I'm surprised to see them back a system where there are any software patents at all. I wonder if they really think they are desirable, or if this is simply political realism based on a judgement that abolishing all software patents is not achievable.
Five years seems like a very, very long time, it leaves all the short term benefits in place, e.g. muscling out the less-innovative competition. I guess this is by design.
Maybe it's about moving the Overton window, but this time in a good direction? Maybe they think that it's easier to make several small steps than one big?
I'm still looking for good literature, but intuitively I feel that small companies could still take advantage of patents for software in the original spirit of the patent system.
Also, I wonder if they intend on the working code examples to be included with the public patent after approval? If so then this would in a sense make all patented software open source, albeit with a very restrictive license. Still, that could vastly accelerate innovation and streamline arbitration.
In the end I think item 7, the proposal to research whether there is any economic benefit from software patents, is the most important and they should narrow down their scope to just that.
Comments
I'm surprised to see them back a system where there are any software patents at all. I wonder if they really think they are desirable, or if this is simply political realism based on a judgement that abolishing all software patents is not achievable.
Five years seems like a very, very long time, it leaves all the short term benefits in place, e.g. muscling out the less-innovative competition. I guess this is by design.
The whole proposal sounds very moderate, really.
Maybe it's about moving the Overton window, but this time in a good direction? Maybe they think that it's easier to make several small steps than one big?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
I'm still looking for good literature, but intuitively I feel that small companies could still take advantage of patents for software in the original spirit of the patent system.
Also, I wonder if they intend on the working code examples to be included with the public patent after approval? If so then this would in a sense make all patented software open source, albeit with a very restrictive license. Still, that could vastly accelerate innovation and streamline arbitration.
In the end I think item 7, the proposal to research whether there is any economic benefit from software patents, is the most important and they should narrow down their scope to just that.