Richard Stallman suggests limiting software patents
Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), has published a software article on software patents. Stallman calls them “computational idea patents”.
Stallman explains that any complex program can break hundreds of such "ideas." Thus, patents threaten every programmer. For example, experts studied the Linux kernel and found 283 US patents that describe the computational ideas implemented in the kernel. Richard Stallman says that the Linux kernel is about 0.25% of the source code of the entire GNU / Linux ecosystem, so the number of patents threatening us can be extrapolated to about 100,000. Even if half of them are canceled as bad quality patents, 50,000 still remain. .
“That's why it is a mistake to limit the criticism of software patents only to“ patent trolls ”or“ poor quality ”of patents,” Stallman writes. - In this sense, Apple, which is not a troll in the usual sense of the word, is the most dangerous patent aggressor of our time. I don’t know if Apple’s patents are of “good quality” or not, but the better the “quality” of patents, the more dangerous the threat. ”
Richard Stallman says that it is usually proposed to change the criteria for granting patents as a solution to a problem. For example, prohibit patent ideas and algorithms. But this option is bad for two reasons: firstly, patent attorneys will still find a workaround; secondly, thousands of patents have already been issued for computing ideas, which is quite enough for the terror of the software industry for years to come.
')
We need to solve the problem dramatically, says Stallman. He proposes a different approach: legislatively change the scope of patents. That is, it is necessary to legally establish that the development, distribution or execution of a program on ordinary computer equipment cannot be a violation of a patent .
Richard Stallman writes that this approach has several advantages:
This method has already been used once in US lawmaking practice. A few years ago, lawmakers officially released surgeons from any patent infringement charges. Thus, although now different surgical methods and practices are patentable, the surgeons themselves are safe.
Direct protection of developers and users - the only way out of this situation, says Richard Stallman. If we cannot prohibit software patents entirely, then, instead of restricting the issuance of patents, it is better to limit their scope.
Stallman explains that any complex program can break hundreds of such "ideas." Thus, patents threaten every programmer. For example, experts studied the Linux kernel and found 283 US patents that describe the computational ideas implemented in the kernel. Richard Stallman says that the Linux kernel is about 0.25% of the source code of the entire GNU / Linux ecosystem, so the number of patents threatening us can be extrapolated to about 100,000. Even if half of them are canceled as bad quality patents, 50,000 still remain. .
“That's why it is a mistake to limit the criticism of software patents only to“ patent trolls ”or“ poor quality ”of patents,” Stallman writes. - In this sense, Apple, which is not a troll in the usual sense of the word, is the most dangerous patent aggressor of our time. I don’t know if Apple’s patents are of “good quality” or not, but the better the “quality” of patents, the more dangerous the threat. ”
Richard Stallman says that it is usually proposed to change the criteria for granting patents as a solution to a problem. For example, prohibit patent ideas and algorithms. But this option is bad for two reasons: firstly, patent attorneys will still find a workaround; secondly, thousands of patents have already been issued for computing ideas, which is quite enough for the terror of the software industry for years to come.
')
We need to solve the problem dramatically, says Stallman. He proposes a different approach: legislatively change the scope of patents. That is, it is necessary to legally establish that the development, distribution or execution of a program on ordinary computer equipment cannot be a violation of a patent .
Richard Stallman writes that this approach has several advantages:
- No need to classify patents as software or non-software.
- Provides protection for developers and users from both current and future patents.
- Patent lawyers will not be able to find a workaround.
This method has already been used once in US lawmaking practice. A few years ago, lawmakers officially released surgeons from any patent infringement charges. Thus, although now different surgical methods and practices are patentable, the surgeons themselves are safe.
Direct protection of developers and users - the only way out of this situation, says Richard Stallman. If we cannot prohibit software patents entirely, then, instead of restricting the issuance of patents, it is better to limit their scope.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/157097/
All Articles