Paul

Belfast

Software

One reason software is different is that the costs of entry are much lower. Another is that the cost of innovation is less.

These reasons make the overhead of a patent system proportionately a much greater burden.

A third difference is the speed of innovation in software as opposed to manufacturing. The life of a patent is an eternity in software terms. Even if patents were appropriate, the current term is too long. Patents as currently practiced should not be applied broadly to software - certainly not BEFORE the system has been modified to mitigate the damage it would do.

A fourth difference is the inability of patent examiners to reject patents on basic techniques in software. However well the system works for hardware, all the available evidence shows it does not work for software.

A fifth difference is its potential to suppress innovation and progress. Trivial and obvious patents are being used by patent speculators to stifle innovation.

A sixth difference is that patents can be used to prevent interoperation and compatability, and thus to lock potential competitors out of markets. This is not in the long term interests of the markets or the consumers.

A seventh difference is that copyright is a protection not available to hardware innovations. While it is theoretically possible to allow both protections to cover software, that cannot happen with hardware. So clearly the two forms of innovation are different. We should not blindly apply a hardware model to a field which is fundamentally different.

Finally, patents are a form of interference in the market, preventing competition. While we can argue that there is an overriding need to protect investment and innovation in the hardware world, where costs are higher, the experience of the software industry is that no such need exists.

Innovation is happening just fine. And the innovative software receives a measured level of protection through copyright - which has a much less chilling effect on innovation and competition. The change is unnecessary - and potentially devastating.

(this comment part of an article in progress - copyright retained by the author - non-exclusive licence to publish this comment and derived works in any media hereby granted to this site and to all readers of this comment)