I believe software only bring out the danger of patents into the open, not because it is a poor fit.<p>Imagine that people are starting to have a printer that can print any objects from any design at will, including the biological kind. They benefit from sharing designs over time, because not only that their machine can print newer design, but their machine also allow them to recycle objects into new and better one. All that is left is the distribution mechanism for raw material, but once you reach a certain amount of material, you can basically transform old objects into new ones at will, barring the need for new raw and rare exotic materials. Perhaps, people who is able to complete a design will be rewarded with especially rare materials for them to experiment with?<p>Now what happen if the patent system is still in effect? That mean every person with a 3D printer is barred from printing designs from a patent of an inventor. In order to make lot of money, he essentially bar the people with 3D printers from printing so that he can sell his invention at the market for really high fees. If he come up with an innovative design for a self-replicating machine, he can bar the people with 3D printers as well from doing as they like for twenty years. For whatever reason, he rather have the power rather than becoming one of those nobodies in a society where everyone is become wealthier.<p>He can practically stop whole community of inventors who don't use patent and have a totally different idea toward sharing the design of invention.<p>Now imagine an innovative software entrepreneur stopping the open source software community and industry!<p>Patents doesn't need to be frivolous in order to be dangerous to the progress of technology. It can be innovative and <i>life changing</i>.<p>But an equally self-interested community of inventors who does thing in the open, may also give you inventions that is innovative and <i>life changing</i> as well.(And it may be just one inventor in the whole community who come up with it as well)<p>Which path do you want to explore?
At present, is there any reasonable behavior for developers other than to just ignore software patents?<p>I wouldn't even know where to start if I were trying to avoid infringing.<p>With non-software patents (let's say I'm building a new kind of lawnmower), I could search for patents on lawnmowers, maybe knife blades, or weed whackers. But with software, I think I'd have to search for abstract concepts like "list sorting" but maybe also "representing data in an ordered table" and "appending measurements according to rule."<p>Is there anyone who doesn't just ignore software patents and then hope for the best?
It's great that a lot of developers are sounding off on their blogs about this. But what will it take to achieve <i>real</i> progress toward reform? We can complain all we want, but what will it take to get real traction?
Everything said in this post is true of <i>any</i> kind of patent, not just software patents. Gillette does the same thing with razors.<p>I still see no reason to treat software patents as a subset of patents that should be dealt with independently of the patent system as a whole. If we do away with software patents we should do away with ALL patents.<p>If we reform all patents, we should also reform software patents.
Yet another 'software patents are bad' piece without a single fact. Many disagreed to the point of retaliative downvoting with my blog post the other day ( <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1167926" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1167926</a> ), but it was trying to make a fact-based case pro-patents; can't we at least try to argue from facts rather than hearsay on HN?
<i>Building up a patent portfolio by engaging in defensive patenting cannot always protect against hold-up.</i> -- Federal Trade Commission of the USA<p><a href="http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/dangers/investment.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/dangers/investment.htm...</a>