Tweet
There has been a lot of debate about the issue of software patents , and I would like to examine patents for software in a little more detail in this thread .
In my opinion , patents should be granted for implementation of a concept , and not the concept itself . For example , Amazon's implementation of one-click-shopping should be patentable , but not the idea of one-click-shopping . I should be able to develop another implementation without infringing the patent . ( The format of the page that Amazon uses falls under copyright , which is another discussion altogether . )
Another thing is that discoveries should not be patentable , only their implementations . For example , an algorithm derived from a new mathematical concept for , say , addition , should be patentable , but not the mathematical concept on which it is based . To attempt to collect royalties on patents for discoveries is to attempt to force people to alienate themselves from observed reality and to remain in denial of observed fact if they choose not to pay you - a clearly unacceptable choice .
Another important part is that implementations which are observations in themselves should not be patentable ( for example , MS' attempt to patent the if(not) operator ) .
Another thing is that you must have a working prototype before being granted a patent . I cannot claim a method to read thoughts for input and patent it , thus forcing the first person to actually develop it to pay me royalties .
The current patent model allowing anything and everything under the sun is wrong , as it does not effectively protect intellectual property , and it stifles innovation .
Thoughts ?
In my opinion , patents should be granted for implementation of a concept , and not the concept itself . For example , Amazon's implementation of one-click-shopping should be patentable , but not the idea of one-click-shopping . I should be able to develop another implementation without infringing the patent . ( The format of the page that Amazon uses falls under copyright , which is another discussion altogether . )
Another thing is that discoveries should not be patentable , only their implementations . For example , an algorithm derived from a new mathematical concept for , say , addition , should be patentable , but not the mathematical concept on which it is based . To attempt to collect royalties on patents for discoveries is to attempt to force people to alienate themselves from observed reality and to remain in denial of observed fact if they choose not to pay you - a clearly unacceptable choice .
Another important part is that implementations which are observations in themselves should not be patentable ( for example , MS' attempt to patent the if(not) operator ) .
Another thing is that you must have a working prototype before being granted a patent . I cannot claim a method to read thoughts for input and patent it , thus forcing the first person to actually develop it to pay me royalties .
The current patent model allowing anything and everything under the sun is wrong , as it does not effectively protect intellectual property , and it stifles innovation .
Thoughts ?
Comment