Subj : Re: Software Patents
To   : comp.programming
From : Fabio Fracassi
Date : Fri Jul 08 2005 11:55 am

Peter Ammon wrote:

> CBFalconer wrote:
>> There is hope yet.  Somebody did the right thing.  See:
>> 
>>   <http://swpat.ffii.org/log/05/ep0706/>
>> 
> 
> Can someone please explain to me why people get so riled up about
> software patents?  From my perspective, patents are an incentive to
> research and invest in novel approaches to problems.  Why spend any
> effort researching the best approach if competitors can copy it
> immediately?

In Theory you are right, in the real world there a several problems.
And even without patents you can't simply copy the programs since there is
still copyright, you can copy the idea, but you still have to implement it,
and in software that is often where the real work lies.

The problems are those:
- Overly broad patents. i.e. "A method for using Credit Cards in online
Shopping"

- Obvious patents: like the now infamous Amazon 1click patent

- Cost of patents: For small to medium sized companies (1-50 People, which
in europe make the majority of the software industry) the cost of fileing a
patent is high, not to speak of the cost of litigation.

- Submarine Patents: It is almost impossible to write any non trivial piece
of software without infringing on some patent. (Remember Microsofts ISA
patent?)
The problem is that even if a patent is doubtfull and probably voided in
court, small companies (or private programmers) can't afford the litigation
cost. So they have to give in even if they are right.


> I agree that software patents are abused in the United States, and
> companies that do nothing save accumulate IP for litigation are legal
> and economic parasites.  But this seems to me to be a symptom of a
> patent office that grants overly broad or obvious patents.  

Yes, but these "Symptoms" kill most of the smaller Companies of.

> If patents  were confined to legitimately original inventions that took
> significant work to develop, I think they'd be a positive thing.

This clause is already in the law, (both the proposed and rejected european
version, and AFAIK in the US version, too) but it didn't prevent the
1-click patent, or shopping cart patent, etc.

The thing is that in Software the Research cost is very close to the
Development cost (as opposed to for example Pharma). Lets take an example.
Even if you know each idea that influenced how Microsoft Office was build,
and want to write something simmilar, it would take you some 1000 of
man-years to do. It would perhaps take a bit longer if you had nothing to
guide you, but not that much.
The thing is with Patent that Microsoft could now prevent you from writing
either a Word processor at all, or at least a word processor that is
interoperable with theirs.

Another Point is that Software Development doesn't necessarily cost money.
Have a look at how Free Software is developed. All you need is a computer
and some time. When you add Patents into the equation, you now need to set
up patents, insurance against patent litigation, ... , etc. etc.
That rises the market entry barrier, which means that the older and bigger
cooperations gain an advantage over small and/or new companies.


Fabio

.