|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
My take on it is that there is a place for software patents
and that the major problem is that the current system is
just really, really broken.
Now, this doesn't necessarily argue against wholesale
elimination of software patents. The problem is that the
current system is probably worse than nothing for software
and that meaningful change will probably be harder than
elimination. (look at the financial industry) Overall, I'd
prefer starting with substantial reform, but I could be
wrong.
(general areas: encourage invalidation of invalid patents
prior to trial, decrease number of silly patents granted,
and strongly restrict injunctive relief.)
I don't reflect the consensus at Groklaw. Oh well. Doesn't
mean I'm wrong. I'm pretty confident that software patents
will eventually be scaled back, but that they will not be
eliminated.
Regarding interfaces, there is a reasonable argument that
allowing IP on interface design does more harm than good.
Even though Lotus did implement something good and did
deserve to be rewarded, the ramifications of patenting
interfaces are pretty large. The classic example is allowing
people to patent connectors in vehicles and thereby
monopolize the spare part market. I'd argue that most
interface patents should be invalidated. Autoflow's patent
on an early sorting method may be a better example of a
software patent that actually served a purpose.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
