This week, since our topic heavily deals with obviousness and patents, I thought going in depth about software was a good post to make. As we all know, software cannot be patented because many claim that it contains mathematical ideas.
Furthermore, many claim that everyone can think of certain algorithm, therefore, it's often perceived as non patentable.
Do you agree or disagree?
Personally, I believe that software should be allowed to be patented. Not all should be, but at least most should be allowed to get a shot. Even if it's dealing with math, I believe not everyone can come up with specific algorithms. In this article, it talks about how software dealing with system or hardware could be patented, but not pure software. Microsoft along with Adobe and HP try to justify why software should be patented.
Furthermore, there are various cases in which patents that were granted previously are invalid as a result of obvious issues. For instance, Google was awarded patents in 2005 and 2008, but it was decided that it was invalid due to them being too obvious.
The issue at hand is that many software patents are too obvious. In the article, Tim Lee, an examiner, argues that Google Earth's patent is too general and too broad. It definitely meets the requirement of obvious. So, what should we do about software? This has been debate for decades for both sides, one supporting and one opposing. What do you think? When I think of obvious and non obvious part of patents, I immediately think of software patents. It's because many consider them to be obvious, meaning that it's not creation, but rather mathematical idea. Any ideas on comments are appreciated!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060616/1032210.shtml
Source: http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-hp-adobe-try-to-justify-software-patents-7000027033/
There's a fundamental flaw in the argument that software should not be patented because it contains algorithms and anyone can think of these algorithms. To begin with, not everyone is privy to the certain level of education is required before people can start developing these complicated algorithms. Similarly, a certain level of education is required in, for example, chemical engineering before one can start patenting complicated pharmaceuticals and drugs. Pharmaceuticals can be patented, but software cannot. The simple algorithms that can be developed by a high school student would most likely fall under the category of "obvious" and would not be issued a patent in the first place. While I believe patents for software should only be issued in certain circumstances, using the rationale that software contains algorithms and anyone can think of algorithms as a reason for denying patents for computer programs is laughable.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned this in one of my comments before, too. Not being able to patent software really puts developers in a vulnerable situation. While I have no background in software development, I feel developers and businesses should be able to have some sort of competitive edge against others for their ideas and hard work in creating something to promote economic health.
ReplyDelete