Some of the laws on software patents abroad from the US are considerably more draconian.

Food for thought

Diva: great post, and I love your position. Never give up the Good Fight.

Cheers
James

“a) Code faster. Be the first to have the implementation of something important, then you can try to grab the market before the open source solution comes around.”

Most readers here will already know that in the SW engineering world the old saw “ideas are cheap, realizations are dear” is amplified x1000.

My personal experience has been that very very few patent-brandishers do any innovation at all. Apache didn’t need that in 1995 and OpenSim doesn’t need it today.

Thanks for this, it needed to be said!

-Gaspar Roux

Software can, in fact, be patented — according to Red Hat, there are currently over 200,000 different software patents out there. Most are recent — the last decade or so — as a result of the dot-com gold rush. They fall under the “business method” patent category. However, the Supreme Court is currently reviewing this issue, with a ruling due early this year: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904574528062757245866.html

For example, Yahoo! was just fined $12.4 million for infringing a patent on putting an ad background image on an instant message. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020300736.html

Business method patents are weapons of mass destruction when it comes to software. But there are other alternatives, as well. Software can be copyrighted, for example. This doesn’t protect the underlying logic, though, if someone was able to reverse-engineer it or come up with a similar solution on their own.

Apple has a business process patent on “multi-touch.” Amazon on “1-Click” shopping. Nokia on the 3G cellphone communication standards.

These patents do hurt innovation in the sense that they add a cost to doing business. Apple, for example, has to pay a licensing fee to Amazon to offer “one-click” shopping. They also add court fees — Apple and Nokia are currently embroiled in costly back-and-forth lawsuits about GUIs and 3G standards.

However, the ability to patent software also brings in significant early money — investors know that inventors can not only make money by using their invention, but also by licensing it to others.

Does it stifle innovation? Hard to tell. The Amazon one-click patent didn’t seem to have slowed down the growth of e-commerce. But maybe if the patenting had started sooner, when the infrastructure of the Internet was still being built, it may have slowed developed. The early Internet was developed by the government (which can’t patent anything). There’s no similar protective umbrella over OpenSim. The Internet also snuck up on people — few expected it to become as important to business as quickly as it did. We’re under no such illusions about the 3D Web. Sure, there are folks out there who say “it’s just a game” and “nobody needs it” but we all have the example of the dot-com boom reminding us how quickly that can change. I frequently talk with potential investors who are scouting around for opportunities in this sector.

Whether we see a new flood of patents here probably depends on how the Supreme Court case comes out.

To keep an eye out, Google Bilski v. Kappos:

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Bilski+kappos

— Maria Korolov
Editor, Hypergrid Business
http://www.hypergridbusiness.com

1 said resources are finite
2 that plant you rendered extinct could be the cure for cancer/stupid/whatever
3 maybe the best use of this particular “land” is to build on it and enjoy the surroundings

In short get your boots on the ground and think about the quarter after this one for once.

Software patents are generally considered invalid, and if taken to court the said patent would be lost.