Another great post on the problems of software patents. What's missing is a concrete plan for getting things changed – at its heart it's a *political* problem.

It's possible to get some fixes from the Supreme Court (the KSR decision was a step in the right direction), but ultimately any change has to be passed by Congress or rules changes need to be implemented by the PTO.

What would really help move the debate forward is not just suggestions on how to "fix" the "problem", but a realistic set of steps to pull together the political support to improve the situation: who the major players are, how their support can be obtained, and what compromise will build a coalition that is likely to gain majority support in Congress.

Is that statement true for any invention, or do you just think that the RSA stuff is pretty obvious?

"RSA can still make lots of money from its work without patent protection — almost any company would rather deal with the inventor directly, even if they have to pay a fee. "

Don't understand. RSA were the inventors, and a royalty rate is a "fee".

In my experience, most companies hate to deal with inventors. They are crazy.

I’m strongly in the camp that there is no such thing as a valid software patent. In addition, the whole idea that the RSA patents enabled Internet commerce is ludicrous in my book. It’s a nice assertion about the importance of the RSA patents, but Internet commerce would have happened just fine without them. I haven’t read the GPS patents so I don’t feel qualified to weigh in there but the image compression patents are another interesting case where there are actually huge issues surrounding their viability and – in some cases – strong assertions that they actually have slowed down innovation in some areas.

Patents for inventing drugs are to me a good idea. Without patents, a lot less drugs would be invented and drugs are hugely expensive to develop (in part due to the FDA approval process). By allowing patents, a lot more drugs are invented and the benefit they provide vastly outweighs the extra prices we all pay because the drug manufacturer has a monopoly for X years.

When Brad says software patents are a bad idea, I think what he is really saying is, "On a cost-benefit basis, we would be better off if there was never a legal monopoly in the form of a patent for software." Although a few more good ideas might be generated, the benefit of those few ideas is much less than the harm caused by software patents. That is a position I agree with.

The problem is compounded by the fact that there is absolutely no doubt that the patent agents who work in the software department of the patent office are total absolute idiots, literally some of the dumbest people ever born. Is there a software patent they will not grant, no matter how blantantly obvious?

In addition to the stupidity of the patent office when it comes to granting patents, software ideas are in so many cases cumulative — standing on the shoulders of giants.

It makes no sense to try to fix the system, it is not fixable. It's better to simply abolish software patents (and business process patents), retroactively to the first one granted. Very little if any harm will occur and vast benefits will accrue.

As for the RSA and GPS algorithms, I am certain if RSA did not write these algorithms, someone else would. RSA can still make lots of money from its work without patent protection — almost any company would rather deal with the inventor directly, even if they have to pay a fee.

James Mitchell
http://www.jmitchell.me