Patent Wars: No Simple Answers
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Ninja
3/19/2014 | 2:04:48 AM
Re: And another thing -- promiscuous software patents
I don't think that anyone can own math, but one should be able to own pathways you devise using that math. You can't patent the laws of aeodynamics, but you can patent an airplane based on them. And, what difference should there be in devising a physical machine from devising the same machine that only exists as interconnected matematical functions?
User Rank: Ninja
3/18/2014 | 6:21:58 PM
Re: And another thing -- promiscuous software patents
You can't patent mathematical functions. But you can patent a program that uses those functions within the software. That's entirely proper. But UI innovations? They should be copyrighted instead. That's actually better for the software developer. It's a stronger bond than a patent, and lasts effectively forever. My belief on software patents is that they should exist. It's important as, whether it's an individual or a major company, they should have control over their own work. But, I do believe that for software, 20 years is too long. As it can be easier to benefit from a software patent over a short time, than for an electronic or particularly a mechanical invention, the patent should be for a shorter time. I think 10 years would be much better. It wouldn't end contention, but would force patent owners to attempt to use it earlier, and for others, it would make the wait less onerous.
User Rank: Author
3/18/2014 | 6:12:48 PM
Re: And another thing -- promiscuous software patents
I second Charlie's motion: Software patents should be granted, and their inventors rewarded, only if their inventions build legitimately on top of, without absorbing, the basic underlying math.

Charlie Babcock
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Author
3/18/2014 | 1:12:45 PM
And another thing -- promiscuous software patents
Another issue that's hard to address is setting a higher bar for when software patents are issued. In the physical world, it's easier to decide if a machine or mechanical function or chemical reaction is new and innovative. In the world of software function and algorithms, the courts should set a stricter standard that no one owns the math, basic algorithms, user interface functions or programming procedures of computing software. They originate from many prior art contributors and should be part of the public trust, available to all. To profit from them, you need to innovate and design on top of them, not own the math.

Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
Top IT Trends to Watch in Financial Services
IT pros at banks, investment houses, insurance companies, and other financial services organizations are focused on a range of issues, from peer-to-peer lending to cybersecurity to performance, agility, and compliance. It all matters.
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on for the week of June 19, 2016. We'll be talking with the editors and correspondents who brought you the top stories of the week to get the "story behind the story."
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.