
Patents on Software: A Nobel Laureate’s View - ckuehne
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/patents-on-software-a-nobel-laureates-view.html?_r=2&
======
jandrewrogers
The argument made is not unique to software or computer algorithms. Chemical
process patents are identical to computer algorithm patents in this respect,
just replace bits with molecules, and are among the oldest patentable subject
matters. Long, complex sequential algorithms are a feature of many engineering
disciplines.

Chemical engineering, to use that example, designs elaborate and complex
dynamic systems by chaining together abstract chemical algorithms. Each one of
those little algorithms is subject to both patent and copyright. Like with
software most of the commonly used algorithms and clever hacks were either
never patented or the patents have long expired. It is only on the bleeding
edge that some chemical algorithms are under patent; as with computer
algorithms there are an unbounded number of potential algorithms but some are
more efficient than others. Specific implementations are still covered by
copyright and are widely licensed (as libraries).

Most of the nominal specialness attributed to software as a domain for
intellectual property does not really exist. Yet the rarely questioned
assertion that computer software is special in some way has created a dearth
of comparative studies that would likely be valuable from both a theoretical
standpoint as well as a practical policy standpoint. Either these other areas,
like chemical processes, are equally broken at a fundamental level and the
scope should be extended beyond software, or there are differences in
implementation across otherwise equivalent domains and we should borrowing
from the better implementation. It seems like an oversight that no one is
attempting to do either.

~~~
sologoub
One thing that seems to be missing from the interpretation of the article is
whether or not the temporary monopoly granted by patents is necessary in
software patents. When answering this question, one should definitely look at
the speed of both innovation and obsolescence, combined with strength of
competition.

There have been a large number of good papers published all coming to this one
conclusion - speed to market in current software markets is the ultimate
strategic advantage and source of reward. Most other things can be copied
quickly enough, but the landscape is evolving fast enough that innovators can
constantly one-up the competition, reaping greatest rewards.

By contrast, in capital-intensive, slower industries, these "guard rails" make
a lot of sense - if it takes me years to make a breakthrough on the drug, but
means of copying it a re super straightforward because I am required to
publish the recipe for all to see, it makes sense to restrict the use of the
recipe.

I don't see anyone publishing Google search algorithms for all to see. In fact
there is an entire industry that focuses on guessing what it is - SEO.

To me personally, it boils down to this - if we make it super easy for
competitors to ride your coat-tails by forcing you to disclose your secrete
sauce, then it's fair to try and give you some protection. If we leave you to
compete without that interference, than we should not extend the extra
protection... (this is just strictly a personal view, grounded more in my
ethical views than anything else).

~~~
montecarl
Its a fun exercise to try to imagine what the medical/drug industry would look
like sans patents. If it was infeasible for a corporation to spend many years
and (m|b)illions of dollars to develop a drug because as soon as you did a
competitor would copy it, would we still have drugs? If we did who would make
them?

In the future advances in science and computer modeling should make drug
development much more rapid than it is today. This could vastly lower the cost
to bring drugs to market and put drug development easily within the grasp of a
large non-profit organization.

Imagine that instead granting a private company the exclusive right to sell a
drug, that instead everyone invested in its development and upon its discovery
its formula was shared freely. For most drugs, the synthesis is not a major
component of the cost. This would lead to rapid deployment of the drug at very
low cost to those who need it.

If there was no copyright law, you can be sure there would still be drugs! And
perhaps health insurance companies would be interested in drug development.
Fewer sick people and cheaper medicine should lead to greater profits.

------
PaulHoule
Note there's a flip side to this -- the timescale of software patents is
completely wrong from the viewpoint of a company that wants to use patents
honestly.

I was looking at a face recognition patent that was filed by the US by a
Japanese company in 1998 that was finally issued in 2006. Eight years is a
very long time in the fast moving software industry -- even if you get lucky
and your patent granted in two years, it's quite possible that your invention
is obsolete by the time you get your patent.

Given that software is so fast paced, most organizations that expect to be
"practicing entities" find the patent application to be a distraction from the
task of getting a competitive product in the marketplace. This is a very
different situation from other fields where you really can get a patent for a
mechanical or electronic thing and then have the patent as a tool for
negotiation w/ manufacturers.

~~~
danielweber
Yes. We probably need a brand new category for software; something that grants
protection faster, expires sooner, makes it easy to other people to implement
after expiration, and has independent invention as a positive defense.

~~~
angersock
Or, you know, we could just get rid of software patents entirely. Less
paperwork for all, and we can get back to shipping code without worrying.

~~~
spartango
If only it were that simple: one of the first, pragmatic challenges to this
process would be to define a software patent. Remember that algorithms are not
supposed to be patentable, so most of these "software" patents actually
include elements of hardware, however broad.

------
ecolak
The whole "protecting intellectual property" thing could work if it was
possible to issue patents in an unbiased and consistent way but patent
examiners are human beings and they do some research on the issue, read the
arguments from the patent lawyers and come to a (usually biased) decision. You
even see cases where a patent is rejected 9 times and get accepted the 10th
time. It is extremely difficult to come up with an unbiased, consistent and
all-knowing (past work) way to issue patents, I'm not even sure if it's
possible at all. And that's another reason why there should be no patents
issued at least in the software industry.

------
hermanhermitage
Doesn't the problem with imaginary things like gods, beliefs or intellectual
property begin when someone tries to claim they are real and you must obey
them?

