On the topic of patents:
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) describes a patent simply as “an exclusive right granted for an invention – a product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem.” However, this seems very vague. The idea of patents made sense when inventions were primarily physical items, but in the information age, people can “invent” intangible things like algorithms or forms of software. How do we decide whether something is an invention or simply an adaptation of an existing tool or methodology? This is especially true in computer science. Is it even possible today to create an algorithm that doesn’t build upon existing algorithms or ideas? Patents are granted to allow the creator of something new to reap the rewards of his invention, which seems fair if the process could be easily replicated by others. WIPO points out how “these incentives encourage innovation, which in turn enhances the quality of human life.” However, as the existence of the term “patent troll” implies, patents are frequently abused to a point where they aren’t leading to an increase in the quality of human life.
Patents should still be granted, but we have to be careful about how their are used and enforced. In general, if a company is granted a patent, it should be responsible for using that patent to benefit society instead of sitting on it. The Apple vs VirnetX case shows that patent trolls can be and have been successful. VirnetX does not do anything aside from sitting on patents and waiting for companies to become successful with ‘their’ technology before stepping up and suing them. VirnetX held patents related to load balancing and other network features. Aside from the fact VirnetX has no products and doesn’t use these patents, they seem generic enough that they shouldn’t have been granted in the first place.
In software, patents should rarely, if not never, be granted. In nearly all situations, software innovation relies heavily on previous advances made. A software patent should only be granted if it is fundamentally different from anything that currently exists. For example, in Ars Technica’s “East Texas Judge Throws out 168 patent cases” article, it is noted that a patent was granted for variable playback speed in videos. This kind of feature requires video playback on computers to exist, so it does not seem right that simply manipulating video playback is patentable. Also, in the field of software, judging by the frequency of patent troll cases, patents have more often been used to hurt others rather than encourage innovation. The underlying problem seems to be that software patents are inherently based on abstract ideas, which were determined in the 19th century to not be patentable, according to the VOX article regarding software patents.
The existence of patent trolls only means the system isn’t perfect and has loopholes. It doesn’t imply that the system isn’t working or has to be scrapped, but it does need to be modified if it wants to stay true to its goal of improving human life by encouraging innovation.
vhawleynd 