OTOH, my career consisted of creating, applying, protecting, and exploiting intellectual property. Whether physical invention or software innovation, all of my intellectual outputs were worthy of protection. Good software is just as inventive as the cleverest "gadget" -- and just as worthy of protection. I can justifiably lay claims to having created both.
For an educational experience, check the annual report of a little company like Texas Instruments. I believe you will be amazed at the real dollar value (revenue generated by) the intellectual property (including software) they have paid their employees to create.
I apologize for my rudeness. However, ministry, business, and invention are all honorable, necessary, and worthy endeavors; IMO, your disclaimer was unnecessary...
“Whether physical invention or software innovation, all of my intellectual outputs were worthy of protection.”
Thank you for your response. I do agree with you, in principle.
I just read yesterday that there is a new camera coming to market, the Lytro Light-Field Camera, that will let you shoot a photo and adjust the focus later. I took a look at their website and it’s an amazing piece of technology. Apparently all the photography websites are buzzing with the news.
How the Lytro Light-Field Camera Works
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387554,00.asp
This camera is very worthy of a patent, in my opinion, as well as the software that runs it.
My main caution against many patents is that the Patent Office has gone overboard in granting many of them. One man actually received a patent on a method of swinging on a swing. Once granted these patents are very difficult to overturn, even the ones that are obvious to anyone working in a field.
I probably overstated that I wanted *all* software patents done away with... in the case of the software of this camera, it is worthy of a patent. The problem is how to protect against obvious concepts in the industry from being snatched up by the first person with cash in his pocket. Many emerging software “next steps” are obvious, they only haven’t been patented yet.
True innovations should be patentable. But the issue is how to keep the Patent Office from overstepping, and in fact placing hindrances in the path of further innovation.
Patents were designed by the founders in order to promote inventions. If that goal is being hindered by those who would want to patent something for money, then not come out with a product but wait to sue the first company that comes along, I would argue that the system is broken.
I would suggest:
* Look at limiting the duration of software patents. Patents were designed to give an inventor a head-start in a market, but at some point the intellectual property would go the free market. Software evolves so rapidly that by the time a patented method goes into the public domain it is obsolete.
* Make it easier to challenge obvious patents in a neutral court.
* Make the Patent Office pay some kind of penalty if they award a patent that is later struck down. As of now, the Office makes money if they award a patent and less if they don’t... a conflict of interest. If there was a penalty if they mis-award a patent perhaps less frivolous patents would be granted.
* Business method patents are becoming a real hindrance to innovation, and they weren’t even patentable until recent decades, if I recall correctly.
* Disallow so many patent cases to be argued in East Texas, where the courts have been extra-generous to patent lawsuits. Most patent suits in the country are filed there.
* Forbid pure-IP organizations that do not produce products but exist only to sue productive companies that are trying to release products to the market.
One of the businesses that I am starting is in a field that has many patents (many frivolous). I have several inventions myself not yet patented because I can’t afford it. I keep a notebook of patentable ideas and will see about going through the process when the funds are there. So I can see the argument from both sides, both the patent-holders and businesses trying to produce products and getting sued for it.
I am also a programmer and am starting an open-source software project. I am wary of the patent minefield that I will have to avoid just to release software that is designed to help people further their education.
The purpose of patents was to promote innovation and reward inventors. I have some inventions coming, and I hope to gain from them. But when patents become an overall hindrance to the market, I would suggest that they have gone too far and the bar to obtaining them should be raised.