Are Software Patents Barriers to Innovation?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the contention surrounding software patents and their perceived role as barriers to innovation. Participants argue that the U.S. Patent Office inadequately assesses the "obviousness" of software patents, leading to the approval of patents that many experienced engineers would consider obvious. The consensus suggests that if a majority of skilled professionals can arrive at the same concept independently, the patent should not be granted. The conversation also raises the question of whether copyright could serve as a more suitable alternative to protect software innovations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of software patent law and its implications
  • Familiarity with the concept of "obviousness" in patent evaluation
  • Knowledge of copyright law as it pertains to software
  • Experience in software development and engineering practices
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the criteria for patentability, focusing on "obviousness" in software patents
  • Explore the differences between software patents and copyright protections
  • Investigate case studies of controversial software patents and their impact on innovation
  • Learn about alternative intellectual property protections for software, such as trade secrets
USEFUL FOR

Software developers, intellectual property lawyers, and technology entrepreneurs interested in understanding the implications of software patents on innovation and alternative protection mechanisms.

little_tiger
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
why are so many people against software patents? why do they think that software patents are the barriers to innovation? what do you guys think?
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
Based on the few patents I've looked at that were related to stuff I was working on at the time back in the 1980's it was clear that the patent office wasn't doing a good job of rejecting patents based on "obviousness". My standard: if you were to assign a task to ten separate software engineers experienced in the field of study related to the patent, how many would come up with the same concept granted in the patent? If 2 or 3 make the same "discovery", then the patent should not be granted, because it is sufficiently obvious to anyone familiar with the tecnology. In some cases, I saw granted patents where 7 to 9 of 10 would have made the same "discovery".
 
why not copywrite instead?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K