[Patents] Report on software patents.

[Edward Avis epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk]

>From: Xavier Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>

>I'm curious about how would you devise a system that improves the
>examination process, but it has little to do with our discussion:
>software patents. We are still arguing that we don't want software
>patents, even the ones that would pass a good examination process
>if there ever would be one. Because even those software patents
>would be counter productive, so we don't want them.

I suspect that is true for most people on this list.  I too hold this
position - I can't see any aggregate benefit to society from granting
patents on algorithms and computer programs, even if the examination
procedure weren't so broken.  Of course the current situation is even
worse than that.

But if someone like Greg suggests that software patents should be
granted and the system cleaned up (and I know that he is a strong critic
of the current patent system's stupidity in this area), you have to ask
what progress is being made?  We're getting plenty of lobbying for
extensions to patentability, but there doesn't seem to be much effort
put into making patent offices work better in areas they already handle.
Certainly the EPO chairman (to take one example) talks about the
economic importance of computer software, but seems serenely unconcerned
about all the bad patents his examiners are granting, being forced to
grant.  The study from the European Commission contained a certain
amount of hand-wringing about the problem of trivial or old swpats, but
in the end all of its recommendations involved extending patentability,
while none of them included anything about cleaning up the current mess.

The point needs to be made that we are not living in some ideal world
where examination procedures are perfect and patent offices can be
relied upon to treat software patents 'sensibly'.  We have to deal with
the situation as it stands, now.  It makes no sense to advocate
extending the power of patent offices over software, and then mumble
something about how it should be possible to sort out the system without
too much trouble later on.

If the examination process must be improved, let's see evidence that the
patent offices are doing so _before_ giving them extra powers (assuming
that people decide these extra powers are economically beneficial).  I
can't see that the situation is getting any better.  Call me a cynic,
but I think it's foolish to extend patentability and then just hope that
patent offices will be 'good' and not abuse the new monopoly-granting
powers.  The past record is not encouraging.

-- 
Ed Avis
epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk