BMFPitt: Abolish them, except maybe for very specific algorithms.

Algorithms cannot be patented at all. Calling them "software patents" is a misnomer. They are patents that protect a business process- a route to getting to an end result- that involve software.

My solution: compulsory licensing, like we have with music.

BostonEMT: Why not treat code as pretty much the same thing as a book or song?

Code is protected under copyright. Software patents don't protect the code, they protect the business function.

Let's say I invent an entirely new way of organizing files that replaces the existing tree-based filesystem with something both more performant and easier to use. I write a proof-of-concept version of it, to demonstrate its features. The code in my proof-of-concept is protected by copyright. But my idea of how to better organize files would be protected by patent. This means someone couldn't read my code and reimplement it.

The advantage here is that it allows me to invent something truly novel, tell people how it works (even show them the code that makes it work), but know that if I want to profit off of it, I have a limited monopoly for a duration of time.

Overall, I think there's a social benefit in the idea of software patents. However, the current administration of them by the USPTO is utterly awful. Since defending oneself against patent claims is expensive, even shiatty patents become ammunition to use against the competition. A better review process would help, but honestly, I think attached to every patent should be a fee that goes into a common fund for patent defense. "Yes, we're granting you this patent, but we're going to charge you on a sliding scale, based on a few variables, and put that money into a fund that will help people challenge patents in the courts, just in case we're wrong."

ronaprhys: F22raptom: Lower the thing to 3 years Let me sit around, do nothing, and then steal the work of others instead of actually having my own R&D.


FTFY

Now, don't get me wrong - we need reform (on a number of fronts). However, the general concept behind patents is a very useful deal. Innovators get to profit from their ideas, competitors are forced to come up with better mousetraps. If you didn't have that, there's the potential for people to just wait and copy - which would lead to less innovation. I'd say the better focus is what the patent office is looking at. Limit the applicability and vague wording of current patents such that Apple's "sue anyone who makes anything" concept won't work. Set things up to prevent patent-trolling. In today's modern age, it's even possible to look at reducing a patent's duration. Not by some huge amount, but by an amount that better reflects the speed of technological refreshes that are pertinent to that industry.

That's a great idea and I believe in it too, but the problem comes from the difficulty in defining things like "innovator" and "idea". A special fabric that's adhesive on one side when hot, repels liquids and always smells like fresh apples? An M4 speedloader you can fill with one hand that automatically points loose rounds in the right direction? A brand of corn that survives all plant killers that would render the ground unsuitable for any other form of life, can feed an entire city with one stalk but can't produce viable seeds? Those are friggin ideas. A squicky-thing the screen does when you poke your finger at it? That's a scène à faire.

I suggested in a much earlier thread, to the extent software is part of an invention the software should be disclosed in source form in the patent application and have no IP protection other than the patent. If you think you're enlightening the world by disclosing your marvelous invention, give it to us in its real form so we may be better enlightened. What is disclosed is typically more a napkin sketch than a blueprint.

Or we could disbar any lawyers who assist in applying for or enforcing software patents and the problem will solve itself in due course.