Re: About Computer Software and Patents

>> IMHO, patent law should NOT apply to software at all! I think that copyright
>> provides more than adequate (if too long) protection. The added protection
>> such as covering independent origination is too smothering when applied to
>> software, as are many of the other patent rules.
>>
>
>> Sincerely
>> Henry Manaster
>
>
> Henry, I represent many fine electrical engineers who have made
>significant contributions to science, at least applied science, over the
>years. We call them inventors, and part of the motivation for inventors
>is the patent system. In recent years, with the price/performance curve
>for microprocessors and the like being what it is, these engineers have
>found that they can do more, do it better, and do it cheaper in SOFTWARE.
>I do not understand why you would now exclude them from the patent system
>because they choose to implement certain inventions in software rather
>than hardware. Many people feel that important new inventions going
>forward are going to be done in software. Hardware is a relatively
>mature field. Is the patent system no longer useful?

	I did not intend my comment to be taken as a slight against
	inventors, I think that they are the salt of the earth and
	deserve a fair modicum of protection, generally as
	prescribed by the patent laws. 

	However, the realities in software (and any other product
	with like attributes) are such that the specific rules as
	applied in other patent areas would stifle the sodtware
	industry. The key feature here is the VERY short
	shelf-life of software. Any software author, inventor, if
	you prefer, has his hands full during the short production
	cycle with writing quality code etc. To be concerned with
	the umpteen possible patent infringements that he is
	unaware about (independent origination) would be a burden
	that could kill of any number of eager and capable software
	"inventors" -- particularly since some of these patents may
	only become public knowledge several years hence, long
	after the software has come and gone. I suspect that most
	of the software inventors would probably agree with me and
	settle for copyright protection in return for relif from
	the patent laws. Only the very large softwarehouses with
	large legal departments and deep pockets might be
	interested in patent protection as a weapon they might
	wield.



>     I would also remind you that the examination process, imperfect 

	This may well be a significant (but not only) part of the
	problem. As has become obvious from recent history (e.g.
	Comptons patent) the examination process   and the long
	lead time in hte patent grant are major problems that
	impact on software development more so than in most other
	areas of invention.

>threshold of creativity being extremely low -- see Feist); and there is
>no meaningful examination of a copyright registration application -- it
>is merely formal.
>
> Your comment about the term of protection raises another issue.
>U.S. Patents have a maximum life of 17 years after issue. It can take
>several years before a patent issues, so the effect is "delayed". Most
>other countries grant a patent for 20 years following the date of
>*application*. We may be headed that direction.

	My thought in this area move in the opposite direction. I
	think that both the patent and copyright terms of
	protection are too long in general. The purpose of the
	protection is to provide adequate incentive for publication
	of inventions and copyrightable material, not to grant a
	monoply for theultimate sake of the enrichment of the
	inventor (author). I believe that shorter terms of
	protection would achieve these goals without providing long
	term monopolies. The terms should be near the minimum that
	is adequate to continue the stream of invention and
	authorship, and sustain as much competition as possible.
	This would force inventors to build on previous achievments
	and move on, rather than to milk the last patent for what it
	is worth before releasing the next invention. (I do not
	mean to say that most inventors follow this practice, but I
	do mean to say that the length of the term of protection
	pulls in this direction and provides incentive that is
	counterproductive).


	Sincerely
	Henry Manaster