IT Curmudgeon

A while back I posted a blog article entitled Are Patent Rights Stifling Software Innovation?

In that article I posed the idea that the ability to patent a software concept, such as "sending electronic messages from a hand-held device" or "emphasizing a number on a web page by putting a box around it" is stifling innovation. The thinking is that people and groups are getting patents issued on general concepts without implementing them and by giving only sparse implementation details. Later, when someone actually manages to create a product that is profitable, patent trolls appear and ask for significant financial settlements.

A University of California at Irvine and University of Kansas study was published on July 16 showing the results of a simulation designed to test the effects of patent laws in general.

The study simulates "a traditional patent system; a “commons” system, in which no patent protection is available; or a system with both patents and open-source protection." The team, led by Bill Tomlinson of UC Irvine’s Donald Bren School of Information & Computer Sciences and Andrew Torrance of the University of Kansas School of Law, concluded that patent systems may discourage innovation.

They developed an online game simulating the U.S. patent system, and conducted the study using first year law students. The results were published in The Columbia Science & Technology Law Review under the title Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts and concludes that there is no statistical difference between intellectual property approaches.

This study did not directly address the issues related to software innovation and the way that software patents are handled in the patent office. Groups such as the Free Software Foundation are working to eliminate all patent protections for software under the assertion that it is costly, wasteful, and stifle innovation.