[8519] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Multimedia has been patented
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Deutsch)
Sun Nov 21 16:52:39 1993
From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 16:43:36 -0500
In-Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company"'s message as of Nov 21, 7:30
To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>,
[ Somebody wrote: ]
. . .
> I have yet to see anyone who has given a really valid reason why patenting
> of industrial articles is acceptable, but patenting of software is not.
> What does a new and improved paint have that entitles it to patent
> protection, but that a new and improved sort routine does not?
Well, here's one for you. Someone (I believe it was Glenn
Tenney) just posted a comment to the effect that with the
large numbers of programmers at work, millions of people
could simultaneously come up with the same invention. If
we ignore the obvious exaggeration and concentrate on the
spirit of this argument, we have the observation that such
"inventing" is much easier for a programmer than for a
paint chemist.
I would argue that in fact much of what passes for
invention in software draws far more heavily on
repackaging of prior art and established practice than
potential patent holders would care to admit. In fact, the
art of programming appears to be an excellent example of
the quote about "standing on the shoulders of others" to
further your own work.
I'll leave it to other to quote chapter and verse of the
prior art problems with specific patents, since I'm not
arguing against the entire system, but I think that in
general the intellectual and financial effort (and the
associated risks) are much less in creating a modified
sort routine than in creating a new type of paint, so it
would seem that in general the corresponding patent
protection required from the legal system should be less,
too.
Anything less would seem to work against the stated goal
of the patent system, at least as expressed in the U.S.
constitution, which is the only such system to which I
have even a passing exposure. From memory, I seem to
recall that the constitution says something to the effect
that a patent system is be established to promote
enterprise and further the common good (and no, I didn't
check an online version of the U.S. constitution to get
the exact wording, so please cut me some slack here... :^)
Actually, I want to make clear that I'm not against the
entire concept of software patents, but I _am_ somewhat
leery of the initial set of claims on some of the early
software patents I've seen issued. At least some
fine-tuning of the system does appear to be in order and
reflecting the degree of risk and effort in the amount of
protection offered might not be a bad place to start.
- peterd
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Internet destroys the Greek tragedy of time and space..."
- Daniel Pimienta <pimienta!daniel@redid.org.do>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
