Around this time, the European council is bowing itself over the case of the patenting of software and codes. Voting ‘pro’ is not a good thing, because once patenting is legal, it will block access to and the usage of code or algorithms to developers worldwide, and it will stagnate the evolutionary process of software development, for this entire evolution is based on the knowledge and use of previously invented applications, and when those are no longer free to be modified, it will stop improvements and fine-tuning of these applications by other developers than those proper to the company that has ‘originally’ released the wares.
Christian Schaller is the Business Development Manager for GNU/Linux multimedia specialist Fluendo. He serves on the GNOME Foundation board of directors and has posted a three-page argument about this item on OS-News.
“We today face the risk of software patents being approved in the EU because not enough parliamentary members will be showing up to vote. Due to this it is important for those of us who oppose software patents to make sure EU parliament members see the damage software patents cause, so they realize it is important to be there to vote providing the needed absolute majority. But sending out a clear message is also important for the process of patent reform in the US and other places who have fallen into the trap of introducing them.”
What is the goal of the patent system?
“The original idea of the patent system was to stimulate innovation and research by awarding innovators and researchers with a time limited monopoly on their ideas in return for them disclosing those ideas to the public. The feared alternative was for this knowledge and innovation to be kept secret as trade secrets by the people and companies making them, and these great ideas then never reaching the general public to be built upon by others and through that generating even more wealth for society than otherwise would be the case. The original idea was in other words not as much to protect ideas from being used by others, but to encourage the publication of the ideas so they could be used by others. I doubt anyone with inside knowledge of the industry can say that goal is achieved by the software patent regime in the US today.”
You want to steal my great idea !
“A very typical argument you get when arguing for the dissolution of patents is that you want to prohibit the people who come up with good ideas and do research from cashing in on their ideas and research. Many outright accuse you of wanting to be able to steal other people’s good ideas. Such arguments can be hard to counter if you are taken unaware. One natural response I see many people come up with is trying to explain how all ideas build upon earlier ideas and that no idea is truly original and as such nobody is stealing nobody else’s idea. I know I have fallen into that trap myself at times. The problem with this line of reasoning is that its too abstract so unless you are discussing with a true intellectual it will fall on deaf ears and the admission that they are standing on the shoulders of giants come hard to many.”
“The counter argument need to instead be that, yes of course we should help inventors to earn money on their inventions, but in the case of software, patents doesn’t do that. Making software today is complex and a program is using a multitude functions and algorithms to be able to do what it does. If you do come up with a really good idea while making your software, which you can patent, you will not really be able to cash in on it, as your established and bigger competitors will have patented so many of the other things your program needs to do that you can’t really use the patent against them to get ahead anyway. You can of course cross license with your competitors, but then the patents just mean forcing businesses to spend more money on legal fees and bureaucracy, which is not exactly the perfect crib for the generation of new ideas.”
Click here to go to OS-News and read the entire argument.
Â