On Tue, 22 May 2012, Matt Giuca <matt.giuca@gmail.com> wrote:
I can never quite justify why I think software deserves a special exemption from the patent system. I think what it comes down to is that *so very very little* of what we invent is actually non-obvious. I don't wish to deride software engineers in any way -- we do a lot of good work. But the fact is that nearly all solutions are obviously derivable from the problem definition. Ask any software engineer how to stop someone from installing a copy of a program on multiple computers and they will probably invent something that infringes on Richardson's patent. Unfortunately, lawyers, judges and juries don't appreciate the obviousness of most of these inventions.
That isn't a reason for exempting software. It's more of an example of how the patent system is broken. I think that the RSA patent was reasonable. If Xerox had patented a lot of their interface work then that would have been reasonable too. Patenting simple uses of basic mathematical operations such as XOR is however quite bogus. Submarine patents of all kinds are also bogus as are patents for basic derivative works.
This is the first time I've seen an argument that "the average person doesn't know it's a problem, so therefore it's not a problem." Is this guy really a lawyer? "Your honour, although witnesses have testified to my client's guilt in great detail, if you were to pick a person at random on the streets, the chances are that they wouldn't know my client is guilty. Therefore, is it really such a great crime?"
I was under the impression that one of the reasons for a jury trial is to limit the scope of unjust laws via jury nullification. So if the system worked properly then juries would just void bad patents etc. Unfortunately things don't work that way, rumor has it that the best way to avoid jury duty is to make it known that you are aware of the possibility of nullification. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/