{"id":60873,"date":"2009-12-03T02:52:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-03T07:52:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/techdirt.com\/articles\/20091201\/1041237150.shtml"},"modified":"2009-12-03T02:52:00","modified_gmt":"2009-12-03T07:52:00","slug":"defense-of-software-patents-actually-raises-questions-about-all-computer-patents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/60873","title":{"rendered":"Defense Of Software Patents Actually Raises Questions About All Computer Patents"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A bunch of folks have been submitting the recent Patently-O post by Martin Goetz, the guy who claims to have the first &#8220;software patent,&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.patentlyo.com\/patent\/2009\/11\/in-defense-of-software-patents-1.html\" >defending the concept of software patents<\/a>.  The argument boils down to pretty much the same argument we&#8217;ve heard a thousand times before: that what people create in software is no different than what they create in hardware &#8212; it&#8217;s just a different method of doing the same thing, and thus, software should be patentable.  To some extent, I agree.  Unlike some, I&#8217;m not in favor of making a specific &#8220;exemption&#8221; for software as not being patentable (though, I do question why or how something should be covered by both copyrights and patents, and also am curious how you can patent basic mathematics&#8230; but those are questions for another time).<\/p>\n<p>Honestly, in reading through his arguments, what struck me is that there is no explanation for why even computer hardware should be patentable.  It&#8217;s just taken for granted that computer hardware patents must be good, and since software is the equivalent of what&#8217;s done in hardware (not really true in many cases, but&#8230;), software patents must be good.  But shouldn&#8217;t the original question be whether or not the hardware itself requires patents and whether or not that helps to &#8220;promote the progress of science and the useful arts&#8221;?  Goetz never bothers to explain how any of these patents promote progress.<\/p>\n<p>And, of course, the bigger point is whether or not it&#8217;s really true that software is just a different way of doing what you can do in hardware.  In some cases, that&#8217;s true.  In other cases, it&#8217;s not.  Most software today is not just a different way of doing things that could be done in hardware, but involve things that couldn&#8217;t be done without software.   How do you offer wireless email without any software?  How do you do &#8220;one-click shopping&#8221; without software?  What the article is really arguing is that because you could build software-functionality into hardware, you should be able to patent it, but perhaps that never should have been allowed to be patented in the first place?<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/techdirt.com\/articles\/20091201\/1041237150.shtml\">Permalink<\/a> | <a href=\"http:\/\/techdirt.com\/articles\/20091201\/1041237150.shtml#comments\">Comments<\/a> | <a href=\"http:\/\/techdirt.com\/article.php?sid=20091201\/1041237150&#038;op=sharethis\">Email This Story<\/a><br \/>\n <br clear=\"both\" style=\"clear: both;\"\/><br \/>\n<br clear=\"both\" style=\"clear: both;\"\/><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/ads.pheedo.com\/click.phdo?s=a17d071bedb24c9f4ceaa1098b117798&#038;p=1\"><img decoding=\"async\" alt=\"\" style=\"border: 0;\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/ads.pheedo.com\/img.phdo?s=a17d071bedb24c9f4ceaa1098b117798&#038;p=1\"\/><\/a><br \/>\n<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"\" height=\"0\" width=\"0\" border=\"0\" style=\"display:none\" src=\"http:\/\/a.rfihub.com\/eus.gif?eui=2225\"\/><\/p>\n<div class=\"feedflare\">\n<a href=\"http:\/\/feeds.techdirt.com\/~ff\/techdirt\/feed?a=K63ib6YGRx4:8BtDYHrdr1Y:D7DqB2pKExk\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/feeds.feedburner.com\/~ff\/techdirt\/feed?i=K63ib6YGRx4:8BtDYHrdr1Y:D7DqB2pKExk\" border=\"0\"><\/img><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/feeds.techdirt.com\/~ff\/techdirt\/feed?a=K63ib6YGRx4:8BtDYHrdr1Y:c-S6u7MTCTE\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/feeds.feedburner.com\/~ff\/techdirt\/feed?d=c-S6u7MTCTE\" border=\"0\"><\/img><\/a>\n<\/div>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/feeds.feedburner.com\/~r\/techdirt\/feed\/~4\/K63ib6YGRx4\" height=\"1\" width=\"1\"\/><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A bunch of folks have been submitting the recent Patently-O post by Martin Goetz, the guy who claims to have the first &#8220;software patent,&#8221; defending the concept of software patents. The argument boils down to pretty much the same argument we&#8217;ve heard a thousand times before: that what people create in software is no different [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60873","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60873"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60873\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}