Hi,
Alex Hudson wrote:
I also don't think that re-implementation of something is necessarily something that should be covered by a patent.
But surely all imitators are re-implementing an invention?
It's interesting that you have to fall back to the argument that software doing the same (or better) job than hardware should be prevented, since it's "unfair". To me, that's progress - when someone finds a new, more efficient, way of doing the same job that's how progress is made.
Well, I also think that if you find a different implementation of the same inventive idea in hardware, the patent holder should be able to stop you. Just like with software. If it's a new solution, you're in the clear. If it's just a different realization, you're infringing.
The difference between software and physical devices also cuts both ways. If I "invented" a type of echo chamber that was implemented completely in software, I don't believe I should be able to patent it. Let's assume that it was so clever that no-one - myself included - knew how to build one physically, perhaps because I modelled some seemingly magical material with fantastic properties.
Ok, but when you say "implemented in software", you mean you have a working echo chamber purely in software? Why should you then not be able to patent that?
But, if someone *did* eventually manage to recreate my device physically, they should still be allowed to patent it - the fact you can do something in software easily does not detract from the achievement of doing something difficult physically. If we had your system, though, where the achievements of software and hardware are directly comparable, someone coming up with a radical new device would be prevented from gaining patent protection for it, because I had already done it (easily) in software. That, to me, doesn't seem fair - indeed, there would be no incentive for a materials researcher to investigate my system to see if they could make it physically.
Well, what you're saying is that 'inventions' in software do not actually exist until they're built in hardware. The comparison with science fiction springs to mind: Star Trek would not be prior art against someone building a matter transporter. But if Gene ever had explained how you could build one, you could no longer patent the general concept of matter transporters.
I would be interested to know what arguments you would put forward to say that software is directly comparable to, say, electronics - other than the fact that we colloqually refer to them as "technology", I don't think that the results and inventions in electronics - new types of transistor, etc. - have any relevance to software, and vice versa.
I do not believe the field of software development itself needs patent protection. I believe patents should be available for technological progress, and should protect a patentee against people making imitations of his inventive idea.
In my opinion, it should not matter *how* you imitate someone's patented invention. If it is covered by the claims, you infringe and you need a license. If you have a different solution, great, you're in the clear.
There is a class of software that can perform the same function as certain hardware. This class should be covered by patents if they are embodied in a device. Other software, which can do things hardware cannot, should be outside the realm of patents.
To name an example, let's take MPEG again. When you make a video compression technique, you can build it in hardware or in software that runs on a general-purpose processor. The patent should cover both, or none. Not just the hardware variant.
I personally believe the patent should cover both. Others here believe the patent should cover neither. That's fine, but I do not think it is logical that you can cover one but not the other if it's essentially doing the same thing.
Kind regards,
Arnoud Engelfriet