Software Patents

Arguments for patentability

Arguments commonly given in defense of software patents or in defense of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (which could be defined differently) include:

Patenting software inventions promotes investment in research and development. Economic studies such as the US Federal Trade Commission 2003 patent report argue that patent monopolies actually reduce investment. If we did not have software patents we would not have technologies like CDs, mobile phones and ABS brakes Software patents are not currently enforceable in Europe but these technologies are certainly available. The need for protection is demonstrated by the huge number of software patents filed. This is like saying that the need for thieves is demonstrated by the large number of locks installed. Software patents incentive schemes motivate employees to produce patentable ideas. As opposed to building useful software systems that would directly benefit the company. The United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because it has had the best intellectual-property system. The US became dominant in software before software was patentable in the US. They are now losing that lead. Software patents can increase the valuation of small companies. Certainly, and a law suite for unintentional software patent infringement can destroy small companies. A patent must publicly disclose the invention and so educate other inventors. The very obscure language makes "published" patents extremely difficult to search and review, even by patent professionals. Software invention requires considerable investment that should be protected. Copyright adequately protects that investment. The risk of unforseeable patent infringement strongly discourages investment. International treaties require software to be patented, see Software patents under TRIPs Agreement. TRIPS requires patents to be enforced. It does not mandate that software should be patented. It is inventions that should be encouraged and patentable. The distinction between hardware and software is academic. Software patent monopolies clearly do not add net economic value to society. Patents may add value for other fields of endeavour such as pharmaceuticals. Organizations have the right to protect their intellectual property. Certainly, but the question is whether software patents should be a type of intellectual property in the first place.

Arguments against patentability

Opponents of software patents argue that:

Traditional copyright has provided sufficient protection to facilitate massive investment in software development. Copyright can be easily circumvented by reimplementing code because it does not place restrictions on the underlying ideas. Independent economic studies argue that patents are not productive. These studies are generally written by economists that do not understand patents or copyrights. Software is fundamentally about actually building and marketing systems rather than "inventing" individual cute ideas. The whole is the sum of the parts. A vast number of trivial software patents have been granted by government patent offices that directly profit by granting them. Public servants are generally honorable and not self serving. Most patented inventions have been or could easily be independently invented due to their trivial "inventive step". If this was true then they would have already been invented (and patented) by someone else. Developers cannot avoid patents of standards and interfaces even though the invention may not be useful otherwise. Being used in a standard demonstrates the high value of a patent. Legal actions involving nebulous intellectual property issues are very expensive, slow and unpredictable. They can be avoided by paying royalties that are properly due to patent holders. It is impossible to tell whether claims of patent infringement are valid due to their obscure language and weak examination. Patent attorneys are experts at determining these issues. Enterprises that receive numerous dubious patent infringement notices cannot afford to simply pay what each patent holder demands. If an enterprise uses a large amount of other people's intellectual property they should expect to pay high fees. Software patents introduce substantial business risk that discourages investment. This risk is avoided if companies commission professional patent searches of the publicly available databases. Software patents are likely to destroy open source and small to medium software enterprises (SMEs) that do not have a large defensive patent portfolio. If SMEs are not as inventive as large corporations then society would benefit from their removal.

---

Here information!

Translate this if important: Softwareoctrooien maken het riskant om broncode te publiceren. Of broncode nu beschikbaar gemaakt wordt onder een vrije software-licentie zoals de GPL of een andere, het draagt zeker bij aan IT-beveiliging als de broncode van software geïnspecteerd kan worden. Dat geeft iedereen met de nodige kennis en voldoende interesse de kans om te zoeken naar beveiligingsproblemen. Octrooiprofiteurs en kwaadwillende concurrenten vinden het echter veel makkelijker om octrooi-"inbreuken" op die basis te bewijzen. Als een octrooi te maken heeft met iets erg zichtbaars, zoals een voortgangsbalk of een virtueel winkelwagentje, dan kan een "schending" makkelijkidentificeerbaar zijn vanaf de buitenkant. Met octrooien die te maken hebben met interne functies (zoals geheugenbeheer), is het ofwel veel moeilijker om een octrooi-inbreuk te bewijzen zonder de broncode, ofwel het is praktisch onmogelijk.

Er bestaat enige controverse over de vraag of open source-software inherent veiliger en stabieler is dan andere software. Het is echter simpelweg een feit dat beveiliging en stabiliteit overwegingen zijn waarom open source gekozen wordt voor bepaalde toepassingen. Dat zet een enorme concurrentiedruk op Microsoft en andere fabrikanten. Als we willen dat die maandelijkse meldingen van de nieuwste veiligheidslekken in Windows,

Internet Explorer en Outlook ooit stoppen, dan moeten we een concurrerende markt garanderen.