Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« Declan on IP Policy Laundering in Canada | Main | Question the Nominee »

August 1, 2005

The Difference Between Software and Drug Patents

Email This Entry

Posted by Jason Schultz

Brookings Institute Scholar Ben Klemens has a nice little OpEd over on BI's site about patent reform and why there is an important difference between software patents and other kinds of patents:

However, the key distinction between a drug and a method for using a computer is that few of us own the equipment or have the desire to manufacture drugs. Meanwhile, computers are ubiquitous--and as a result, so is software authorship. If you are reading this at work, there is probably someone in your building writing software right now: perhaps in the form of a company web page, or a script to make the accounting database work better. Thus, a patent on a drug creates potential liability for those companies in the pharmaceutical business, while a software patent creates potential liability for any company with its own website or software customizations, regardless of its business.

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Abuse


COMMENTS

1. Dr. wex on August 1, 2005 3:35 PM writes...

I couldn't disagree more with the quoted bit (though I agree with much of what's in the editorial). The problems with software patents have nothing to do with the ubiquity of software authorship. Nor is anyone even remotely likely to get prosecuted for writing a macro program - that's a lame strawman. Problems with software patents come in two flavors: practical and conceptual.

The practical problems with software patents include crappy-to-nonexistent prior art requirements (compare prior art citations on drug patents vs those on sofware patents), overworked examiners not trained in the art, and an industry with wide disparities between established firms and startups that are expected to compete in the same marketplace.

Conceptual problem with software patents have to do with the meta- and mutable nature of software. The computer is the first tool I can think of that has no purpose unto itself - it's only purpose is to emulate other things. Unlike many other fields, software presents problems telling the difference between process and data that the process operates on. Virtualization technologies make it difficult to be precise about machine structures and limitations. Software is reflexive in ways that few other technologies are. Programmable hardware blurs the program/machine distinction. I don't think patents were designed for this kind of beast and as a result many (most?) software patents are poorly written as they try to shoehorn this mutable software stuff into the language of rigid mechanical machinery.

Permalink to Comment

2. jtw on August 2, 2005 11:54 AM writes...

One of the best things I've heard is that IP in the pharmaceutical world is about incentives - given that you're risking about $600M (baseline) on a clinical trial, and your success rate is about 1 in 10, you need to know that you'll be able to recoup not just the cost of the trial at hand, but the other nine failed trials.

Whereas IP in software is more about leverage and lockout. That's something that gets used for good (see GPL and GNU/Linux) and for bad (see SCO) purposes in the copyright sphere. Patents are another ball of wax entirely - you don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create most software applications, and you don't need lockout monopoly rights to recover costs like in the drug cases. It's a jackhammer on a penny nail...

My $.02, opinions are mine, not my employer yadda yadda.

jtw

Permalink to Comment

3. Branko Collin on August 3, 2005 6:35 PM writes...

"Nor is anyone even remotely likely to get prosecuted for writing a macro program - that's a lame strawman."

If we are talking about prosecution--that is, what follows after committing a crime--, and if the US are a somewhat developed and civilized country, it should not matter whether someone commits the crime at home trying to write a letter to aunty Jill or at the office trying to make millions. Lady Justice should be blind to that: a crime is a crime.

But perhaps you meant "sued"? Patent law is (mostly) civil law AFAIK. Even then Klemens' argument is not a strawman. The author writes (this, by the way, is not from the quoted bit): "When you use the Record Macro feature of your word processor, you are writing a computer implemented technology which may infringe a patent--and if you put that document online, you are distributing your infringing technology worldwide." Nowhere does he talk about getting sued. And indeed, software patents are often used to threaten with sueing, not to actually sue. What's more, letting people write infringing macros breeds disrespect for the law--something which the author also touches upon.

You may claim that IP law was never intended to stop the home user--tell that to the thousands that were and are being sued by the RIAA and MPAA.

"The practical problems with software patents include crappy-to-nonexistent prior art requirements (compare prior art citations on drug patents vs those on sofware patents), overworked examiners not trained in the art, and an industry with wide disparities between established firms and startups that are expected to compete in the same marketplace."

These are problems that are related to all patents, not just software patents.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
CBS to HBO: Wait for Us!
Sometime Next Year, HBO Will Become Netflix
OpenMedia vs the TPP
CopyrightX 2015 (online course) Now Open
College Students vs Rising Textbook Prices
"Amazon is crowdsourcing their slush pile"
Rule 84 and Patent Trolls
Sports Continue to Tiptoe Away from Cable Monopolies