Shorten software patents, or just get rid of 'em?

Interesting article about reducing copyright duration to 7 years from 20, and even more interesting comments arguing for complete abandonment of the concept of patenting concepts...

Article:

"The problem, you see, is their length. Seventeen years of monopoly is an eternity in Internet time. Instead, software patents should only be valid for seven years.

This would be the least disruptive change to the system, allowing companies to protect their intellectual property without overly burdening the general public with bogus patents.

Patent trolls would generally disappear, because a loophole in the current patent system allows them to wait for a technology to spread before retro-actively patenting it. If software patents were good for just seven years, these parasites would either have to claim a more recent priority date and face a lot of prior art, or keep their early filing date and be left with obsolete patents.

For instance, the patent on wireless messaging technology used to sue Apple and others was filed in 2005 -  well after the invention it describes became common knowledge. However, through the continuation-in-part loophole, it pretends to have the same protection from the law as if it had been invented 10 years prior. By filing late, patent trolls can make sure that their patents cover the hot technology of the day, and later claim that they invented it. And it’s legal.

So why not get rid of software patents completely?

I don’t buy the argument that just because it’s software, it can’t be inventive. A position that aims to eliminate all patents might be more consistent, but I’d point to China, where piracy runs rampant, as an indicator of what would happen. Too many entrepreneurs have seen their design copied by their Chinese manufacturing partners."

Comments:

"Right. The argument isn't that "just because it’s software, it can’t be inventive" - it's "software is math - an abstract idea. You can't patent ideas." In fact our entire patent system is based on this fundamental idea of the un-patentability of ideas. This is why patents describe "a system and method...." - you can only patent the specific incarnation of your idea, not the idea itself. For software, that should mean code, which anyway is already protected under copyright law.

If - and it's a big if - software deserves patent protection, patents applications need code attached. I see two ways to go about this - source code, which would even out the trade-secret-vs-patent situation with the rest of the industry (why isn't the formula for Coke patented? because it's a trade secret); or some level of compiled code - and if mine doesn't compile to what's on your patent, it's not infringing."

http://entrepreneur.venturebeat.com/2010/03/04/in-favor-of-software-pate...