A really big issue that a lot of people have problems with is software patents.

Question

A really big issue that a lot of people have problems with is software patents. According to Wikipedia, some of the big issues with software patents include:

Where the boundary between patentable and non-patentable software should lie
Whether the inventive step and non-obviousness requirement is applied too loosely to software
Whether patents covering software discourage, rather than encourage, innovation
One famous example of questionable software patents is Amazon's patent on 1-Click checkout which was initially granted by the USPTO in 1999, re-examined in 2007 and finally revised in 2010 due to much debate regarding its validity. The idea of simplifying a user's buying experience by reducing the number of actions required to complete a transaction seems like common sense to just about anyone, so why should patents like these be legitimate?

As a professional or a hobbyist, how do you feel about software patents? Do they crush innovation by locking down [often] common-sense ideas, or are they a necessity of success and profitability?

Explanation / Answer

No, for at least three separate reasons. First, in the U.S., software is a literary work, and is thus fully protected under copyright law. It makes no more sense to additionally protect software ideas (as opposed to expression), then it would to patent a clever plot concept.

Second, all software is equivalent to lambda calculus, and abstract ideas are not supposed to be patentable.

Finally there is serious doubt about whether software patents accomplish the Constitutional goal of "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts." An Empirical Look at Software Patents found in sharp contrast that:

"Our results are difficult to reconcile with the traditional incentive theory

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.