Poll: Do you support software patents?

The software patent dispute always falls into the broad brush trap. Obvious patents like Facebook's news feed and Amazon's 1-click shopping are arguably obvious and a drain on resources. Complicated software, like gene sequencing, chemical simulations, etc., are perfectly reasonable, genuinely non-obvious, and deserving of monopoly status. All software patents are not equal, all are not abusive, all are not obvious.

I have a hard time with this topic. Of course the only thing that ever gets covered in main-stream tech media is the abuse by patent trolls suing Company X because they are using their "electronic key-input device" patent to type on their computers.

We all roll our eyes and go "Damn these patents! DAMN THEM!"

But then I think of the purpose of the patent system in general: to protect and encourage innovation. I think of the research scientists coming up with approaches to genuinely unique and interesting problems and yes, I want them protected from getting rail-roaded by larger software firms.

I've discussed this with a patent attorney before and his feeling is that software patents are generally a good thing, but there has to be ONE change that would do away with most of the bullshit patents: proof of implementation.

Right now, apparently, I can patent the 40-click checkout process and sue Amazon when they implement it... but I never need to implement it, release it or use it in production. I just need to think of the idea and I can patent it.

I imagine a lot of these IP-only firms wouldn't have such a strong grip on stupid garbage patents if it required them to show working implementations.

I believe this is the same way with patents in manufacturing. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you need to produce the mechanical process you are patenting and at least show it is viable before patenting it?

Whether that is true or not, requiring that of patenters would go a long way of making the work more worthwhile and not just a bunch of lawyers sitting in a room with a few engineers, waving their hands around all day until they invent and patent the use of desk chairs.

Trade secret actually isn't a bad option, if you patent truly had legs then your secret is probably going to be safe for a fair amount of time. If your patent is getting people on a technicality and really isn't very innovative then your secret won't be much of a secret.

You know, I heard PG argue this in his software patent article, and I don't buy it. In the end, necessity is the mother of invention. Software engineers invent things because they need them. They would not, by default, either try to keep it as a secret or patent it.

Let's take the funny example of Amzon vs B&N on the one-click system. Do you think Amazon would not use the one click system if it were unpatenable? In the case of modern software patents, keeping it a secret is equivalent to not using it all. Since you invented it in the first place, I find this outcome to be excessively unlikely.

You are also suffering under the misconception that a lone programmer or programming pair would be incapable of standing up to big markets with a software invention. If his invention is really worth it's muster, he can come out with a profitable product that blows big companies out of the water. I've seen it happen before.

Unless that constitutes a clear-cut case of prior art in whatever system you have, I don't think the system qualifies as "fast, cheap, reliable".