Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

IP In the News

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.

What to do about Software Patents

Eweek has a post opposing software patents (link here) but in the end comes up with small ideas for change. No one likes them except lawyers and patent trolls, but what to do? Suggestions included making them easier to challenge, buying them up when they are new and cheap, then offering them freely under a general public license, and getting the public to oppose them with demonstrations, in the fashion of the Europeans.

Here again, it seems to me that secrecy should be the only protection provided a software inventor. In short, get rid of them.

[Posted at 12/13/2006 08:42 AM by John Bennett on IP in the News comments(3)]

Comments

I agree: the case for getting rid of them seems overwhelming. Software patents are recent; most software innovation took place before there were patents; and the available evidence (see Bessen and Hunt especially) shows that the have a negative effect on innovation. Why tinker with them? Get rid of them.

[Comment at 12/13/2006 12:34 PM by David K. Levine]

I agree also. The case for case for using trade secrecy for software instead of patents is compelling. In particular, software is easily protected by trade secrecy since software, to be used, must be in binary compiled form to be used. Compiled software effectively "hides" whatever the innovation is from "prying" eyes and thus offers a natural form of secrecy.

Further, since many software developers (the good eyes, IMHO) choose to distribute the source code with the compiled code (a.k.a. "open source"), the very availability or non-availability of the source code serves as a signal and warning to all would-be users, purchasers, and competitors as to whether there is something the original developer wants to "protect". Contrast that to the current system where a developer never really knows if what they are using is patented or protected or not.

[Comment at 12/13/2006 05:29 PM by Jim Luke]

I have seen a proposal where as they would have ONE of TWO choices. Either Patent it or Copyright it. One or the other, but not both.

That could force them to make some hard choices.

[Comment at 12/14/2006 08:58 AM by Bill]