just a Use of the Patented General Purpose Computer]]
 
* [[Just a Use of the Patented General Purpose Computer]]
  
Karamba!, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Erythromycin-profile-862213.html erythromycin side effects,  91054, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Accutane-Isotretinoin--profile-862192.html accutane and ibd,  %-), http://www.scribd.com/doc/24185945 uritol,, 9864, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Zimulti-Rimonabant--profile-862217.html monaslim,  onbdav, http://cheapamoxil.eventbrite.com/ amoxil,  8D, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Glucophage-Metformin--profile-862214.html generic glucophage,  nquvvf, http://acompliaonline.eventbrite.com/ bethin,  %-], http://www.scribd.com/doc/24187281 ordering valtrex online,  cnbzkr, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Levitra-Vardenafil--profile-862205.html levitra buy levitra online viagra,  8P, http://www.scribd.com/doc/24185936 accutane,  338, http://allopurinolonline.eventbrite.com/ no prescription allopurinol,  :PP, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Amoxil-Amoxicillin--profile-862199.html cheap amoxil, cbnzfi, http://www.scribd.com/doc/24185937 tucson diabetic acomplia,  zvjixc, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Strattera-Atomoxetine--profile-862215.html strattera medication,  3681, http://www.scribd.com/doc/24185951 rimonabant online,  >:DD, http://www.scribd.com/doc/24187268 allopurinol,  8-]]], http://erythromycinonline.eventbrite.com/ erythromycin treats,  835594, http://zimultionline.eventbrite.com/ remonabent,  903, http://www.netvibes.com/meds-online#Zimulti_(Rimonabant) zimulti, %-PPP, http://www.netvibes.com/meds-online#Cipro_(Ciprofloxacin) ciprofloaxin,  8))), http://www.netvibes.com/meds-online#Rimonabant rimonabant diet pill, cdbsw, http://cialisonline.eventbrite.com/ viagra verses cialis, 145811, http://benicaronline.eventbrite.com/ generic benicar, %-D, http://www.netvibes.com/meds-online#Glucophage_(Metformin) glucophage,  fehi, http://www.netvibes.com/meds-online#Lasix_(Furosemide) time released lasix, >:-)), http://accutaneonline.eventbrite.com/ accutane, 8-(((, http://www.netvibes.com/meds-online#Strattera_(Atomoxetine) strattera medline, 8-P, http://www.scribd.com/doc/24187273 cipro, 100570, http://www.scribd.com/doc/24187280 adderall strattera,  pfr, http://www.netvibes.com/meds-online#Acomplia_(Rimonabant) acheter acomplia, =-PP, http://www.netvibes.com/meds-online#Valtrex_(Valacyclovir) valtrex usage,  635531, http://retinaonline.eventbrite.com/ retin-a,  095, http://valtrexonline.eventbrite.com/ valtrex,  4543, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Acomplia-Rimonabant--profile-862198.html acomplia 20mg, 1088, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Cipro-Ciprofloxacin--profile-862212.html contents of cipro,  mwpsh, http://www.netvibes.com/meds-online#Amoxil_(Amoxicillin) amoxillin,  =), http://www.scribd.com/doc/24185947 generic levitra,  qsv, http://www.alivenotdead.com/Discount/Prednisolone-profile-862206.html prednisolone,  snm,
+
==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.[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=146883]
 +
* Working with unencrypted (no copyright protection) DVDs is not possible without violating patented codecs.
 +
* 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).
 +
* The computer, which can perform any computation specified by a table of numbers ("instructions") is already patentedAny particular computation thus performed is a subset of behavior already patented in the patenting of the computer itself.
 +
* The significant body of prior art software is confidential, unsearchable, and inaccessible. All publicly accessible software is prior art to all later filed patent applications. But, except for Open Source Software, most software is made public in a format that hides the disclosure and user agreements prohibit reverse-engineering the code. Thus, many patents cover inventions that have been in the public domain for years.
 +
 
 +
===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 [[defensive patent pools|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]] is patented, the only way to avoid the patent is to avoid the standard
 +
* There is no practical disclosure of the patent due to the sheer volume of patents and the legal risks that arise from non-patent lawyers interpreting patents. (so there is little benefit to society from granting the company a monopoly in return for disclosure)
 +
* Patents dampen the competitive drive that feeds capitalism.
 +
* It's too difficult for the patent office (or anyone else) to consistently and objectively assess the worthiness of a patent (how to prove non-obviousness ?). Many patents are overturned when they reach the courts (citation needed) which suggests current assessment methods are not good enough.
  
 
==Bibliography==
 
==Bibliography==

Revision as of 19:12, 19 December 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.
  • The significant body of prior art software is confidential, unsearchable, and inaccessible. All publicly accessible software is prior art to all later filed patent applications. But, except for Open Source Software, most software is made public in a format that hides the disclosure and user agreements prohibit reverse-engineering the code. Thus, many patents cover inventions that have been in the public domain for years.

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 is patented, the only way to avoid the patent is to avoid the standard
  • There is no practical disclosure of the patent due to the sheer volume of patents and the legal risks that arise from non-patent lawyers interpreting patents. (so there is little benefit to society from granting the company a monopoly in return for disclosure)
  • Patents dampen the competitive drive that feeds capitalism.
  • It's too difficult for the patent office (or anyone else) to consistently and objectively assess the worthiness of a patent (how to prove non-obviousness ?). Many patents are overturned when they reach the courts (citation needed) which suggests current assessment methods are not good enough.

Bibliography

Related pages on ESP Wiki