Replace Patents?

[DoctorMO]

Does the system of open source software replace the very notion of patents for software?

My thinking is that the point of patents is to release creative ideas into the public so that the public may benefit in exchange for a limited monopoly.

But open source already release ideas into the public, without any limits.

So from the social point of view software patents are not doing their intended job, were as open source is doing their job for them.

thoughts?

[Biochem]

Actually Patents are uniquely for the benefit of the inventor. It is there garanty that they will receive a return on there investment.
There publication has nothing to do with sharing knowledge but more on advertising others that if they do something that way they need to pay. It is more of a reverse engineering protection in other domain. Think of a biothec company that found a new drug and can sell it at a very high price. There is nothing preventing competitors from buying the pill and analyze it and then mass produce the active component. Saving billions of dollars in R&D.

On the software level though I can't see what is the benefit of protecting for seven years a piece of code with a potential lifespan of 6 months.

[Adamant1988]

The above post is correct. At the very base of it all, that patent system has it's uses. Without the protection offered by patents many drugs we have today may not have been invented at all, companies are only willing to spend millions on Research & Development when they're promised protection, and hopefully a return on the investment. This same concept is true in software, to an extent. When a company spends millions of dollars developing something new, of course they're going to want to protect that.

However, the reason this idea is flawed for software is simply that any given piece of software can violate hundreds of patents, and any one of them can shut down a project. However, the reason that patents are publicized in my opinion is for public knowledge: "This has already been created, and if you do this this way you will be subject to possible litigation". Think of it as a warning.

Personally, I think the ability to use patents on software should only be allowed when (as in medicine) a major ground breaking innovation has been created at the cost of millions of dollars from a single company. I mean, if Apple designed an AMAZING new way to interface with your computer and spent MILLIONS of dollars doing so, it's my opinion that their initial investment entitles them to protection and that the implementation should be protected, not for 7 years, but still protected for a length of time so they can see a return on their investment.

However, when a ground breaking innovation, such as the example above is produced by a group of companies in collaboration with the community at a shared cost, with minimal expenses per company, that implementation does not deserve patent protection of any kind, but it should be registered somehow to flag it as prior art in the event of someone trying to patent the implementation.

Things that don't deserve to be patented:
Small subtle changes
Re-invention of the wheel
No-investment ideas. (If there was no sizable initial investment by the person/company that is attempting to get a patent then one should not be issued. Patent length should be based upon clear documentation of the costs in creating that implementation)

Basically, my opinion is that if one company wants to spend millions on millions generating something, they deserve full rights to it for a while. You didn't help pay for the costs, why should you get it? If Joe six-pack creates a great idea tinkering in his garage in his spare time, he is not entitled to a patent or the protection it offers as there was no investment.

That's my opinion anyway...

[prince_alfie]

My opinion is that the state ought to own all patents and the net benefit to society will be increased. I find patents stifling of true innovation as people become more distracted with being greedy rather than spending time finding solutions to problems.

[Adamant1988]

My opinion is that the state ought to own all patents and the net benefit to society will be increased. I find patents stifling of true innovation as people become more distracted with being greedy rather than spending time finding solutions to problems.

Patents can lead to innovation as much as no patents. "Oh man, I can't do this.. XVaderCo has a patent on this idea, OH MAN I JUST GOT A GREAT IDEA ON HOW TO WORK AROUND THIS!" . Now this person's product is better and more innovative and has potentially made a substantial improvement over the original idea he was going to implement. I'm not saying they can't be a hindrance (they most certainly can) but they can also produce innovation.

[ixus_123]

I saw a headline on Digg saying India is in uproar over someone in America patenting yoga :/

this patent nonsese had got to be brought to it's senses - they whole point of them is to protect the little guy from the big guy - and look how large corperations have twisted it

[Kvark]

My opinion is that the state ought to own all patents and the net benefit to society will be increased. I find patents stifling of true innovation as people become more distracted with being greedy rather than spending time finding solutions to problems.
Wouldn't that make patents entirely pointless? Whats the difference between not having any patent system at all and having one where everyone can use the patents?

I think the OP does have a point. One of the initial arguments for starting to issue patents was to convince people to reveal trade secrets that they could perhaps have held secret much longer then a patent's lifetime. If you patent your secret formula or manufacturing technique you don't have to worry about spies from the competition. The competiton on the other hand can just read the patent once it expires. But it doesn't work like that, patents are written in so obscure ways reading them doesn't really help and today it isn't needed as most end products can be examined and reverse engineered in modern laboratories.

[prince_alfie]

Wouldn't that make patents entirely pointless? Whats the difference between not having any patent system at all and having one where everyone can use the patents?

I think the OP does have a point. One of the initial arguments for starting to issue patents was to convince people to reveal trade secrets that they could perhaps have held secret much longer then a patent's lifetime. If you patent your secret formula or manufacturing technique you don't have to worry about spies from the competition. The competiton on the other hand can just read the patent once it expires. But today that isn't needed as most end products can be examined and reverse engineered in modern laboratories.

Yes, but trade secrets are relatively meaningless as anyone can figure out what is going on in one of those suckers.

Except perhaps the M$ Zune. I still haven't figure out how to mount that sucker in linux yet.

[PartisanEntity]

The patent is not bad per se, apart from creating an incentive to innovate and invent it also allows the patent holder to reap some benefits from their work, this, in theory is a good thing.

The main problem with patents today is that they are being used to weaken the competition and to milk the innovation as far as profits are concerned.

IMO we need international patent standards with new criteria laying down what can or cannot be patented, varying patent periods based on the type of innovation and perhaps the enforcement of cooperation amongst patent holders and entities interested in utilising the new innovations.

So for example a limit could be placed on how long one can hold a patent for some code, or a limit could be placed on how much profit is demanded and how. Also, new criteria could be implemented based on who would like to utilise the innovation, for example non-profit projects and organisations could be exempt from compensation for utilising certain innovations.

In reality I do not see any organisation or body that would be suitable for the job, hence what I propose my forever remain theory. Who can be trusted to remain neutral while creating new patent standards? Also, who will represent patent holders and all others?

[forrestcupp]

Patents are like guns. Guns are good until you get a maniac behind one. Big corporations will use whatever means they can to advance their cause. If you take away patents, they will find another innocent venue and pervert it to advance their cause. Like someone said earlier, patents were meant to protect the little guy from the big guy.

You could strangle someone with a stethoscope if you were evil enough.

[DoctorMO]

Actually Patents are uniquely for the benefit of the inventor. It is there garanty that they will receive a return on there investment.

This just isn't true, patents are there to improve society by giving an incentive to inventors to share ideas without killing off product development. it is supposed to be a balance between the inventor and the common good. unfortunately too many people believe that patents are all about the selfish granting and protecting of ideas.

In my view if no new patents were to be allowed and all current patents allowed to continue until their end we would have much better production rates between inventors and industry. Take for example the drugs industry, in my view each government should be taking responsibility for drugs research not big business; there is no motivation to do the _right_ thing only the most ergonomically viable things, this is why so many "poor" diseases are making their way back. anyone say polio or TB?

The biggest mockery of the modern world is the pharmaceutical industry, with software trailing a second place ludicrousness because while software may make you work better and faster; drugs will save peoples lives and there is no need for the current setup apart from idealogical abusive capitalism.

[Biochem]

This just isn't true, patents are there to improve society by giving an incentive to inventors to share ideas without killing off product development. it is supposed to be a balance between the inventor and the common good. unfortunately too many people believe that patents are all about the selfish granting and protecting of ideas.

And what is that incentive? Could it be making money out of the invention. The common good ended improved by the fact that someone is willing to pay to make the prototype, test it and produce it. So ideally everybody wins.


Take for example the drugs industry, in my view each government should be taking responsibility for drugs research not big business

I sincerely whish it was possible. However drug development is to complex and dynamic for goverment to follow. Law maker like rigidity and complex form a PhD cannot understand.

Now governments all around the world cannot cope with the cost of fundamental research (think of it as GNU research) . Beside, if governments had to compensate for the money lost by cutting industry funding they would not be able to pay me to look at the nervous system and mental retardation are among those poor deceases. Also If you live in a democracy you know that since government are in power only as long as people fote for them they often go for the least common denominator. That means drug development only for AIDS, cancer and heart decease.


The biggest mockery of the modern world is the pharmaceutical industry,...,drugs will save peoples lives and there is no need for the current setup apart from idealogical abusive capitalism

I totally agree with you on that points, drugs should be available to those who cannot pay. That is why I'm a strong supporter of public health and drug insurance where people pay in accordance to there income not their health. And developing countries must be able to take care of their citizen regardless of the amount of oil they can sell to the U.S. In the long term it will be better for everyone even to the pharmaceutical companies. But unfortunately capitalism has only short term vision and cannot see the other side of their sun glasses

Beside, I suggest that you use botulism since we though that polio and tuberculosis were easy to cure with cheap antibiotics until drug resistance came along.

[DoctorMO]

The common good ended improved by the fact that someone is willing to pay to make the prototype, test it and produce it. So ideally everybody wins.

The common good is not about the availability of a product. freedom to consume is not freedom of choice; the risk in producing a product is the companies not the commons now should they accept that the only good thing for people is products to buy.

While your right that executive government would be a poor choice to manage such a drugs research scheme, government funded research laboratories are really required for delivering anything of value to our society. If there was a way to have a win-win situation with business it would be more stable but ultimately business always attempts to corrupt the system in favour of it's share holders; and in the current climate and law we can not balance them correctly.

[macogw]

Actually Patents are uniquely for the benefit of the inventor. It is there garanty that they will receive a return on there investment.
There publication has nothing to do with sharing knowledge but more on advertising others that if they do something that way they need to pay. It is more of a reverse engineering protection in other domain. Think of a biothec company that found a new drug and can sell it at a very high price. There is nothing preventing competitors from buying the pill and analyze it and then mass produce the active component. Saving billions of dollars in R&D.

On the software level though I can't see what is the benefit of protecting for seven years a piece of code with a potential lifespan of 6 months.

Uh, I thought it was 20 years, not 7.

[DoctorMO]

Uh, I thought it was 20 years, not 7.

* Utility and plant patents issued since June 8, 1995 expire 20 years from the date of application with the payment of maintenance fees.
* Utility and plant patents issued prior to June 8, 1995 expire 17 years from the date of issue with the payment of maintenance fees.
* Design patent expire 14 years from the date of issue.
* Patents are not renewable. Under special circumstances, a patent term may be extended.