Software Patents
When we think of patents, we usually think of physical inventions being patented by their inventor(s). But what about something slightly less concrete, like software?
Right now, the United States Patent and Trademark Office doesn't see software as anything different from regular a invention. In fact there is nothing that "specifically delineates between hardware and software." In the past, many software patents have been rejected by the Patent Office because they believe that "software is ultimately just the automated expression of various algorithms and math..." And since you can't patent math, many software patents have been rejected. There is a fine line between the boundaries of "just math" and a "patentable invention."
This patent system is flawed in this sense because you could say that any invention can be considered an extension of "math." Take of example the TurboTap beer nozzle, invented by a student at the University of Wisconsin. The device allows beer to be poured faster with less foam because of its long shape and internal structure. One could argue that his invention is just a "clever application of fluid dynamics." The argument is still in the air, are software patents truly legitimate and patentable patents? According to The Verge, "The problem isn't software patents - the problem is that software patents don't actually exist."
As a developer, I think the answer is controversial because much of computer science has been built on collaborative and shared ideas. However if a company spends millions in developing complex algorithms, that company should certainly own some rights to it. If someone patents software, what would it mean for someone else to use a similar method of programming? How would it be enforced?
What do you think about patenting software? Do you think the argument that any physical invention could just be considered an application of math?
Original Article: http://www.theverge.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/
Brian,
ReplyDeleteAs someone with little software development experience I am interested to know what software patents would actually accomplish, and what changes would occur immediately after their implementation.
Recently, there has been a lot of media attention in the tech world centered around the patent wars between companies such as Apple and Samsung. Many critics of this situation argue that the impulse to patent everything has actually brought about more legal disputes and a greater feeling of hostility between companies. Additionally, many believe that these patent wars are an example of how companies will use their patents to stifle the innovation of other firms. If these beliefs were to prove true in the long run, it would appear that patents are not the best solution to protecting the innovative integrity of the industry or individual’s intellectual property. Does this argument against play any role in the software development paradigm? The article you cited seems to suggest so, and it would be great if you could provide further commentary on both sides of the debate in future blog posts. It would be interesting to shed light on the counter-argument that patents create more innovative inspiration because they force developers to publicly disclose the workings of their product. Likewise, there are more complex arguments that explore the patentable differences between the functions of hardware and software.
Also, how do software developers currently protect their developments? Since pendency of patents can be quite long, are there any people that support reforming the whole system to streamline different types of patents? What are the alternatives to applying the current patent infrastructure to software?
--Zach
You raise a very pertinent issue - one that in our digital world is becoming ever more important. I think that patent or copyright protection for software, just like copyright protection for the written word for example, has its rightful place and is quite justifiable. A patent or copyright does not become warranted because an invention is a physical object - a "real invention", but because new "Intellectual Property" has been created by the inventor. For patents, the product of human thought and ingenuity, culminating in the creation of a novel, non-obvious, and useful invention, defines patentability - not whether or not an object is made of wood and stone. Furthermore, one must consider that software is often protected under copyright law, not under patent law.
ReplyDeleteAs an example, the unique code to a video game is protected under current copyright law. When a video game developer and publisher - like Electronic Arts, for example - spends millions of dollars developing a game (which, ultimately, is comprised of code), that final product is unique and protected. If EA did not own the rights to its creation and if anyone could simply copy and resell its creation, why would EA expend the effort to create a game in the first place? We need copyright protection for software to make developing software worthwhile.
Good introduction to the topic of software patents. I would like to see more detail, though.
ReplyDelete