Interestingly, I think this is a big part of why patents were invented in the first place. The idea was to give companies incentive for publishing their methods in detail because doing so benefited the industry as a whole. You show the world how you are doing what you do and you get to control that process for a while but in the end it becomes part of the common practice.
And the problem with applying this to software - as alluded to in the article - is that software is advancing at (disputedly but ostensibly) exponential paces.
If software patent timeout was geared towards progress instead of hindrance, it would follow the inverse of the path that copyright has taken: shortening the enforcable term instead of lengthening it.
Comments
Interestingly, I think this is a big part of why patents were invented in the first place. The idea was to give companies incentive for publishing their methods in detail because doing so benefited the industry as a whole. You show the world how you are doing what you do and you get to control that process for a while but in the end it becomes part of the common practice.
And the problem with applying this to software - as alluded to in the article - is that software is advancing at (disputedly but ostensibly) exponential paces.
If software patent timeout was geared towards progress instead of hindrance, it would follow the inverse of the path that copyright has taken: shortening the enforcable term instead of lengthening it.
That rationale was invented after the fact, as I understand it. The actual reason was royal revenue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#England