Making the case against software patents (Was: Re: [Fsfe-ie] Ivana Bacik
Ian Clarke
ian at locut.us
Mon May 24 20:20:20 CEST 2004
Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 24 May 2004 at 10:13, Ian Clarke wrote:
>>>Playing devil's advocate, I suspect they would argue that such an
>>>amendment would mean that physical inventions with a component that is
>>>software (eg. a form of computer-controlled lathe) would not be
>>>patentable, and they consider this to be undesirable. By this point
>>>they have successfully blunted your argument.
>
> Except that even pro-patent supporters claim to not support the
> ability to patent something containing software just because the
> software alone contains the inventive step of the invention.
>
> One can use their own arguments against them by contrasting their
> actions against what they say they believe.
The challenge isn't out-arguing them, the challenge is out-arguing them
in a manner that a non-expert audience will understand. Once you start
talking about where within an invention the "inventive step" occurs, 99%
of your audience's eyes will have glazed over and you are wasting your
breath :-(
This, in fact, is the core problem with the theoretical arguments
against software patents, they are quite hard for non-computer sciences
to grasp. Much better to point to empirical evidence of the badness of
software patents (FTC study, etc), perhaps following-up with a
theoretical explanation of why this has happened elsewhere.
Ian.
More information about the FSFE-IE
mailing list