Here is a sensible argument by Nanda (as a comment on one of my earlier posts) regarding the application of traditional IPR system with Software -

There are many issues related with software patents.

Obviousness
Problem with most software related patents is that they're highly "obvious". Now this point may be debated to death, obvious to one person does not mean obvious to the other. But think of a situation when you are given a problem, and a set of tools, and using pure logic you come up with a solution which you can't put to use cuz it has been already patented by someone else. It's frightening! And this exact thought is shared by John Carmack (of id games).

Patents were not originally meant for software
Almost all countries had framed their Intellectual Property (patent) laws when things like software and IT were unknown. Now, the same laws are being extended to software. It won't work! What requires more resources, designing and manufacturing a car, or designing and coding a piece of software?

Everytime you sit down to code even a moderatly complex piece of software, you're innovating - and like hell it doesn't require money to code! Sure, it requires *some* money, what a computer, office space and a net connection. Compare that to the resources required for setting up an automobile factory. Patents for software just doesn't make sense.

If you want to read wholesome arguments read up the text of the speech given by Dr. Richard Stallman. Google for "danger software patents richard stallman"



--

Now the question is does traditional ways not make sense or will no form of IPR ever make sense with Software?

Categories: Thoughts