On Mar 5, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:08 AM, phil swenson <[email protected]> wrote: > I could argue against software patents, but this guy does it way better than > I ever could: http://www.feld.com/wp/category/patents > > Really? Just the same old arguments that the system is broken without showing > that he's thought much about the consequences of a world without software > patents, nor a lot of elaboration as to why they stifle innovation. I've seen > much better articulated arguments, to be honest. > > Besides, the Paul Allen suit was thrown out, which seems to indicate that the > system works as expected. > > I'm a reformist, not an abolitionist. I think software patents work and they > enable innovation. I do think they should be revised, particularly on two > specific points: > Shorter duration. It's fair for someone who comes up with a real innovation > to enjoy a first mover advantage, but this duration should be adjusted to > software scales. Maybe two years or something like that. > > Troll patents should not be allowed to exist. Not quite sure what can be done > there, maybe that patents cannot be transferred, or can only be enforced if > the corporation suing can show that their business is based on the patent > they are suing about. In other words, they have a product on the market place > that is based on that patent. > At least, I'm trying to offer concrete solutions that are based on > compromises and on the observation of how the world works today, as opposed > to most of the hand waving that I see pattern abolitionists do most of the > time ("They kill innovation. Now upvote me").
Except that your view of how the world works only seems to take into account your perspective. Software patents were so infrequent they were hardly worth discussing until the State Street patent was approved in 1993 and affirmed by the Federal Appeals court in 1998. The software industry was highly innovative and created a heck of a lot of software before software patents came along, so your argument that they somehow help promote innovation is at best non-obvious and in reality simply not provable, much less backed up by any facts whatsoever. The number of patents on software seems to have been rising at a much faster rate then in the first few years after the State Street ruling as more and more companies realized they needed them for defensive purposes. I would argue that we are just now on the verge of feeling the full effects of this and that trying to justify them based on what happened from 1998 through 2010 is very misleading. What we are facing today is very similar to where we were in 2005 in the housing market - everything looked rosy on the surface but anyone who really looked under the surface knew we were in for severe problems. As a whole, patents are of immense value when the costs involved in creating the invention are great and warrant some sort of protection to insure that the inventor can get a return on their investment. Your idea of a shorter duration for patents as a whole has merit - I would argue that the time needed to recur the investment costs plus a minimal time to incur a profit would be fair and reasonable. However, software today is created by incorporating a bunch of already existing building blocks and then adding in a bit of unique and/or proprietary code. Compared to the cost of developing a new drug this cost is minimal and hardly warrants protection for that reason. Interesting reading for you: This PDF has a very good history of software patents and comes to some interesting conclusions about their value. Figures 1 and 2 are interesting as well. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGAQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.157.6908%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=software%20patent%20growth%20statistics&ei=w9pyTbnYFpLAsAPAvtnGCw&usg=AFQjCNHYD5kgxXriVChZWepyG8NNSamtBQ&sig2=LycdriAvtksTAA36aDKUaA I actually found several people actively involved with businesses and startups who would like to eliminate software patents including http://www.examiner.com/startup-business-in-national/the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-software-patents and http://www.jasonmendelson.com/wp/archives/2010/05/76-of-venture-capitalists-believe-that-patents-are-important-not.php. Of course you won't like these because their positions are based on their experience, not facts. Ralph -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
