Talk:Software patent debate/Archive 1

message: I am performing a violent clean up of this rambling page.  My goal has been
* To focus the page on the debate itself.  Information on patents in general, their history etc. goes elswhere.
* To provide a structure for the discussion.
* To remove rambling repetition, of which there was much.
I think that the work is now fairly clean, please take care.
Aberglas 08:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. The article has just become a mess with too many people doing nothing more than voicing opinions. I've been watching this article recently with an eye to doing something with it, but I just can't see how to begin. Best of luck Nowa! GDallimore 01:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowa, I've made a start in trying to tidy up the "arguments for" section - I can't face the even more fractious and lengthy "arguments against" section. I kept the point/counter-point style since I thought it nicely illustrates the lack of consensus. However, if you do decide to try to change this style, hopefully my amendments will make it a bit easier for you; I think I've removed most of the repetition and the statements that are more blatantly based on personal opinion. GDallimore 11:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we set up a table with point - counterpoint?  Point on the left, counterpoint on the right?--Nowa 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violent Clean Up 

message: I have now purged my stubs out of the discussion entirely.
Aberglas 08:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purge of Stubs 

message: :These studies are generally written by economists that do not understand patents or copyrights.
I find this sentence particularly stupid. Sould it stay in the article ?
Peco 07:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers to objections 

message: I think the article forgets perhaps the most important argument against software patentability: The arguably prohibitively high (at least for SMEs and independent developers) cost of the study to ensure that the produced, or about-to-be-produced, SW does not infringe any existing patents.
However I think this also needs an counterargument (I assume one exists) before it can be added to the page. Anyone with knowledge?
:NPOV doesn't mean that there has to be a counterargument for every argument. However, what we really should have is a source that can roughly quantify the cost of a patent search. Rl 07:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent research cost 

message: I've reverted the table, because I think it's helpful for the article which can arouse such partisan feelings to start out by setting the stage with a NPOV quote from one of the leading academics who has done research in this area.
I also personally found the separation of economic consequences into the different headings - innovation, competition, transaction costs - useful in clarifying my thinking.
In response to the allegation of bias by the person who proposed to cut it, I'm slightly at a loss - do you think it is biased pro-patent or anti-patent.  (FYI, the article the table originally appeared in was a fairly trenchant criticism of business method patents).
The point I would make about the table is it is a list of some of the factors to look for in /any/ industry as a result of patentability.  There are some industries, for example the classical one patent = one product high development cost industry, where arguably the positive factors on the left are particularly strong, the negative factors on the right particularly weak.  This tends to be the archetype that most legislators start out, which is why if you believe software patents are a bad thing, you need to explain what it is about the software industry which makes the "classic" positive factors on the left weak, and the negative factors on the right strong.  (The FTC report is a particularly good for this).
Aberglas wrote above:
:As to the new table at the front, in its current form it is distracting because it duplicates to some extent the body of the article.  If you really want to add a table then you need to do a good job of integrating it with the whole article, not just plonking it in front.  That sort of thing is what happened last time.  (My feeling is that a simple format will do for this article.)
I don't agree.  I think the table is helpful short intro teaser to give readers a structured and useful compass on the kind of factors to look out for, which is useful before they are thrown into the full mass of contending opinions in the next section.
I also restate that I think it's useful to start with an abstract of the factors to look out for in /any/ industry as a consequence of patentability, before getting into the detailed specifics of the software industry, and the discussion as to how relevant or irrelevant each of those factors actually are for software.
-- Jheald 23:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Overview 

message: Shouldn't the second Gates quote be considered a quote against patents? It sounds like he's saying that the current system allows large companies to prevent anyone from entering the software market without a sizeable patent portfolio, and that can't possibly be good.--Jdcope 11:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I am a US patent agent specializing in software and business method inventions.  
One of the biggest challenges for both myself and my clients is to determine where exactly the "patentable invention" is when they come up with a new idea for software.  Very often they think it's the basic idea they came up with.  This is rarely the case.  A little bit of prior art searching usually shows that others have thought of the basic idea in the past.  The conversation then moves on to what inventor had to do to make the idea work in a practical sense.  That's usually where the invention lies. --Nowa 21:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there such a thing as a software invention? 

message: I deleted the point that "Patents are designed to protect manufacturing processes, not R&D" because to the best of my knowlege, I don't know anyone in the patent business who would agree with it. (I am a registered US patent agent specializing in software and business method patents.  Prior to that I was an R&D engineer at a major chemical company where my inventions earned 17 patents). On the contrary, patents are designed specifically to protect the inventions that result from R&D.  For example, from Pfizer's recent annual report, their general counsel, Jeffrey Kindler stated "patent laws exist to support and encourage medical innovators".  I could put this in as a counter point to the assertion that patents are not intended to support R&D, but since I am unaware of any support for this position, I think the article would be best that it be left out or at least reworded to be more accurate.  If I'm mistaken, please let me know.--Nowa 23:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A point which is maybe worth considering is that protection may be needed to reassure an inventor he will be able to recoup all of the costs of bringing an invention to market -- eg retooling a manufacturing line, establishing product awareness, etc -- not just the R&D.  Otherwise the invention will have no value to him.  This I think is a point worth bearing in mind, and maybe worth making somewhere; though not necessarily just here.   Jheald 11:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point.  Any ideas where it should go?  How would we support it?--Nowa 12:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly the deleted statement/s could be re-edited, so it was more clear that this was the point being discussed.  But I don't have any particular wording to mind ATM.  Jheald 12:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Another point that maybe should be considered is that in software  context, "all costs of bringing an invention to market" may be just R&D and distribution. If efficient method is used for distribution, the distribution cost is very close to zero. However, currently, there are all kinds of barriers to companies using this method, patents are just one of those. It seems this is one source of inefficiency. esap 14:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: esap, What do you mean by "this method"?--Nowa 21:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean the method of developing software where R&D and distribution are the only things needed to take the software to market. esap 17:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents not about R&D ? 

message: A prior editor made reference to the fact that the Unisys and IBM patents on GIF precluded the use of these inventions in free software.  See the GIF patent issue.  The reference points out, however, that the last of the gif patents will expire in Feb 2006.  At that time, the subject matter disclosed in these patents will be freely available to the public.
* It's nonetheless a good example of how patents that are disclosed too late can cause problems, because the existence of the patent was understood by the development community many years after the technology had been in universal use. It's unlikely that it would ever have gained that level of use, if information about the patent had been available earlier. esap 00:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GIF

message: Please note that what Gates said in 1991 is misquoted here as in many other places.  Find the original memo; it's named "Challenges and Strategy" and it's around. --Antonios Christofides 11:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Gates 1991 

message: This article seems to have taken sides. There are more points relating to the software patent opposition, and also more quotes relating to that viewpoint. Rather than add more to the pro-patent side, someone with some expertise should think about cleaning up the article and making it more balanced (not longer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.148.173 (talk • contribs) 
I am not sure that "equal time" is really a road to article neutrality. For instance, I don't see that in an argument for and against evolution, it is somehow "neutral" to give equal space and credibility to anti-evolutionists or groups who claim the earth is only 5000 years old. 
Supposedly, one of the sides in a dispute is right. A couple aspects of that rightness that we should expect to see manifested are 1) a plurality of sound (and different- economic, social, technical) arguments and 2) a large number of credible, sober parties "coming down" on one side or the other. 
It is an encyclopedia's job to present the truth, that is reality, as well as it can. In some cases, reality is in dispute, true, but that doesn't mean that every holocaust denying or evolution denying band of zealots is somehow entitled to "equal time." If the arguments are more numerous for the anti-patent side, so be it.
This is not journalism attempting to please a readership who is split down the middle on political issues and can't afford to offend any special interest groups no matter how small- this is the presentation of reality in a disinterested but accurate way.
It seems the pro-patent lobbyists have taken to removing valid anti-patent points from this wikipage on a pretty regular basis. It is not acceptable to attempt to bias this page by removing appropriate material and / or substituting weak arguments.
:I did remove some of the arguments in that section, including some of yours. However, I did so a carefully as possible. I deleted repeitious, non-sequitous or irrelevant points from both sides of the debate, and actually added a number of new arguments against software patents, so accusations of bias are hardly friendly or appropriate.
:My main reason for removing some large chunks were where the arguments for and against were completely unrelated to the main point - eg the whole section about the clarity of the claims, to which you then added a large, somewhat rambling IMHO, chunk about micro-niches filled by software developers.  With a bit of refinement, that section could have found a place in the "arguments against" section, but I couldn't find a place anywhere in the "arguments for". I actually tried to find a place for it by adding the section about the EPO only granting patents that provided a technical effect - to which, you will note, I also added two quite strong counter arguments - but it just didn't follow on in a sensible way.
:I also deleted or refined some sections that led to confusion about what a "software patent" is. Under a broad definition, cds, mobile phones etc are indeed covered by software patents - they are certainly covered by CII patents and many people feel that the two terms are synonymous. You appear to have a somewhat narrower definition judging from your newly added counter argument to that section of the debate. A big part of the debate, is that nobody is quite sure what all these different terms mean. I've tried to clarify this by adding things like "pure" software patents as compared to software patents used by the manufacturing industry. I've referenced a paper in the "arguments against" section that discusses the number of software patents granted to different companies, although I probably should have referenced it in this section, too.
:Your newly added comment about large companies using lots of software patents as a weapon is a good one, although phrases such as "virtually all code could be said to violate some software patent" are hardly NPOV (or correct, IMO!). However, the point had not been made in the article before I edited it so your new addition is hardly repairing any damage done by me. The same can be said of your new argument about the US having market dominance.
:I do hope you don't simply undo the edits I made due to bitterness about my deleting some of your comments. As I said, I think they could find a prominent place in the arguments against section - perhaps some section about the problem with software patents being seen as obvious by programmers. GDallimore 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: :R. Buckminster Fuller 1939
:"The patent files are glutted with relative nonsense." (Fuller, R. Buckminster, Nine Chains to the Moon, Doubleday Anchor, 1971 p 277)
Can the above quote really be considered against software patents? He could very well be opposed to software patents if he were still alive but I don't think we can discuss whether he would have been opposed to software patents based on this quote. It could be against patents in general but that's not particularly clear. It might just be the case that Fuller felt there were major problems with the way the patent system was working at the time allowing lots of stupid patents but that he was not opposed to patenting in general.
Also, I don't think there issue of whether the patent system on a whole is working well or has major problems should be touched in quotes. It might be fair to state the opinion (if it can be sourced) that there are major problems with the patent system and that these problems are going to have an ever bigger/worse effect when it comes to software in the arguments section however. Nil Einne 10:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no harm in removing the quote.  I don't think he was criticizing the patent office.  He was a big proponent of patents and licensed his own.  I think, rather, he was criticizing inventors for filing patent applications on relatively unimportant inventions.--Nowa 15:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Since nobody's raised any objections, I've gone ahead and deleted the quote. I also agree with Nil Einne that quotes aren't the best method of presenting the arguments, but I'll leave that cleanup to someone else... Crispy 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This quote 

message: A good deal of this page seems to be one sided and a good number of the arguments for both sides are lacking in sources. Also the arguments for software patents section is basically made up of arguments against software patents. -- 209.204.181.196 23:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same is true of the arguments against software patents section.  It just seems to be the way someone decided to present the arguments. Crazywolf 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Sources