Companies or people who write
software have two options to protect their work. The first is copyright. Immediately upon publication, their work
becomes copyrighted. This copyright can
be bolstered by immediately registering a copyright with the U.S. Copyright
Office. This allows the copyright owner
to sue for damages (which they can do without registering their copyright), and
also guarantees that if they win the case they can sue for legal fees and
statutory damages (without having to prove specific damages).
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/software/
Alternatively, developers can patent their
software. This allows software
developers to describe a feature, generally in terms that are as vague as
possible, and grants them sole ownership over the rights of its usage for 20
years. This allows companies like Amazon
to patent things as simple as “1-click” software. Companies have patented programs much more
ridiculously simplistic than Amazon’s 1-click software. One company tried to patent software running
bingo on a computer; another tried to patent the concept of planning meals on a
computer to follow a diet. These are
just a couple of a long list of patents that take an old idea and do it on a
computer. Luckily, a Supreme Court
decision this year, and subsequent Federal Court rulings have invalidated this
style of “do it on a computer” patent.
(For more examples of struck-down computer patents and for
my source, visit here: http://www.vox.com/2014/9/12/6138483/software-patents-are-crumbling-thanks-to-the-supreme-court
).
Tim Lee, a senior writer at vox.com
and former Washington Post writer, wants to do away with software patents ( http://timothyblee.com/2009/08/31/software-patents-from-the-bottom-up/
), because they’re too broad, unenforceable, and don’t make sense. To avoid
infringement, someone would need to hire a lawyer to ensure that every line of
code and every process is not infringing upon someone’s patent. This is obviously impractical, and so
software writers will often unknowingly infringe upon patents. Luckily, most of these situations go unenforced,
because the patent owners will only go for the big fish. However, it’s a bad law if everyone breaks it,
yet only a small fraction gets punished for it.
Software patents just don’t make a lot of sense when compared to other
patents. Patents make sense in the
pharmaceutical industry, where there is a discrete product that takes a lot of
time and money to develop. The only way
for companies to innovate is if they can make money off it. On the other hand, software development
produces a vague product that costs much less money to make. They can still recoup their profits simply by
copyrighting it and either licensing it to others (like Microsoft Office) or
just using it improve their website or other interfaces.
Personally, I’m in favor of getting
rid of most or all software patents because most do not constitute “an original
idea”. The concept of an original idea
is very hard to define, however, design patents (which software patents fall
under), must be “original”. The US
Patent and Trademark Office doesn’t attempt to define it, instead they only say
what isn’t original, stating that “Clearly
a design that simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is
not original as required by the statute“.
Personally, I’m in favor of the patent office and judges following ex-Supreme
Court Justice Stewart’s philosophy of “I’ll know it when I see it”. I think this would be beneficial because it
would save on frivolous patents and frivolous patent lawsuits, because many companies
wouldn’t want to waste money on a patent or on legal fees unless they knew
their software was actually novel.
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/designapp.jsp
One example of “original” that disgusts
me is Amazon’s 1-click patent.
Personally, I believe this does not constitute an invention. People have used one click of the mouse to do
a wide variety of things. Using just one
click to buy and pay for something online is not an original idea. To me, it would
be the equivalent of Facebook patenting a technology that logged you in with
one click. Another example of a software
patent that I don’t believe to be particularly novel or inventive is Namco’s
patent on mini-games during the load screen.
Developers have long thought of ways to entertain people during the load
screen with tips, humorous jokes, or cut scenes. Expanding it to a mini-game would have been a
logical conclusion of this idea that was enabled by developments in computing
power that made it possible.
Software patents are harmful to the
industry, because many developers unknowingly infringe upon them, and the only
way to ensure compliance is by spending large amounts of money on a legal
team. Software patents take obvious or
well-known concepts and turn them into software; this is not original. However, software does take time, and the
actual coding process requires creativity.
That is why I believe most software should just be copyrighted, so that
people can’t steal it, and the company can be rewarded for any innovation. However, they should not be able to patent most
ideas involving software. Thus, I
believe the number of software patents should be dramatically reduced.
No comments:
Post a Comment