[pp.int.general] software patents

[Reinier Bakels]

> <samir.allioui at pp-international.net> wrote:
>> Well, it is one of the 3 ingredients that makes a pirate party an pirate
>> party.
>> If this one is not excluded, you're nothing but a party who is (ab)using 
>> a
>> strong brand.
You mean INcluded? I would say that the 3 ingredients are copyright, privacy 
and patents.
>
> My point is, there's a learning curve -- including for ourselves, so
> that we know exactly what we're talking about and how to talk about
> it. The "reject *all* patents NOW immediately immediately or else it
> means you're not a responsible citizen/not a legit Pirate" approach,
> while ethically valid, might not be the most efficient one on a
> long-term perspective. Can we agree on that?

I have been involved in lengthy discussions about software patents for many 
years. Basically there are two types of arguments:
1. Software is "special" due to its intangible/mathematical nature.
2. The economic value of software patents is questionable at best, and it is 
likely to be negative: most swpats are even detrimental for innovation.

The former argument (1.) is complicated. It leads to lengthy discussions. 
Particularly difficult to classify are inventions of conventional "hardware" 
equipment, e.g. TV sets - where still the essence of the invention is just 
software (or mathematics, if you like). My experience (over almost 10 years 
now) is that this discussion is never convincing, and probably it is just 
not true that software is really "special".

For that reason, I prefer argument number 2. Yes, software patents lead to 
problems: potentially killing Open Source, affecting interoperability, 
provoking "strategic patenting" games often designated as "mutually assured 
destruction" (a term about nuclear threat from the times of the Cold War), 
proneness to the "tragedy of the anticommons" because a single product may 
need clearance of hundreds of patents. But the if someone opposes saying: 
"but none of this is unique to software" then you should simply agree. 
Economists found problems similar to swpat problems in other fields, like 
(at a "macro" level) the "patent paradox": an increase in patenting activity 
coinciding with a decrease in R&D investment spending. Outrageous! Firms 
apparently move competition from the marketplace to the courtroom: "if you 
can't beat them, sue them". They replace engineers by lawyers.

It is not that difficult to understand the problems induced by patents in 
various other fields - if you use the economic argument. In every case, the 
basic conflict is between the (false) idea of the need of "protection", and 
the fundamental *freedom of ideas*. "Protection" is like motherhood: the 
words itself suggests desirability. But a free market economy essentially 
depends on the freedom of imitation, in particular if it is not just "me 
too" type of imitation, but imitation adding improvement. Basically that is 
called competition. And we all benefit from it. If you hate competition, 
move to North Korea.

reinier