Today's blog is about the article below, from the Harvard Office of Technology Development. Specifically, I'll try to simplify the section on "Patenting of Computer Software."
http://www.techtransfer.harvard.edu/inventions/ip/patents/
The USPTO won't grant patents on items of "…pure scientific discovery, or a method of doing business, or a process which does not require hardware, or one that simply duplicated the "mental steps" of a human being." Essentially, the USPTO won't allow abstract ideas to be patented. Whether software can be patented or not depends on three categories.
1) "A computer or other programmable apparatus whose actions are directed by a computer program or other form of software may be considered a 'machine.'"
2) "A computer-readable memory that can be used to direct a computer to function in a particular manner when used by the computer is presumed to be an 'article of manufacture.'"
3) "A series of specific operational steps to be performed on, or with the aid, of a computer is deemed a "process.'"
These guidelines for patenting software opens up debate debate among software engineers, lawyers, USPTO examiners, and scholars. Matters of software patents are currently reviewed on a case by case basis rather than a set of concrete rules. For that reason, I think software patents should be a high priority in the effort to reform and optimize IP regulations. Any gray zone in the legal system in a lucrative area like IP will be exploited by trolls. In the case of software patents, the lack of rules and precedents opens up opportunities for bad/dangerous patents to be created and exploited.
Going forward, it'll be interesting to see whether the USPTO can keep up with the growth in IT industries. As technology gets more complicated and interconnected, it'll be necessary to adapt regulations so that new problems can be addressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-EpaHbRKL0
I agree that software patents should be high priority right now. This need to address the situation has been greatly enhanced since the advent of app stores, creating a boom in the number of programming enthusiasts. Soon, there will be software for pretty much everything and replace the operations of many complex hardware just by codes and a good processor.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with different people, including judges, having such varying views with regard to software patents, any conclusion by law may not bode well with everyone, especially when the consequences are not obvious right now. There is no solution which seems even slightly fair because there is no one side who truly deserves to win, unlike situations such as patent trolls vs the rest and criminals vs victims. Perhaps, if we can figure out exactly who are the two main parties for and against software patent would we be able to decide what legal rules to set in place.
I also had my blog post this week about patents in software. Technically, you are write to say computers just do human mind work in a faster and more efficient way. By using a computer we are able to take what a human could do, and perform the task exponentially faster. So, does that mean that patenting software should not be allowed, because it's too obvious? After all, humans are doing the same thing through their mental processes, but computers just do the same thing faster. Boolean logic and logical programming is somewhat how our brains work, and as matter of fact, how computer software operates as well. You raise and excellent point that I had never considered before. Thanks for this post, you've really left me considering the possibilities on software patents.
ReplyDeleteI think software patents should still be allowed, to encourage people to research and discover ways to emulate human thinking in an efficient and heightened fashion. Although computers will become more similar to the human mind in the future, the process and methodology of making that happen is innovative. Another concern I had was how two complicated issues, law and computer science, can be seamlessly integrated. Considering how many types of law there are, each open to various interpretations, and the many facets of computer science that each have their own important details, I think the patent system needs to be proactive and keep from being caught off-guard when the pace of software innovation far exceeds the speed of legal reform.
Delete