Should Software be Patentable?

Software is already protected under copyright protection laws (if the author(s) wish to assert their copy rights). Patenting software would count as double protection. Since double protection [there is probably a better legal term] is not available to any other intellectual property, it should not be available to software.

Perhaps in some cases a specific algorithm could be patented, if the algorithm provides some unique solution to a mathematical problem such as a new way to optimize airline routes, or provide increased encryption security for on-line transactions or information exchange. But the algorithm would be a separate identity from the software that encodes it for use on a computer.

Well that's not quite right. Patent systems have a 'design registration' or 'art' protection system in parallel. Or visual and/or technical, IP "protection".

For what it's worth - of all the IP systems - copyright is the most effective and straight forward to invoke and uphold. Why they would seek a lesser more circumventable 'protection' is a bit beyond me.

"Why they would seek a lesser more circumventable 'protection' is a bit beyond me. "

Perhaps for marketing purposes. 'Try our patented software' sounds more impressive than 'Try our copyright protected software'.

Years ago I went to work for a company that designed and manufactured ventilators/respirators. One of their products was a ventilator which required no external connection to a compressed air source. The internal air source was what they called a drag turbine. For months I couldn't figure out how that worked. After thoroughly studying the design I convinced myself it was nothing more than a drag compressor. I finally had the confidence to bring the name up to the guys that had been there for awhile and they all admitted it was not a turbine at all, but called it that because it sounded better than calling it a compressor.

I think the entire patent system needs a complete overhaul, as it is a joke the way it is currently abused.

Check out the Pirate Party's view's on An Abolished Patent System.

Here is a quote from their manifesto.

"We believe that patents exist to reward the inventors of truly outstanding ideas, not to allow big businesses to stifle competition with an ever-growing tide of trivial, incomprehensible, overreaching patents."

As for software, open source software is the way of the future and breeds innovation. Closed sourced/patented software is going the way of the dinosaurs. Thanks partially to Google.

There are problems with the patent system, but the manifesto from the 'Pirate Party' is a bit of nonsense and I cannot disagree more with their statement:

Pharmaceutical patents kill people in third world countries every day. They hamper possibly life saving research by forcing scientists to lock up their findings pending patent application, instead of sharing them with the rest of the scientific community. The latest example of this is the bird flu virus, where not even the threat of a global pandemic can make research institutions forgo their chance to make a killing on patents.

As if somehow these people in the third world are 'entitled' to the fruits of someone else's research.

As if somehow these people in the third world are 'entitled' to the fruits of someone else's research.

First I read this. Then I read it again. Then thought of commenting. Then refrained because an inner voice said: "Ky, just calm down, admin will not be happy about what you are planning to say."

Disgusting attitude, unless, when I read it tomorrow, I can find an excuse for that sentence. Maybe the voice of a shareholder?

Sorry, Ky.

It sounds bad, until you consider the word entitled in quotes. I do not believe he is not saying they should forego providing assistance to third world , obviously at cost to companies that do such so investors should be allowed a choice. But rather that people who have no investment in time, labor, or money should have an entitlement to the product of that labor. An entitlement is different that aid offered.

Plus that leads to questions like offering aid to resolve an immediate, if recurrent, problems for a group of people who lack the desire or refuse to progress to inhibit such problems from occurring. The old saying give a man a fish versus teaching a man to fish doesn't have any applicability to people to lazy or contrary to learn to fish, and obviously giving them a fish is just a waste of ones own labors and resources.

And then read your signature line. What is going on? I'll sleep over it.

I just wonder how software writers make a living if you take "As for software, open source software is the way of the future and breeds innovation. Closed sourced/patented software is going the way of the dinosaurs. Thanks partially to Google." to its ultimate conclusion. Whatever next? Free legal advice from the lawyers? Free medicine from the doctor? How about free computers - could that be the way of the future too? Free sausages from the butcher?

Google seems to be doing very well with it's open source approach to Android which currently accounts for 80% of the US's largest wireless provider's smartphone sales.

Mozilla's Firefox, Sun's Java and Open Office, MySQL, VLC Media Player, and Apache Web Server are all very successful open source software. Plus you are also pretty much guaranteed that any open source software is free of spyware, viruses and the like.

This is very similar to the music industry being too slow to adapt to the internet age and fighting to keep their old business model (and losing).

Forgetting, of course, that Google makes its money from advertisers hanging on to its search engine, and that the search engine itself is highly secret source software...

Ok, so Google isn't 100% open source but they are at the forefront of pushing open-source software and has released their code for thousands of different projects and hold open-source software contests.

http://code.google.com/opensource/

i don't know if this applies, but apple got patented for the design of the "slide to Open" and popping up letters of the Keyboard.

http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-granted-design-patents-for-slide-to-unlock-and-keyboard-letter-pop/

is there any word patentable?, patented i know there is.

It is the same as contactable

If you have a large enough dictionary, it is.

And if it's already in the dictionary - it would be prior art - so no it wouldn't.

along with "novelty" and of course the "inventive step".. not forgetting a "man skilled in the art"... I still don't understand how you can patent a triangle..

I have had (8) US patients and most of them are algorithm patents. You could show figures of hardware for the patent to work but I do not recommend this. It is too easy to "leap frog" and get around a patent like this and has been done before. If you use a Flowchart of a software algorithm this works great and I have done this in the past. No do not use C++ code in your patent the patent office will probability not get it. A Flowchart in basic English is the best way to show how to deal with a problem you are trying to solve and with this Flowchart one can write code or even code and hardware to solve a problem no one else has solved. If the Patent office does not allow flowcharts, which is news to me, use structured sentences in the claims that first you do step1 then step2 unless X=1 then jump to step1. I have worked on patents that were implemented in software that interface with hardware a Hybrid if you will. Thank you for your attention.