Comments on: Software patents: it ain’t over until it’s over

By: Grant McLean

Grant McLean — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:01:19 +0000

The arguments put forward by AJ Park for why software should be as patentable as other types of inventions are less than compelling. If anything, they tend to support the view that patents on any type of invention are a bad idea and the whole system should be abolished. Such a viewpoint is supported by research (e.g.: http://www.researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/ ) which has lead academics to conclude that the only sector which sees significant economic benefits from the patent system is patent lawyers themselves.

By: JR

JR — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:15:21 +0000

Yes and software patents lead directly to higher prices for customers. As Don Christie points out, when customers require indemnity from claimed patent violations in free software, this has to be factored into the price. In essence, it's an insurance premium. A patent is a privilege, not a right. Monopolies are bad things and we only grant them if the benefit clearly and demonstrably outweighs the harm. I am still waiting for those in favour of software patents to make a case for them and to show why those who oppose them are in error. Instead, I read that "We regard patents as a fundamental property right" (NZICT group). Really? On what basis can we justify such a claim?

By: Guy Kloss

Guy Kloss — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:19:43 +0000

What I also find particularly bad is this following part Ken uses:
“[...] this is only relevant if the model is proven to be best and that all software developers should use it. There is no such evidence.”

If it was all about finding the “best” model. But, let’s think about it. What is “best”? If it was about this, then we might have to crop a whole sub-section of just about any industry. We might *have* to find out the “best” and force it upon everybody in *every* industry. We might not have dairies anymore, as mega super markets were identified to be the “best”. Or the other way around, we’d have to discourage super markets with more then 10 employees in favour of smaller stores, as it is “better” for the rural communities in NZ …

The key is in having an eco system, that keeps a balance and good variety (or distribution) of models, sizes, etc. And to not dis-favour either end of each spectrum. But software patents are doing just that: They are shifting favourable conditions severely towards the big players, whereas the small ones who are likely to spark off innovation and service for the bases are being bullied away by the big guns to leave a vacuum.

By: Dave Lane

Dave Lane — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 04:38:06 +0000

Nicely written, John. As a fellow submitter to the commerce select committee, I also find the position put forward by AJ Park specious and misleading. I can only assume their goal is to protect their own interests – of course they stand to have much more business if software patents are not excluded for exactly the reasons we’ve put forward… Or perhaps they’re representing the interests of one or two influential customers who happen to hold a lot of software patents, and who make them a lot of money. Perhaps it’s a bit of both. In either case, their argument is uncompelling and, I believe, should be rejected on the strongest terms.