Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, no idea if you'll see it. One aspect to the answer (and I am not a patent expert by any means) has to do with the much longer time-to-market represented by hardware development--hardware innovation would not be economically viable without the protection that patents provide. The same is not generally true of software development, and many argue that software patents are instead an impediment to progress (because other programmers are unable to build on existing innovations).
Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status.
> One aspect to the answer (and I am not a patent expert by any means) has to do with the much longer time-to-market represented by hardware development--hardware innovation would not be economically viable without the protection that patents provide.
I don't buy that.
> Note that software is still protected by copyright regardless of its patent status.
Copyright just protects expression.
Suppose I invent a new way to compute shortest paths through a graph. Why is that less deserving of a patent than a new way type of gearing. Why should "protection" be limited to "don't copy my bits"?
Consider automatic transmission control. You're suggesting that it should be patentable if done mechanically but not if done via software. How does that make sense?
Disclosure: I have both hardware and software patents. I don't see a big difference between them.
I readily concede that the situation is more nuanced than "software patents are bad". However, I think we are coming at it from two different perspectives. You seem to be suggesting that ideas are innately deserving of protection. I don't share that point of view.
For fear of beating a dead horse, let me put it this way: (should I be made King) I would do away with patents altogether if that didn't mean removing all incentive for innovation. For physical inventions, patents foster innovation by ensuring that the inventor will have time to bring their invention to market before a competitor. (I mean no snark at all, but I believe the previous sentence to be generally true whether you buy it or not.) For software, the market does a great job of fostering innovation and so I don't see the advantage of software patents (and that is obviously where our views differ). If a person or a corporation believe that a certain software method offers them a particular advantage, they will retain it as a trade secret regardless.
> For physical inventions, patents foster innovation by ensuring that the inventor will have time to bring their invention to market before a competitor.
That's one reason. Another is to get disclosure of the useful pieces.
However, you're making some interesting assumptions about software.
Why should I spend $1M to bring something innovative to market if it can be copied instantly by a competitor?
You seem to think that WO patents, the answer is different for hardware and software. Why? (No, hardware vs software doesn't provide a time distinction.)
Note that trade secrets can't be used in every situation.
Why should I spend $1M to bring something innovative to market if it can be copied instantly by a competitor?
You seem to think that WO patents, the answer is different for hardware and software. Why?
Because software companies have shown repeatedly that it's possible to bring something innovative to market for much less than $1M, and the exceptions usually occur when the innovation builds upon previously patented (and expensive to license) technology. This discourages small independent development in favour of larger companies, which is probably the crux of the problem as I see it.
Manufacturing and marketing a new physical device, on the other hand, can rarely be done for less than $1M (or rather, for applications of comparable complexity I think it is fair to say that producing a software widget will almost always involve less initial overhead than a hardware widget, especially at market scale).
That's where my assumptions come from. I know that trade secrets can't be used in every situation, and I accept that software patents may make sense in a minority of cases. I still think we'd be better off without them.
At any rate, I can see this conversation continuing for a long time, and I don't think it will accomplish anything, so this will be my last comment on the thread. Thank you though (sincerely) for your intelligent discourse.
> Because software companies have shown repeatedly that it's possible to bring something innovative to market for much less than $1M,
That wasn't the question, and isn't relevant unless you're claiming (1) that all software costs less than $1M or (2) you'll allow software patents for things that cost more than $1M to produce.
The first is clearly false while the second doesn't make sense.
> Manufacturing and marketing a new physical device
Ah yes, marketing. Are you claiming that software is inherently inexpensive to market? If so, you just told me that you think everything is web-based eye candy. Enterprise doesn't work that way, neither does medical, and so on.
> I think it is fair to say that producing a software widget will almost always involve less initial overhead than a hardware widget, especially at market scale).
But, is the difference significant compared to the other costs? (Having been involved in both, I think that the difference is a lot smaller than is required for your argument.)
