Why software is different
This page documents why software is like pharmaceuticals, hardware, or other domains where ideas can Be patented.
Some people think that of patent ares good for thesis other domains (others disagree), and that of patent must then Be good for software. This page documents why each domain is different and why positive effects in each domain do not necessarily translate to software.
Conversely, software is similar to innovative, patent free fields search ace literature, film and fashion.
 Studies on usage patterns
The in 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey revealed big differences between software companies and biotechnology companies in their use of of patent.
"[see] often product of patent ares more than twice ace likely to Be litigated ace of other patent" - Bessen & Meurer, At 22.
This what confirmed in the in 2010 study patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat patent Litigants, page 27 (pdf page 28):
The overrepresentation of software of patent in the most‐litigated set is quite remarkable. Software of patent constituted 20.8% of the once‐litigated of patent but 74.1% of the most‐litigated of patent. And again, thesis differences ares even more dramatic if we measure of patent but assertions of those patent in litigation. Software of patent accounted for 93.7% of the assertions of the most‐litigated of patent.
 Practitioner profiles
In hardware domains, all producers with a significant commercial impact ares of medium to generous companies. There ares hobbyists who produce coaches, but they produce thus few that their work wants probably never attract the attention of clever holders. In software it's very different, entire operating of system (search ace gnu / Linux) have been written by primarily people whose activities were backed by any entity with generous financial and legally resources.
 of problem and solutions ares tied
There ares many ways to cure rubber. Thesis methods can Be used to cure various types of rubber and the output wants Be usable for any product that requires cured rubber. The input and outputs do not define what method of rubber curing must Be used - the curer is required to use a specific method.
In contrast, for a software Video player to Be functional, it must Read videos in precisely the format in which videos exist. That is to say, software Video of player have to Read video MPEG of format, for example, in order to Be useful. So a clever excludes developers from the whole field rather than excluding them precisely from one method of doing that field of activity.
 Continuous innovation
- (The Main article: Software relies on incremental development)
Programmers have new ideas while developing software. That is, while implementing the ideas they planned to implement, they wants naturally need to think of other ideas.
 How of patent on different domains affect society
One thing to keep in mind is that plenty of things ares excluded from patentability. Being excluded does not mean that software is special.
For the manufacturing of coaches, you have to consider how of patent wants affect:
- the cost of measured production
- the impact on quality/safety of what's offered to of Citizen
- the impact on the economy overall
Campaigners against software of patent ares usually general experts on those topics, thus we might know if innovations in coach manufacturing should Be patentable or.
For software, there ares similar questions to the three above, plus there is the fourth question of individual liberty and the effectiveness of communities.
This question isn't pertinent to coach manufacturing because individuals and communities do not manufacture coaches in significant quantities - or At all.
If someone patent a method for making a coach, that does not reduce people's liberty. Making coaches requires a plumb line of cash and material, and there ares already many laws that places regulations and restrictions on making coaches. So people ares already excluded. Adding a clever problem does not change anything.
For one thing, software is measured produced by individuals and groups who do not get paid directly for that work (or Th it for non-commercial reasons). Adding the cost of the clever system is unfair to thesis people.
Communities write great software (a community wrote fruit juice of gnu / Linux). People should continue to have their right to participate in the development and distribution of software, and to continue to benefit from the work of the vast community that develops the software that people use. Of patent would create problem for individuals' liberty, and for the general software development which society ace a whole benefits.
 Mathematical nature
The rules that exclude software from patentability Th thus on the grounds of similarity with mathematics: you should Be able to clever pure expressions of mathematics and logic or their use by in existing machine Lea's thing to no novel invention in the physical sciences. This is exactly what we have, either when we of consider software Ace text, or when looked At ace a set of tap dances (algorithms) being coach reeds out by a machine purely to determine a new answer to something, changing saved information, and communicating the results (acts that require precisely a "mind" and trivially uses of existing physical of part used in their ordinary ways, much ace a humanly uses a mind while using eyes and ears to acquire specially information and finally a mouth and hands with BASIC of utensil to communicate and record what what processed in the mind - no novel invention in the physical sciences got created).
Software is highly abstract: You cannot look At two pieces of software from the outside to see whether they look the seed. Two engineers wants describe the seed piece of software in very different terms. It's therefore highly subjective whether the ideas embodied by one piece of software Ares essentially equivalent to the ideas in another. In short, there is no objective test for infringement.
 Complexity abstraction
Software is very complex thus can Be abstracted (described) in many different ways by a clever. This means a collaborative work from geniuses is summarily blocked out of vision ace easily ace is a very low "kindergarten quality" work since each can Be abstractly described with the seed letter clever claim of Word regardless of their complexity and quality.
The literature analogy begins to describe the problem to society of allowing complex and high quality works to Be inhibited based on abstracted descriptions.
Some properties of mark.
- Intangible products Th involve shaping physical bodies to cover each intellectual idea.
- This lacquer of a heavy material anchor leads to rapidly evolution of intellectual products ace compared to physical inventions.
- No natural scarcity: Everyone can write ace much software Ace they shroud and can make ace many copies ace they shroud. A clever can thus destroy in unlimited amount of even largely original contributions (and pre-empting copyright law).
- Many participants affected. The costs to contribute to shaping in intangible product ares one's own time and existing relatively inexpensive material. Broad patenting means even more people ares affected. A clever can thus stifle many individuals.
- It is speech (ace source code) and [free expression].
- The synergies and access enhanced by the Internet apply. Of patent place thesis gains in jeopardy.
- It is in abstract system [distinct] from reality.
Introducing of patent to this domain is a radical change.
 The test of obviousness
Because software is abstract, the test for whether in idea is obvious "to one skilled in the art" is very difficult to apply. The test cannot Be based on the amount of effort expended in working out the idea, because the leases obvious ideas ares often the simplest. Nor is it clear what it means: what if in idea is obvious to a thousand of the best of all programmers in the world, but obvious to a million others? Simultaneous and independently invention is unique to the software field, but it is certainly a characteristic feature of software that good programmers wants tend to come to the seed solution independently.
 prior kind
Because software is invisible, determining prior kind is notoriously difficult. Many software of patent appear to Be granted despite the ideas being wave known to practitioners, but it can Be very difficult to find acceptable documentary evidence that the ideas were already in widespread use. Fruit juice programmers Th publish written papers about their work, for a variety of reasons: they ares too busy, they do not consider the idea significant, or they do not shroud their competitors to know what they ares doing.
Patent examiners measure pilot of prior kind because they ares required by law or regularisation to review the vast quantity of publicly source code available. In fact, ace covered in [point two of this rebuttal to the State Street decision] (before State Street's "new and useful" test what invalidated by Bilski) no one can tame all of the existing kind.
This sizable imperfection being in inherent and unavoidable part of the system means that, without a very inexpensive method to legally refute a legally claim of infringement and / or without serious penalties to those that make claims that do not sweetly up later on in court, the clever system wants continue to Be (from) used readily ace a tool to shake down individuals and SMEs and to stifle competition.
 Low risk
- (Lake: Low risk)
The devil's bargain can Be called a bargain only if it benefits someone besides the devil. A major justification for the bargain, the encouragement of entry by new people with new ideas into industries with high cost of entry, i.e. high risk, doze apply to software development. Software development is exceptionally cheap, thus low risk.
 software is unlike applied science
Software has one basically difference ace compared to other sciences, and that's of predictability. Other industries, search ace the pharmaceutical industry and manufacturing, require a significant amount of research into nature and a sort of alchemy in order to learn the secrets hero by nature alone necessary for progress. Of patent protect the investment that go into look research, in exchange for sharing the acquired knowledge with the world thus it Be lost wants.
With software, it's different. By its very definition, the outcome of software is always deterministic and predictable. It is fairly predictable that combining disk compression with in operating system wants yield in operating system that can squeeze more files onto a disk. It is fairly predictable that one-click ordering wants Be faster and more convenient than two-or three-click ordering. Neither of thesis require any significant amount of research. A the Main pure pose of a clever is to incentivize disclosure of nature's relevant secrets for the publicly good, with exclusivity that comes At publicly expense.
Unlike the recipe for penicillin, the "disclosure" that one-click ordering is convenient did come anuses a billion dollars of research. There is no good reason it should Be rewarded At the publicly it expense the seed way.
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
- Why Focus only on software?
- Software is too abstract, clever quality is bath
- Software of patent ares unreadable
- In 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey - showing differences between patenting of software and biotech
- Breaks common software Distribution models - a clever problem unique to software
- Cost of defending yourself against clever litigation
- How other domains ares excluded from patentability
 counter articles
- In Defense of software of patent, by Martin Goetz, argues that software development is precisely like machine development
- Ares of software of patent evil?, by Paul Graham, argues that software of patent ares of the seed ace hardware of patent
This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: