Paul Graham on software patents
Check this out. In my opinion, it's a very thoughtful piece, even if you disagree with the conclusion Paul reaches (see below).
In particular, I find this part of the analysis very compelling:
One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general. Gradually our machines consist more and more of software. Things that used to be done with levers and cams and gears are now done with loops and trees and closures. There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them patentable, and the software equivalent not.
To put it differently, the same economics apply to "software" and "hardware" patents. In both cases, there is a cost to society because a monopoly is (temporarily) established; however, this distortion may be compensated by the additional innovation spurred by the promise of monopoly profits.
Figuring out the costs and benefits involved is hard. Paul Graham notes that perhaps patent examiners are not yet fully equipped to do so in a consistent and "reasonable" way. As a result, the system is open to manipulation by clever patent attorneys and patent trolls. This is clearly undesirable.
On the other hand, I am not sure abolishing software patents is the right way to resolve the cost-benefit tradeoff. For one thing, a law prohibiting such patents would be hard to enforce in practice, for reasons related to Paul's comments cited above. A silly example: suppose I design an e-commerce application that renders ultra-high-res, 3D pictures of items available for sale---but requires that the user install a fancy, custom-designed graphics card. Strictly speaking, my e-commerce application requires specific hardware, so it is not "software-only". Should it be patentable? It is also clear that there is a slippery-slope problem: how about copy-protected software that requires a USB dongle to run?
But, even abstracting from these "implementation" issues, the key question in my mind has to do with the provision of incentives to innovate. I really don't know the answer to this. It is certainly true that if Firm B can duplicate Firm A's innovation at little or no cost, then Firm B has diminished incentives to innovate in the first place. But duplicating all the functionality of a sophisticated piece of software like, say, Microsoft Word, or iTunes (even sans music store/iPod) is not trivial. So, perhaps, the very complexity of the product in question provides a sufficient, if temporary, barrier to the entry of competitors---even in the absence of patents.
Well, I'll post what I have and come back to this topic at a later date...
In particular, I find this part of the analysis very compelling:
One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general. Gradually our machines consist more and more of software. Things that used to be done with levers and cams and gears are now done with loops and trees and closures. There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them patentable, and the software equivalent not.
To put it differently, the same economics apply to "software" and "hardware" patents. In both cases, there is a cost to society because a monopoly is (temporarily) established; however, this distortion may be compensated by the additional innovation spurred by the promise of monopoly profits.
Figuring out the costs and benefits involved is hard. Paul Graham notes that perhaps patent examiners are not yet fully equipped to do so in a consistent and "reasonable" way. As a result, the system is open to manipulation by clever patent attorneys and patent trolls. This is clearly undesirable.
On the other hand, I am not sure abolishing software patents is the right way to resolve the cost-benefit tradeoff. For one thing, a law prohibiting such patents would be hard to enforce in practice, for reasons related to Paul's comments cited above. A silly example: suppose I design an e-commerce application that renders ultra-high-res, 3D pictures of items available for sale---but requires that the user install a fancy, custom-designed graphics card. Strictly speaking, my e-commerce application requires specific hardware, so it is not "software-only". Should it be patentable? It is also clear that there is a slippery-slope problem: how about copy-protected software that requires a USB dongle to run?
But, even abstracting from these "implementation" issues, the key question in my mind has to do with the provision of incentives to innovate. I really don't know the answer to this. It is certainly true that if Firm B can duplicate Firm A's innovation at little or no cost, then Firm B has diminished incentives to innovate in the first place. But duplicating all the functionality of a sophisticated piece of software like, say, Microsoft Word, or iTunes (even sans music store/iPod) is not trivial. So, perhaps, the very complexity of the product in question provides a sufficient, if temporary, barrier to the entry of competitors---even in the absence of patents.
Well, I'll post what I have and come back to this topic at a later date...
posted by Marciano Siniscalchi at 12:52 PM
0 comments
