What was your experience protecting your work with a software patent?

[oldmancoyote]

I've literally spent years (2-3 hours a day, often 7 days a week) developing a program. Much of this time was spent reevaluating my approach and applying new insights as my experience with the concept evolved. It was far more than just coding. I feel I have something creative, unique, useful and unfortunately very easy to copy once someone understands my insights. A software patent appears to be the only way I can benefit from my work. What insights can you offer?

[chrisbennet]

A few downsides to patenting software:

1) A patent requires you to describe how your thing works. Ow anyone can copy your idea.

2) Short of reverse engineering someone's executable, how do you know if they are infringing?

3) So you do your patent research and find out someone has a (stupid) patent that your idea infringes on. If you go forward and someone sues you for infringement you are now responsible for triple damages because you knowingly infringed. And believe me, there are lots of incredibly stupid software patents out there that should never have been granted. Just today there was something on HN about IBM getting a patent for the "out of office" email idea.

[geophile]

It's a waste of time and money, for a few reasons.

1. Suppose you get your patent. You won't enforce against an infringer unless at least one of you is making a lot of money from it. You'll already be beating the odds if you get that far -- nice problem to have.

2. It's software. It's one solution to a problem, among many. If someone is infringing and needs to work do something else, other solutions are out there. Obviously I don't know what problem you are solving, or whether your solution is the only practical one, but usually there are workarounds.

3. A patent is no guarantee that you will benefit from your work financially. You will also need to build a business around your software, which will probably dwarf the effort you've put in to date. And if someone else does that work, infringing your patent, you are unlikely to make money licensing your work (see #2). You will probably have to sue (assuming they don't voluntarily pay you), which is more time and money.

I can think of two reasons for getting a software patent. 1) You are trying to get VC funding. VCs love patents. 2) You work for a big company and they collect patents. That's obviously not you.

Also: assuming you work for some company now, check your employee agreement. They may actually have rights to your IP.

[oldmancoyote → geophile]

Thanks. Lots of what you say is right on. In my case I'd never succeed defending a patent. That's why my goal is to establish a little traction, then look for a buy-out, someone with the money and business needs to defend the patent.

[sterner]

I do not think that you should view patents as the only way that you can benefit from your work, because the likelihood is that many people will benefit from your work. If this is true, you are most likely to be watching people benefit from your work, unable to enforce due to financial constraints. That said, in a consolidating market, acquirers are highly likely to value said patents. So, to think that patents are not an asset is false. To think that you will gain competitive advantages in a land grab is also false. I do think that patents, when your product does take as much advantage of your IP as possible, are a net benefit, but they will cost you dearly to get and simply maintain.

[bastianbest]

If you believe it will be a huge commercial success, you should go for patents IMHO. Here's some info on software patents: http://www.europeansoftwarepatents.com