Method to Relieve an Itch–Patent Scratching
January 11th, 2005 by Adam Cuothe
Worry pas, vinyl artisans this isn’t about scratching in that sense, rather the “fresh” starts to patents that appeared in today’s news.
For one, take the Heise report, which declares that the EU may start all over from scratch on its computer-implemented inventions patentability proposal. I think this is a positive development as it sets back the monopolistic interests that, in their infinite silliness think they can control something like software.
In the same day, we learn that IBM has chosen to grant free access to 500 of its patents to the open source community. That is, IBM wants to start a “patent commons” which I imagine might be something that could work similar to the creative commons. In the IBM case though, these patents could be used unrestricted so long as they’re used in open source projects. The flip side to IBM’s move is reported in the New York Times.
I.B.M. may be redefining its intellectual property strategy, but it apparently has no intention of slowing the pace of its patent activity. I.B.M. was granted 3,248 patents in 2004…
The article also mentions a number of other well-known companies for their high patent mass.
What is unclear in the article and really really deserves clarification is the nature of these patents. Patents in and of themselves may not necessarily be harmful as many people tend to consider them these days. Something like a software patent or the patents issued for things like algorithms manifested in software are, in my opinion, quite wrong-headed, damaging one’s inclination toward the free thinking required to invent and innovate. However, there are many types of things for which patents are issued, which might be toward beneficial uses. Or might not. It’s hard to say without more greater discussion. The New York Times should at least have called attention to some areas in which controversy spews its offspring with great, lewd slapping sounds made by lawyers, greed-mongers, and an activist or two. Why didn’t the article at least give a short paragraph to the consequential fallout, which surrounds why these patents are well-issued or issued with negligence to due-forsight and critical analysis.
The article hypes the excitement of a big company giving patents to the underdog (or as Bill Gates might construe the nasty little communists) but fails to bring the real issues about why IBM’s moves are significant, to light. I’d say it must be difficult for the uninitiated to see the poignance of this news.
And that’s why I combined it with the European Union news on patents. Take the two together, find out why the EU controversy is more than just political jokeying from newer members. Finally, compare that with the fact that IBM is spending copious amounts on patents to turn over to a lovely community that would be happy invent something and ask the rest of the world to have its way at liberty.
Leave a Reply