decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
PJ, please read this | 277 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
PJ, please read this
Authored by: ScaredDeveloper on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT
Writing software is like drafting an explicitly-detailed contract between the
programmer and the computer.

Does this mean that contracts should be patentable? Why should lawyers be
denied the ability to get a patent on a specific type of contract? Because a
contract is an abstract set of instructions to be performed by each party. It
should be protected by copyright, if anything (just like software).

Given your argument about patents on software being insanely long (20 years),
what would be more appropriate? 5 years? 3 years? I would argue that would be
more appropriate, if we don't abolish all software patents completely (which
would be preferable).

Your other argument about the abstractness of software patents is also valid -
most, if not all, software patents probably violate the enablement requirements
of a patent, since they often don't accurately describe what is necessary for
someone skilled in the art to recreate the invention. Pseudo-code or even a
known computer language would be a much better method of enablement. Since the
software patents already cover any possible implementation of the algorithm
(regardless of language, CPU type, etc.), it would be preferable to see the
source code of an implementation, rather than a legalese description.

As a software developer, I would not feel slighted if software were not
patentable - in fact, I would feel delighted! The existing patent minefields
make it almost impossible for any developer to write anything without violating
all kinds of patents (innocently - just in the process of writing an everyday
program). Since patents were never intended to apply to purely abstract
"ideas," they should not apply to software, which is a purely abstract
idea.

I intend to start filing some patents soon - and they might have software
components, but they will be mechanical and electrical in nature - the software
components will not be the core patentable aspect of the patents (since I don't
believe that software patents will be sticking around forever - they are
unconscionable).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )