Talk:Software patent debate

message: One of the criticisms raised against software patents (and patents in general), is that it is extremely expensive to have a qualified patent attorney read through all potentially relevant patents and determine if a particular piece of software infringes any of them.  The use of keyword searches helps, but since inventors can be their own lexicographers, there may be critical patents missed.
Is there anyone working on automated means for determining if a given piece of software infringes a patent?  Any open source efforts?  If so, I think at least a mention of these efforts would be an excellent addition to this and other patent articles.--Nowa 10:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how'd you write such software in a software patented world? --(ip) 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is still possible. This article is not about whether writing software by everyone is desirable. You can write software after you cleared the rights. Podmok 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Impossible to read so many patents

message: I removed this comment:
: NOT ALL SOFTWARE IS PATENTABLE: only software which embodies a new, useful, non-obvious invention is patentable. Lumping all software together for a discussion of patents is similar to racism: because software is computer code it "all looks the same." Under law, an invention is only patentable when it is non-obvious or lacks an inventive step. If an invention exists but it is an obvious improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art, it can still be protected as a trade secret. If no software is patentable (and thus the idea will not become public), it may stifle innovation more than buying a license under a patent. - User talk:68.77.170.34
as it is more commentary than encyclopedic writing. --Trödel 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon comment 

message: The following speculation was introduced to the article by an anonymous user:
contesting all the patents purporting to apply to a single piece of software could take thousands of man-hours
I removed the speculation and others since it was unreferenced.  None the less, can anyone cite a reference that provides data on what a patent clearance opinion typically costs for a significant piece of software?--Nowa 12:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time and effort to get a patent clearance opinion on a new piece of software

message: thumb|400 px| First software patent?  The article makes the assertion that software is merely an mathematical algorithm.  Does that make this 1840 patent the first "software" patent? ?--Nowa 13:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does mathematics or algorithms qualify as software? Note that e.g. the EPC excludes software and algorithms, it is not the same.Podmok 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Software patent?

message: The article states that one of the arguments against patentability of software is "The U.S. patent system has caused serious harm to small companies in the U.S.".  I put a "citation needed" on this because I wasn't sure that this was actually an argument put forward by opponents to software patents.  I wasn't questioning whether or not the assertion was true, just whether or not it was part of the debate.--Nowa 11:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is part of the debate, but the immediate comeback is that patents have also benefited small companies and individuals who would have been unable to compete against the big boys if said big boys had been able to rip-off the small company's innovative ideas. Where a fact tag would always belong would be on some assertion that the overall harm was greater than or more relevant than the overall benefit. Many people have opinions on such things, but nobody knows for certain. GDallimore (Talk) 11:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Small companies are often said to be more innovative, but they have less resources to exploit inventions, so they may sell their patent to a larger company (and benefit from the transaction). Admittely, this requires a court system that does not prohibit such transactions due to cost. Rbakels (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

text:  please cite your source. The point is that the application of the patent system to a certain field must be justified by an economic rationale, not the non-application of the patent system. The reason is that the natural state is the free market. Here the patent system by its virtues restricts the free market in order to solve a problem, i.e. market failure. You reverse the burden of proof Podmok 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there are references available than can reflect the true nature of the failing of the patent system to protect small business, but i would suggest it is more universal that simply pondering its affects on us business. The use of business method patents which is the patenting of a process that could mean the invention of pretty much anything described in two sentances of less is an example. Real life examples could be the international banking systems. Mtukaki 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not software specific, in general the patent system discriminates small companies, economies of scale are the main reason and prohibitive fees. I think it does not really belong to the debate. Podmok 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: References are easy to find here; look for any news article on Vonage. 24.59.104.253 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patents cause serious harm to small companies

message: I added a .
The arguments FOR software patents are immediately followed by rebuttals.
The arguments AGAINST software patents are immediately followed by explanations and elaborations.
Either rebutt in both sections, or elaborate in both sections.
I prefer the elaboration route myself, as rebuttals after each line make wikipedia look like a debaters club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcudmore (talk • contribs) 
OK, we need a decision on this page.  Currently it's not tolerable.  Do we put rebuttals underneath arguments or not?  If we do, it should be done more systematically; if we don't, there's a lot to delete.
24.59.104.253 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the NPOV to the sections - plese to not NPOV whole article next time!--Kozuch (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The companion article to this one, listing important software patents, has just been nominated for featured list status. Please take a look, see how that article might be improved and leave comments. Let's prove that there can be at least one uncontroversial article on this topic! Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of software patents]] 

message: It is not NPOV to quote the pro arguments first as it is a common media scheme to refer to the stronger party first (see news articles), that is why the article is biased. I would prefer a table, which also makes it look better. Podmok 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV  

message: "Organizations should be able to protect their intellectual property" is a non-argument. It assumes that intellectual property exist a priori. It is illogical. There is no patent without a patent system. Podmok 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement may be confusing, but it is not wrong, if it is read as "if they have intellectual property, they should be able to protect it". This statement merely presumes that there may be "intellectual property", by whatever standard. But if it exists, it is not illogical to assume that it ought to be protected, if only because it may represent value. Rbakels (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tautology 

message: This page is largely twisted in its view point on software patents.  Clearly, for instance every positive argument should not be softened with a negative statement with every negative statement left to stand on its own.  The page should not be introduced with an article that attacks patentability and is presented as a fair and neutral analysis.  Statements in the negative side are largely obvious exaggerations and unsupported, such as "The U.S. patent system has caused serious harm to small companies in the U.S," (have they, or maybe they have, this statement should be softened) "without producing any real value" (what is value, maybe products would be more neutral), "it is not possible to avoid patented technology, because no mechanism for avoiding patent-related risk exists" (licensing and insurance are obvious mechanisms not mentioned),  "his is in large part due to the enormous number of micro-niches in the software field and the relatively limited number of examiners" (really?  no, its due to the amount of patents being filed and the lack of funding in the USPTO right now), "Many leaders in the software industry" (really, who?  many?  how about some?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.40.175 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding neturality to this discussion 

message: This article seems to have swung the other way, and is now in favor of software patents. Most pro-software-patent entries have reinforcement, while all the anti-software-patent entries have snide rebuttals. This article needs to be heavily reworked. I say remove the rebuttals from all viewpoints; let the opposite view stand on its own in the other section. Only supporting details should be listed below each entry.
Cjstone618 (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some might say that having rebuttals for the anti-sp entries says something about the points being made, not the neutrality of the article. Of course this article's a mess. Nobody disputes that, but wholesale removal of content is not going to solve the problem. The content that is there needs sourcing. Only if it cannot be sourced should it be removed. Then the structure can be revisited. You wanna take on that job 'cause nobody else seems to have the time or inclination. GDallimore (Talk) 08:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Removing:
:     Some[who?] say that the cost of obtaining patents and defending against competitors’ patents requires that significant funds be diverted away from research and development. They[who?] state that this is in part an attempt to obtain patents for relatively small incremental improvements in software. Thus this type of patent strategy might require hundreds of patents being obtained and monitored. A prior issued patent could prevent a new product from being made used or sold in the marketplace. However, such minor patents are unlikely to be issued by the United States Patent Office.
First, it just restates, in a very wordy way, the topic of the section. Second, the part about small incremental improvements is unrelated to the rest, and is a criticism of patents in general, not just software patents; if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the "Trivial patents" section. Third, the last sentence contradicts the importance of the statement being made. Emotion chip disabled (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant, wordy bullet in Cost and loss of R&D funds 

message: ...is really annoying. If you're going to have a heading which announces list of particular arguments follows, I expect the list of arguments that follow to conform to that heading. I thought for a minute that perhaps double-tabbing meant it was opposite time but that formula is not held consistently either. Just segregate the damn arguments right, or else integrate them and put little "check" and "x" icons by them or something. But don't do it halfass. 75.5.101.19 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: counter-arguments in lists of arguments

message: This article contains a section entitled Ideas are not patentable, but this is not what the section appears to be about. The section seems to be about which ideas are patentable and which are not. Perhaps we could rename the section Certain ideas are not patentable? -- Schapel (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas are not patentable 

message: I removed the first bullet pointed argument under this section because it was worded in such a way that it  assumed  the consequent of the entire debate over software patents- the economic consequences of  software patents. Specifically it read:
Patenting software inventions promotes investment in research and development.[3]
This is a conclusion,  not a supporting argument. 
Furthermore, the cited reference is problematic. The cited reference, which appears on the WIPO site, is  a brief,  authorless, reference free, bullet pointed list. Authorless materials have a high bar to meet if they are to avoid failing the reliable sources test. A bullet point list, which merely states conclusions without argument or evidence, does not clear  that bar. It certainly  cannot be used as the  basis for concluding the heart of the matter that this Wikipedia page concerns itself with. 
The original author needs to reword the statement so as not to assume the consequent and gather some  credible references, preferably from established peer reviewed journals which support his statement. See Wikipedia policy on indentifying reliable sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydee000 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Research And Development

message: Cited this section for Citation Needed since the page it links to is offline and when online was a page at an Office Depot website. Even if that page were still online, Office Depot is not acceptable as a credible reference for a statement of this kind:
"Patent lawsuits ....allow innovative small companies to build a market of their own or at least receive fair compensation for their investment unless they are presenting ".
Which again makes extremely broad and sweeping generalizations which are not themselves specific to software patents while citing decidedly unserious, non-referenced, anonymous  sources. Entires have to make some attempt at meeting authoritative, encyclopedia-level sources and to be specifically about the subject of this article - software patents.  
It does not serve the interest of the reader to import the broad  arguments for patenting generally when this article is about the controversy of one specific area of patenting, software patents. This article can't take up the debate  about patents generally without losing its focus and stated purpose which is to cover the software patent debate.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydee000 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic Benefit

message: One entry under this heading read:
"Patents must disclose how to make and use an invention ..patents are only valid if the inventions they disclose were not known by the public prior to the filing of the patent application, or if the inventions were not obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed. 
This is the formal law, and a rule that if violated could lead to invalidation of a patent, so it is followed strictly by patent lawyers."
The final clause of which constitutes original research since it is not supported by the footnote. What's happened here is two different assertions, one a statement of  fact, the other an opinion, have been placed together within the same sentence and given a single supporting reference. The supporting reference does not support both assertions; it only supports the first "This is the formal law, and a rule that if violated could lead to invalidation of a patent". 
The second  assertion is a statement about what does happen in the real world. Specifically, it assumes without proof that non-obviousness is always met just because non-obviousness is a requirement. But this point is what is debated- the other side claims software patents are in fact given for obvious elaborations of common software practice and therefore the patent office is failing to follow its own guidelines. 
If the second clause is to be asserted as is, then a reference pointing to some  meta-research or study of software patents specifically, which shows that non-obviousness is always met by such patents has to be presented as a supporting reference. Absent that study, this clause constitutes original research, without the research. In other words, it's just an unsupported statement about what does happen in the real world  without offering any proof that the real world so conforms. 
For this reason, the second clause has been removed.  
Jaydee000 (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence is left over from the time the article was just a list of arguments and counter arguments rather than being split into two as it currently is. There was an argument that software patents do not provide enough information for software engineers to write a program and this was the counter argument: if they don't, then it is not a valid patent. The public disclosure section doesn't make much sense in isolation and needs to be read together with Software_patent_debate#Lack_of_patent_application_disclosure. My view is that both of these section are pretty silly additions to this debate (raised by people who know little about patents or software or both) and could probably be deleted in their entirety, but I wasn't willing to be that bold myself. GDallimore (Talk) 01:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Disclosure 

message: This sentence: "Patents encourage competitors to research and develop new and improved inventions, as a means of avoiding the licensing fees and restrictions requirements that prior patent holders can impose" flagged as citation-needed by GDallimore:
I suggest that this is so obvious that it needs no citation. Of course, an entity that doesn't want to be subject to licensing or frees, is encouraged to find a newer way that doesn't rely on the patent. That point is even eluded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Cost_and_loss_of_R.26D_fundsRaymondjo (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so far from being obvious that it needs more than a citation. It needs a reference to a proper study. Indeed, there are several respectable economists who argue that the exact opposite is true: patents discourage competition and hampers innovation. There are several good arguments for that but the most convincing is perhaps to look at historical data: the introduction of patents in an economy has never been followed by an increase of innovation within that economy. See for example the book Against intellectual monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.71.144 (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic benefit: encourage competitors 

message: The line The basic principles of patent law were developed before computers were invented and have served the US for centuries should be re-written. Why is this written in such a blatantly US-centric way? Patents have been around for over 2500 years. What does a sentence about patents in one relatively new country contribute to the article? 101.169.101.17 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotes development 

message: The article references a great statistic from an economist article ... but the economist is quoting another article. I think we should be citing the original "study" instead of an article quoting the study
I can't find that study anywhere though! any ideas how to find it?
Below is the passage I'm talking about:
"For the U.S. the economic benefit is dubious. A study in 2008 found that American public companies’ total profits from patents (excluding pharmaceuticals) in 1999 were about $4 billion, but that the associated litigation costs were $14 billion"
15 "Patent medicine - Why America’s patent system needs to be reformed, and how to do it". Economist. Retrieved 2011-09-26.
Lansey (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need actual source 

message: In the section of arguments against software patents, under the Copyright heading, a sentence begins with "Patent protection shall confine exceptions..." Does anyone understand it? Can someone rewrite it so that it is comprehensible?Michael9422 (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible argument under 'Copyright' 

message: This morning (European time) I added a section on "strategic patenting" - but it disappeared. Did I make a mistake or was it removed? If someone removed it, please tell me why. Rbakels (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the edit history. Inadequate referencing. Which is true of most of this article, but that doesn't mean it's OK to add more inadequately referenced stuff. Also being written like an opinion piece in a journal article doesn't help. GDallimore (Talk) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic patenting 

message: "Patents can be invalidated if they lack sufficient detail." Why is this an argument in support of software patents? Is there any evidence that this promotes the progress of science or useful arts? J. Finkelstein (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear arguments in support of software patents 

message: This article is 90% about why software patents are bad.  The title should be "Arguments against software patents (and those few lame arguments in favor)" Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is meant to be funny, right? 

message: === Papers ===
*"Intellectual Property, Computer Software and the Open Source Movement", United States Congressional Research Service, March 11, 2004
*"Patent Reform: Issues in the Biomedical and Software Industries", United States Congressional Research Service, December 14, 2007
*Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, by James Bessen and Eric Maskin, Discussion paper, MIT (2000)
*Software Patents – Boon or Bane for Europe? by Andreas Grosche, International Journal of Law and Information Technology 2006
===Articles===
* Musker, David. "The Great Free Beer Debate" Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2007, Vol. 2, No. 12, p799
* Graham, Paul.  Are Software Patents Evil?, March 2006
=== Other sites ===
*Software Patent Index - History and current practice of the USPTO to granting software patents.
*Software patents under the European Patent Convention explains European Patent Office practice when examining patent applications involving software.
*Examination Guidelines for Software patents in Japan, Japanese Patent Office
ツStacey (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links content to be put into article prose? 

message: *Software Patent Index - History and current practice of the USPTO to granting software patents.
*Software patents under the European Patent Convention explains European Patent Office practice when examining patent applications involving software.
*Examination Guidelines for Software patents in Japan, Japanese Patent Office
ツStacey (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sites 

message: One of the problems in presenting a NPOV is that the debate on software patents is not yet crystallized. That is not  reason not to mention it in WikiPedia - an encyclopedia should answer questions users may have - and in this case, users should know that it is still controversial.
In my opinion, one of the problems on the software patent debate is that they are treated as a homogeneous category. My observation is that swpats are very different. Some are just as good as hardware patents, others violate basic rules, but the other patents do so as well. so the focus ougght to be on bad patents in general. Here the problem is that courts play word games with precedents because they don't have a clue about the actual merits or disadvantages of patents, and economists are not of much help either. Rbakels (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the problems...