Article in today's Guardian: "Patently Unfair"

[Andrew Rendle <andrew@andrewr.co.uk>]

There's a good article on software patents in today's issue of the
Guardian newspaper, online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1255860,00.html
I won't copy the whole thing here, because it's quite long, but here are 
a few choice quotes:

(Using http://www2.latech.edu/~acm/HelloWorld.shtml as an example, he 
writes:)
> A patent on one of these examples would, by necessity of patent law,
> cover all the others. It couldn't cover the code itself but, rather,
> the idea of a program to print the words "Hello World". Thus, for the
> first time, and contrary to usual practice, the patenting of software
> introduces the patenting of abstract ideas, and not just their
> implementation. This, say opponents, could be very dangerous indeed.
>
> Unless you can be sure that no part of your program has been
> patented, you are running the risk of being sued for the money you
> make from it.
>
> A large program might contain tens of thousands of discrete ideas and
> techniques in action. So, in the words of Richard Stallman, the famed
> free software activist, "software patents are like landmines for
> programmers. At each design decision, there is a chance you will step
> on a patent and it will destroy your project. Considering the large
> number of ideas that must be combined in a modern program, the danger
> becomes very large."
>
> Software patents, then, can make development difficult because of
> their sheer number. They can also make things difficult by their
> range. Ideas are subject to interpretation, but means that with a
> good lawyer, you can patent seemingly obvious and wide-ranging ideas.

and ...

> This new protection for abstract ideas changes the economic logic of
> patents. In the case of a new drug or airplane wing, there is an 
> enormous amount of investment. The inventor must recoup the cost of 
> years of work. So it's a fair balance between the needs of society 
> and the needs of industry. But with pure ideas, anyone can think one 
> up in moments. Thinking of ways to solve problems is largely what 
> computer programmers do from day to day.
>
> The cost of the invention is negligible: the main cost borne by 
> computer software developers is in the implementation of the idea, 
> not the idea itself. That implementation - the coding, testing and 
> debugging - is the hard part, and is already covered by copyright. It
> doesn't need patent law at all, say critics.

Andrew