Home Page
01. 8.2005 (previous | next)
Software Patents

The BSA report on Intellectual Property in the 21st Century (Jan. 2005), cited yesterday, is strongly supportive of software patents, but it also makes several recommendations for patent reform (summarized on page 17 of the report) concerning:

Limits on injunctive relief
Opportunities for third parties to challenge patents through administrative review
Limits on treble damages
Adequate resources for patent offices
Improvement of the database of prior art, and third party submission of prior art
Better international harmonization and expanded work-sharing.
Software patents have come in for a good bit of criticism in recent years, but support of the system by the software producers - the people who have their own money and time on the line - carries a lot of weight, especially because all software companies are both producers and users of patents, and thus have strong incentives to get the rules right. (After attending a National Academy of Sciences conference on tech patents a few years ago I commented that the issues were so complex and the companies so uncertain where their true interests lay that they were seriously considering acting on principle.)

For the problems that arise when the incentives are one-sided, see Patrick's post yesterday on Fighting Patent Terrorists.

Analyzing public policy toward this issue is difficult. The patent system is so arcane that only the in-group really knows what goes on. And writing software is a highly complex process, truly known only by its acolytes. So public discussion of software patents by the laity (including me) involves incomprehension doubled, or perhaps squared.

While thinking about the BSA report, I also ran across a couple of posts by Chicago economist Lynn Keisling, here and here. She cites a recent book by Adam Jaffe & Josh Lerner, Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It.

I have not read it, since I just one-clicked it, but the authors are well-respected.

posted by James DeLong @ 9:24 AM | Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)









 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page