Software patent. A software patent has been defined by the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) as being a "patent on any performance of a computer realised by means of a computer program".[1] Most countries place some limits on the patenting of invention involving software, but there is no legal definition of a software patent. For example, U.S. patent law excludes "abstract ideas", and this has been used to refuse some patents involving software. In Europe, "computer programs as such" are excluded from patentability and European Patent Office policy is consequently that a program for a computer is not patentable if it does not have the potential to cause a "further technical effect" beyond the inherent technical interactions between hardware and software.[2] There is intense debate over the extent to which software patents should be granted, if at all.
Important issues concerning software patents include: Background[edit] Patents are territorial in nature. Jurisdictions[edit] Why We Need To Abolish Software Patents. During my tech days, I co-authored four software patents. Each cost my startup about $15,000—which seemed like a fortune in those days. I didn’t really expect these to give me any advantage; after all if my competitors had half a brain, they would simply learn all they could from my patent filing and do things better. But I needed to raise financing, and VCs wouldn’t give me the time of day unless I could tell a convincing story about how we, alone, owned the intellectual property for our secret sauce. We got the financing, and the plaques of the patents looked great in our reception area, so the expense was worth it. But there was definitely no competitive advantage.
New research by Berkeley professors Stuart J.H. In software, only 24% of startups even bothered to file a patent. Software executives consider patents to be the least important factor for competitiveness. Meanwhile, the U.S. patent system is clogged and dysfunctional. Editor’s note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa. Software Patent Institute - SPI.org. Software Patent Index. Are Software Patents Evil? March 2006 (This essay is derived from a talk at Google.) A few weeks ago I found to my surprise that I'd been granted four patents.
This was all the more surprising because I'd only applied for three. The patents aren't mine, of course. Patents are a hard problem. One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general. Unfortunately, patent law is inconsistent on this point. Patent lawyers still have to pretend that's what they're doing when they patent algorithms. Since software patents are no different from hardware patents, people who say "software patents are evil" are saying simply "patents are evil. " I think the problem is more with the patent office than the concept of software patents. The most common is to grant patents that shouldn't be granted. The scary thing is, this is the only icon they have for patent stories. We, as hackers, know the USPTO is letting people patent the knives and forks of our world.
End Software Patents - End Software Patents. Software patents. Richard Stallman, transcribed from a talk: So let’s see what happens if [an inventor] tries to use a patent to stop them. He says “Oh No, IBM. You cannot compete with me. I’ve got this patent. IBM says let’s see. Let’s look at your product. I’ve considered the arguments by Stallman, John Gruber, and Tim Bray on software patents, and I side with Stallman in that software patents are inherently problematic and are a net loss for society.
The major difference in their arguments is that, while all three mention the realities and dysfunctions of the patent system, Stallman focuses strongly on the difference between what it’s intended to do and what actually happens. Many argue that inventors should be protected and incentivized by patents, otherwise they would stop inventing. We can argue about what the system should do, or what it theoretically does, or what it ideally does, but that’s an academic exercise at best.
WTFPL - Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License. Welcome. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. This directory gives you access to almost all of the contents of my evolving book, The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Enjoy — but be aware that I have sold O'Reilly the exclusive commercial printing rights. The papers composing this book (like their topic) are still evolving as I get more feedback.
I made extensive revisions and additions for the first edition of the book The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and expect to continue adding and revising in future editions. Even if you've heard me do the stand-up version, you may want to reread it. These papers are not `finished', and may never be. Publishing a theory should not be the end of one's conversation with the universe, but the beginning. I welcome feedback, suggestions, and corrections and will incorporate them into future versions. If you like these papers, you will probably also enjoy my How To Become A Hacker FAQ (also in the book).
Here's the XHTML. My thumbnail sketch of the history of the hacker culture, maintained since about 1992. SourceForge.net: Find, create, and publish Open Source software for free. Creative Commons. Welcome to The Apache Software Foundation!