Interesting quote in the IBM amicus brief in regard to Bilski

“Given the realities that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered, it is difficult for software developers to resort to secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives to innovate in the field of software are significantly reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms – which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.”

IBM is a patent machine, so their opinion is always interesting to watch. I know many think the argument is weak, but in a world without patents, everything becomes about secrecy because the only protection you have is to keep it secret. Certainly the open source movement suffers in a world of secrecy.

Saw this rather passionate plea against software patents ( and Microsoft ) at When will Microsoft admit the truth about software patents?.

Although I found reading the comments the more fascinating part.

First, one of the big complaints is about the time frames in the process. I think people on both sides agree the time frames don’t match the reality of the computer world. It takes 5 years to get a patent ( in which case it is obsolete ) and then you get it for 20 years ( in which case it is of little value after that ). Seems like people should get together and work on that.

Secondly, why is it that everyone has no problem with other innovative industries having patents but rail against software. Ultimately, an innovator will be more motivated to innovate if they will benefit from the innovation. I do a lot of cutting edge software development and I like the idea of personally benefiting from that effort. See Are Software Patents Evil? in my guide on software patents for a more eloquent version of this.

Seems like real problems are the technicalities of the system as applied to software and not the idea of rewarding innovation in and of itself.

The CAFC ( U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ) recently made a landmark ruling in patent law. It is thought by some to be the end of business method patents and possibly software patents. While the system is flawed, I hope it doesn’t mean the end of software patents because the reality is that a large part of innovation happens in software today, so the patent system loses a lot of its value if it excludes innovative areas.

See attached Zakta Guides for some more resources

« Previous Page