Toolkit

Story: Software patent protest to block Web sites

• 
• 

Patents are a difficult and dangerous practice in the information age. We deal with software, software methods and information management. These are direct conceptualisations of ideas - the result of thinking. Unlike patents involving traditional tangible items, there is a fuzziness, an indistinction between the idea and the implementation. And since anyone with the basic capacity for thought can develop software concepts, it is always possible to have parallel and independent development. Given the same starting conditions of environment and stage of technical development, there is a high degree of likelihood that there will be similar yet independent innovations.

Liebniz and Newton both conceived of calculus and developed notations for calculus. Had patents existed for this we might well be using the cumbersome Newtonian notations. I point this out because the languages of the courts, for all the attempts to shape and contain the scope of a patent definition, allows for interpretation. The question of whether the method of calculus or the method for representing calculus is patentable may be an issue in the modern courts.

It would be preferable for software patents to be restricted to implementations - more tangible and operational facets of software. The analogy would be that Newton and Liebniz could patent their notations but not the concept of calculus. However, even this brings problems. Cases revolving around the patenting of the hyperlink, the one-click purchasing method and the process of e-Commerce are modern day examples of restrictive practices on ideas and implementations and the fuzzy boundary between the two.

Beyond that, the impact on society as a whole has to be considered. The basis for modern science is that there is a collective knowledge that is shared and developed and built upon. Through patent legislature that may be applied to ideas and concepts, we can diminish the richness and diversity for approaches to solutions. We impact the universities and intellectual capacity for nations. By assigning purely monetary values to ideas, we create an economic trade in ideas.

Beyond the social and intellectual ramifications, there are economic concerns. There is the cost to defend a patent, the cost of insurance for patent infringement and the cost for developing an alternative, should one exist. These costs will ultimately be borne by the user.

The ramifications of the legislation has a complexity and unpredictability that worries me. Can the legislators see further than me?

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread