Software patents do not provide the benefits other patents do. Name a piece of software that would likely not have been written if it wasn't able to be patent protected. Now compare that with other industries like pharmaceuticals, textiles, chemical processes, etc. Software is different because it's more straight forward engineering than explorative science. If an implementation is obvious to anyone with the prerequisite knowledge, it's not patentable and there's really not much, if anything, in the software realm that meets that criteria.
Software R&D has mostly not been patented for many years because algorithm patents are effectively unenforceable outside of narrow contexts, so it is largely futile. Computer science R&D is almost universally treated as trade secrets now, which have proven to be effective and defensible in many more cases.
The consequence of this is that the state-of-the-art in many areas of software are not in the public literature and there is no trivial way to learn it. Ubiquitous deployment in the cloud greatly limits the ability to reverse-engineer the underlying architectures, data structures, and algorithms. This is notionally the situation patents sought to avoid, but the practical unenforceability of algorithm patents has made it the default outcome regardless of whether there are patents on software.
If someone invents something truly novel I think they deserve the first right to make money off it. The extra bonus of having them file a patent is that when it expires it becomes free public knowledge for everyone. The problem for software is that the duration of the patent is way too long for the pace of innovation in the world of software, to the point that a reasonable duration patent probably wouldn't even be worth filing for after the time it takes to process. In other fields it's not the existence of patents but the games and loopholes e.g. pharma companies coming up with a slight reformulation they can patent again and again. It's not novel at that point and should not be granted a patent.
Well patents are supposed to be more "you have to pay me if you want to use it before the term expires". Maybe a requirement to offer patent licenses for a reasonable price could help there, but it's tricky. I think at a minimum though software patents should have a shorter term than physical inventions.
Patents fundamentally operate to allow the owner of protection to extract value from research and development investment. If you cannot protect your research and development, then competitor may extend upon your invention without the necessary capital or time investment — effectively making any kind of innovation risky and unattractive to business. There is no model where abolishing patents still grants protection for R&D.
The complaint is that software patents have been awarded and interpreted far too broadly, and coupled with the relatively low cost of R&D for software, have begun to stymied innovation in the same way patents intended to prevent.
Inventor profits by being ahead of competition. VisiCalc (first spreadsheet) was a killer app.
But they didn't innovate and were taken over by Lotus 1-2-3 four years later.
Lotus was great, graphs and all.
Same thing happened to the Lotus, Excel was just better. Lotus didn't innovate (e.g. IBM had first ever pivot tables and they made separate spreadsheet program for it instead off improving Lotus).
Inventors only profit if and when they release — Patents allow you to cover the cost of research and development even if a profitable product does not materialise or is not profitable at the time of release. R&D is essential for economic growth, so the promise/higher-chance of a successful return at some point in the future, I think, this is a reasonable trade-off.
Software is just fancy math being executed. Math can't or at least shouldn't be patentable e.g. imagine the absurdity that would ensue if you could patent a number not that that hasn't happened (HD DVD encryption). I'm aware every piece of IP or Copyright can be represented with a really big number (a mp4 file is really just a big number) but it's not the number that's the patentable aspect.
The point of the parent system is to prevent knowledge from being lost to humanity. It encourages disclosure on how unique and novel things work in return for a limited monopoly. If inventions were not patented then we can lose the ability to make them, which isn’t as insane sounding as you might expect.
Preserving this knowledge for the future of humanity is critical.
If you ever do a patent survey, you'll quickly discover that patents aren't written to preserve knowledge or disclose inventions. They're written to disclose as little as possible (or disclose everything except the thing that matters) as fodder for a legal defense.
OTOH, I’ve never, not once, ever, heard of someone reading through the patent database to learn how to do a thing. I’m sure someone has done such a thing, but that’s not the norm. The patent database is where you record that you were the first to claim to have done a thing. It’s not where you meaningfully explain how.
This is absolutely not the point of the patent system, otherwise there would be no provision for a monopoly over the commercial manufacturing of the invention.
Don't be deluded, the patent system serves as a weapon for bigger companies to block competition. That is their only goal.
> ...otherwise there would be no provision for a monopoly over the commercial manufacturing of the invention.
You should always be able to make your opponent's arguments at least as well as they do, as that is the first step to overcoming them.
The argument from patent proponents is that without the legal monopoly, they would rely on trade secret law instead, so they would do their best to ensure no one else understood what they do. They still do, within the confines of what disclosure is legally required to get a patent issued (I once had an engineer tell me that if he had not invented the thing being patented, he would have no idea what the patent application the lawyers wrote for it was describing), but at least there is a legal requirement.
Of course, there are important contexts where that argument is irrelevant, such as standards development. Trade secret law is no use there, because the value is in the network effects of the standard, not the invention. Yet we still have patent-riddled standards.
> The argument from patent proponents is that without the legal monopoly, they would rely on trade secret law instead, so they would do their best to ensure no one else understood what they do.
Look at China, and the argument of "maybe it will be bad" turns out to be wrong. I'm not saying the system is perfect, far from it, but the idea that patents are a life-saving measure is utterly false. Companies live and die in both systems, but at least in China they get to share their improvements.
The premise is that a patent is necessary to have funds for continuing innovation, but that's just not understanding what capitalism is and how pervasive it is in our society. The reason individuals need money is precisely because of capitalism redistributing money to those who have the most already, not to the ones who need it the most, not to the ones making the most progress, or not to everyone in a fair manner allowing all of us to live without worrying about that aspect (yes, there is more than enough resources creation for all of us). The patent system only furthers this uneven distribution. Innovators do not calculate the amount they might be getting from their invention before setting about and coming up with something new; that is a lie that needs to disappear.
