My own opinion is that 'pure' software patents ought to go away. I would define a 'pure' software patent as one which encodes an algorithm that follows strictly from the intersection of math and of the computer it executes on, and also it would not allow for patents to be granted on the basis of application -- in other words a patent "using X for Y" would not be valid, either X is sufficiently pattentable on its own, or it is not -- whether or not X was applied to a novel problem wouldn't constitute uniqueness.

As an example, I don't personally believe that a compression algorithm that follows strictly from math should be patentable, even despite their exceeding cleverness. I see this simply as a side effect of the exploration of math, and I believe that math, once discovered, should not be owned by anyone. However, I believe that a theoretical video compression algorithm that achieved higher perceived visual quality because the algorithm specifically took into account the human visual system should be pattentable. For me, the difference is that integrating a further, specific constraint (rather than opportunity) into the algorithm itself elevates it beyond simple math. There's an additional. non-mechanical observation that's been studied, quantified, and integrated.

That sort of segues into an example of "using X for Y" that I would prefer to be disallowed. One of the dating websites has a patent on using standard data-mining techniques to find potential matches. Essentially, they claim a patent by labeling the rows and columns of their matrix with things like "likes dogs", instead of using an abstract variable. They would claim that their patent doesn't cover just their specific columns, their weights and their inter-relatedness, but indeed the very idea of labeling the rows and columns with personality traits for the purpose of determining compatibility.

Ironically, they have tons of secret sauce -- the additional, non-mechanical observation that's been studied, quantified, and integrated into their algorithm, and that's what I'd have them protect -- via patent, possibly, but perhaps copyright would be sufficient. That's the real value that they've discovered -- relationships like "straight women who like beer, dogs, and movies, statistically, find bearded men more attractive." or whatever. Its the ability to find and integrate those kinds of observations that from the pile of data that gives one dating site and edge over another, not the mechanical process of extracting it using well-known mathematics. To be clear, I don't mean to say that this dating site should instead claim ownership of particular, granular observations, but on the whole. I would probably prefer that this was more of a trade-secret, rather than a patent though.

The worst "X used for Y" that I've run into was when I workin in gambling. A competitor patented "16:9 aspect ratio for a gambling display", so we were legally obliged to install plastic strips that covered at least one column of pixels in our products at our own expense, of course....
We had some terrible ones ourselves, such as a computer visualization of a 12-sided dice. 12-item reels or snippers - that's fine - but only one campany can let you gamble with 12-sided dice.

We had 400 staff in R&D; to score high on your performance review, you were supposed to lodge 12 patents a year, with no time specifically given to that task. Even a run-of-the-mill game programmer or mathematician should submit one idea from their day-to-day work each month to the legal department.

There was also a similar task to jury duty, where you'd be pulled into a retreat with the legal team and forced to try and find loopholes in their drafts (e.g. "What if they just used 15.99:9 ratio?") so they could make our patents as broad, vague and watertight as possible...

All the ideas patented are obvious to an expert in the field. Most are obvious to a layman! They shouldn't be granted, but the US patent office is horribly broken.

These are not being used to encourage innovation and protect inventor's rights. They're just weapons used by huge businesses to create unfair artificial monopolies and to hobble competitors in whatever underhanded manner possible.

so they could make our patents as broad, vague and watertight as possible...

Exactly. It just gets too political. That is exactly what kept me from even attempting my patent the way it was, that the description of a "very similar" patent was made so broad and vague and watertight, that it covered every idea anyone could possibly have concerning that type of product. Yet, it is not a product, they just sit on the patent.

These are not being used to encourage innovation and protect inventor's rights. They're just weapons used by huge businesses to create unfair artificial monopolies and to hobble competitors in whatever underhanded manner possible.

And thus is the result. Of course, big companies don't really care to sue unless you get too big (but you want to get big don't you?), so what to do?

Where did it all go wrong?

It is a really hard case, and one main reason that I just don't like the law side of business.

1) IMO, software patent should be globally banned

I disagree. However, I do believe that there are too many frivolous patents.

But consider the whole idea of why patents exist in the first place, which is to allow you to be compensated for time and money that you spend developing a process, and stop others from making money off your R & D. Without patents, almost nobody would do R & D work. This applies just as much to software as it does to anyone else. If a software company spends two years and several million dollars developing new algorithms, they should be allowed to protect that investment, otherwise anyone who can disassemble code can duplicate it at almost no cost.

Out of interest, do you have examples of patented software algorithms that took years and millions of dollars to develop?

Disassembling source code is something that is going to be a big risk for companies in many cases, even without software patents (e.g., accusations of copyright infringement).

I've never worked for a software company so I actually have no idea how much time and money is required to develop anything. The point I was making is that anyone, irregardless of what industry they are within, should be allowed the use of a system designed to protect their interests.

Patents are not the problem. The problem is the bodies that issue them and how they are used. This is not just in regard to software patents, but all patents.

So you don't actually have a single example of what you claim...

Companies can spend large amounts of money developing software, but software is covered by copyright, and copying from disassembling would be copyright infringement.

"The problem is the bodies that issue them and how they are used."

It's all very well saying that the system would work great if only they were issued and used properly - when that never happens. Software patents as they exist in the world today are something I dislike - what about you? If things are actually fixed (not "could be"), great, then I'll think further.

"This is not just in regard to software patents, but all patents."

And I don't like those either - that other things are bad isn't an argument in favour. Though I note that some of the arguments in favour of other patents (billions of dollars of investment, no other means to protect) don't apply to software patents.

Thinking on this a little more -- I think the two primary distinctions between being able to patent a machine and being able to patent software are these: Firstly, a machine is almost always an embodiment of a particular application and therefore meets a sort of minimum bar for specificity, and secondly, at the time patent law was first written, it was clear even to non-technical people that machines could be easily reverse-engineered and duplicated.

When software patents began to take root, people who didn't know software tried to draw an analogy to machines and failed to see key differences. The main thing they failed to see is that an algorithm is not like a machine because an algorithm can be used broadly, essentially without modification. In other words, it is decoupled from an application, and therefore loses that necessary specificity.

So you don't actually have a single example of what you claim...

In respect to software, no. But when it comes to patents for physical products, yes I do, having spent many years working in manufacturing. And as I said, patents are the same, whether they're for software or hardware.

It's all very well saying that the system would work great if only they were issued and used properly - when that never happens. Software patents as they exist in the world today are something I dislike - what about you? If things are actually fixed (not "could be"), great, then I'll think further.

In other words, you don't want to discuss it until it's the way you want it? If everyone thought like that, nothing would ever get fixed.

Though I note that some of the arguments in favour of other patents (billions of dollars of investment, no other means to protect) don't apply to software patents.

Can you give a valid reason why they don't apply to software?

"In other words, you don't want to discuss it until it's the way you want it? If everyone thought like that, nothing would ever get fixed."

I'm perfectly happy to discuss it, that's what I'm doing now. Earlier, you said:

"Patents are not the problem. The problem is the bodies that issue them and how they are used."

Whether we blame "patents" or "the bodies", I don't care. But my point is that I disagree with "software patents", by which we mean software patents in today's world. Now yes, maybe you could propose an alternative world where "software patents" means something different, and I may or may not have a different view on those, but it would have to be a dramatically different system.

I offer a simple solution to fix them: abolish software patents. If you want to offer an alternative solution that's fine. But what we can't do is simply say "patents are fine, it's the problem with the bodies", and then carry on with nothing actually being fixed. What is your proposed solution?

"Can you give a valid reason why they don't apply to software?"

Don't involve billions of dollars of investment, and have other means to protect them (e.g., copyright).

I personally think that if we are to have patents at all, we should also have software patents. However, I think that the patent offices, in particular the US one, needs to be more restrictive and not grant patents to obvious stuff. I think we should greatly reduce the expiration dates, and set them on a case by case basis.

I would also propose some form of limit in submissions or stockpile size so that you can't just patent everything you can think of, but rather have to select which ones you really care about. It would probably be really hard to implement though.

But what we can't do is simply say "patents are fine, it's the problem with the bodies", and then carry on with nothing actually being fixed. What is your proposed solution?

The biggest problem with patents seems to be the US patent system, which seemingly grants patents for just about anything. Not being an American, I have no idea what can be done to fix any part of their government system, especially since the companies with the most money would probably prefer to keep things as they are.

So unfortunately I have no idea how to fix the situation. But simply saying "Well, the system as we have it isn't working, so let's not have any system." isn't a solution either.

Don't involve billions of dollars of investment, and have other means to protect them (e.g., copyright).

There doesn't need to be billions of dollars invested to make a patent worthwhile. There have been many valid patents made over the years by companies that don't make that kind of money.

And copyrighting your code isn't going to help you at all if your competition disassembles your code and creates a product based off of that. Their end product will be dissimilar enough to be safe from copyright infringement.