Ask Slashdot: Reducing Software Patent Life-Spans? 274
seattle_coder writes "Many have advocated for the elimination of software patents. The arguments generally are that software patents are handed out too easily, and that they're too difficult and expensive to fight. Some say that patents just plain don't make sense for software, which is such a dynamic technology. Given that the standard patent lifetime is 20 years, and software changes so rapidly, is the life-span the problem for software patents? Would reducing the software patent lifetime to 5 years or even less be the thing to do?"
This doesn't solve the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
No, because the process to get a patent can easily stretch five years. Also that doesn't solve some of the other fundamental problems with software patents, such as software being math.
Better to eliminate them altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
We shouldn't be able to patent software for the same reason we can't patent mathematics. Copyright protection is sufficient and suitable for software.
a word of advice... (Score:5, Insightful)
the one that's holding all the cards isn't going to ask for a new hand. the broken patent system serves the interests of large corporations, and they'll fight tooth and nail against any changes that is against their interest. in summary - dream on.
NO PATENTS (Score:2, Insightful)
No patents for software, period. Copyright protection is the only proper protection for software. I cannot compromise on that position. And, yes, copyright protections should be limited for software, as well. There is really almost nothing in the world today more than 15 years old which NEEDS protecting! It's so obsolete that no one wants to use it. It should be publicly available, and in the public domain, for student's use, more than anything.
They'll just patent it again (Score:0, Insightful)
I doubt that reducing the patent duration will help. Once the patent expires, they'll just patent it again, since it's clear that the patent office isn't applying a high bar for prior art.
That's what I've been saying! (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, obviously, companies are going to start filing their software under non-software patents. But it's far easier to argue "this patent was misfiled, it should be a software patent (and thus expired two years ago)" than it is to argue "this patent is completely invalid and should never have been allowed". Remember, the people deciding these cases are bureaucrats - misfiled forms are something they can handle; the system being wrong is something they can't.
While we're at it, cut copyright in general to ten years, with a single ten-year extension if it has been in constant commercial production. That brings them in line with patents, and provides an incentive for companies to actually use their copyrights (instead of sticking them in a vault like Disney). A twenty-year copyright would put all kinds of things into the public domain: season 2 of "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air", Final Fantasy IV, Terminator 2, Metallica's Black Album, and the novel "The Sum of All Fears" - and that's just things that would enter the public domain this year.
The issue isn't patent length... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue is that patenting has moved from protecting the method of solving a problem into solving a particular problem.
For instance, I cannot patent mowing a lawn. I can patent a lawn mowing machine, even one that exactly copies the pattern created by another lawn mower that also runs on gas and uses a rotary blade to do it. As long as my lawn mowing machine is different enough to merit the patent, I think it's fair so someone doesn't come along and copy my machine.
Now people are patenting ideas. So when Amazon patents "one click shopping" and I write open source software with different libraries to complete the same task, they claim patent infringement, which is nonsense. They should be able to patent a particular method, which is really just their code, not an end result. Even then it's redundant, as it's already protected by copyright.
Large corporations do not want patent law sane, because it's their multi-million dollar playground, and they can crush innovation and startups by simply filing a few law suits. The first nation with decent infrastructure to fix their system or abandon it will lead the way into the 21st century.
tl;dr: The ability to patent end results instead of particular methods is why the current patent system is a failure.
Re:Better to eliminate them altogether (Score:5, Insightful)
"A patent on software coupled with a specific underlying machine is about as far as patents should be allowed to go, and only because of the modern reality of industrial processes and control equipment."
That argument was shot down over 100 years ago, in court cases regarding to player piano rolls that controlled machines... the pianos.
The courts ruled (quite properly) that the "software" -- the rolls that controlled the pianos -- were simply expressions of written music, and therefore the appropriate law for protecting them was copyright law, not patent law. They reasoned that a written work is a written work, no matter what physical form it may take, and regardless of whether it controlled a machine... a piece of punched paper telling a machine what to play did not fundamentally differ from a printed piece of paper telling a human musician what to play. It was exactly the same music, only the physical form had changed.
Recent years have brought nothing new to the table. There is no real difference between a piece of software (which is ultimately written by human beings) telling a computer what to do, than an English translation of the software telling a bunch of people with pencils and paper what to do. The only real difference is speed... nothing fundamental has changed at all.
Re:Better to eliminate them altogether (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Forget Patents, what about copyrights?! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it would take more than that. In fact, I'd say that the number one reform we need is to stop automatically granting copyrights; we need to require registrations and impose some strict formalities. A system of short overall terms comprised of even shorter initial and renewal terms would probably be number two, and a broad exception for non-commercial infringement by natural persons would probably be number three.
Congratulations, you're just killed 90% of open source software. And 90% of works created by individual artists and 90% of works put online by individuals.
Those are all entities who cannot afford to copyright all their works. It's simply not economically feasible especially if they create many small works. Nonetheless they benefit from having copyright protection as it prevents excessive outright copying.
Large corporations, who are the real source of problems, would simply pay the to them trivial fees for copyright and get on with their day. Trolls would probably also copyright the works of others, who didn't have the money to do it themselves, and then sue those who use them. That would be a fun lawsuit to see.