Re: [OT] UK petition against software patents
On Friday 12 January 2007 10:29, marc wrote:
I am a UK citizen and have signed the petition. However, the arguments
used below seem to be fairly weak.
> Extract:
>
> "Software patents are used by convicted monopolists to threaten
> customers who consider using rival software. As a result, patents
> stifle innovation.
This is just taking a side swipe at Microsoft and only asserts that
patents stifle innovation rather than explain why.
I think the argument as to why patents are wrong is much more concerned
with
a) Software is already adequately protected by copyright.
b) Any serious software comprises lots (and lots) of separate
algorithmns much of which is in reality consists ideas invented a long
time ago (the 1960 and 1970s). If algorthithmns are patententable they
therefore have a disproprortionate advantage to the patent holder
because the number of software inventions that they would stifle
c) History in other parts of the world (US in particular) indicates that
there is strong likelyhood that patents get granted for the algorithmns
rather than the substantial invention. (despite the rule that patents
should only be granted to inventions that are not obvious to those
skilled in the art)
d) History in other parts of the world show that the load on the patent
office means that patents in software often get granted when there is
prior art.
e) Innovative Softare Invention is being advanced by both by large
organisations and individuals. The latter would be seriously
disadvantaged by have to defend against patents granted incorrectly
because of prior art.
>
> Patents are supposed to increase the rate of innovation by
> publicising how inventions work. Reading a software patent gives no
> useful information for creating or improving software. All patents
> are written in a sufficiently cryptic language to prevent them from
> being of any use. Once decoded, the patents turn out to be for
> something so obvious that programmers find them laughable.
>
> It is not funny because the cost of defending against nuisance
> lawsuits is huge.
This is not because reading the patent gives no useful information. I
HAVE read patents that attempted to patent a process by describing a
physical invention and it WAS hard. However by doing the hard work it
was possible to completely understand what it was doing. My point,
which I make above, is that because it is so hard the patent office is
useless at comparing it with prior art.
>
> The UK patent office grants software patents against the letter and
> the spirit of the law. They do this by pretending that there is a
> difference between software and 'computer implemented inventions'.
>
> Some companies waste money on 'defensive patents'. These have no
> value against pure litigation companies and do not counter threats
> made directly to customers."
>
I don't understand the argument here. If it says that there is economic
disadvantage to the state from patents then say so.
--
Alan Chandler
http://www.chandlerfamily.org.uk
Reply to: