Patents: Why we need fewer of them

There is an interesting opinion piece today on the Wall Street Journal’’s Web site that discusses Why Technologists Want Fewer Patents. Basically, the subtitle, We shouldn’t grant monopolies on concepts, sums up what many technologists believe. Patents on concepts, ideas, and software do very little to help innovation. Software, at least, already has copyright protections, so extended patent rights is, IMO, overkill. Patents are supposed to spearhead innovation and while maybe in some cases they do, it is hard for me to see an argument that they do in the case of software and of business concepts. In fact, just the opposite is true. If I have to worry about whether or not an emoticon some concept or method that has been in use in thousands of other computer programs has previously been patented, I have no hope of ever building a better computer program. I know some people who favor software patents will point to patents being a way of protecting income streams, but as the column points out, studies have shown that “aside from the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, the cost of litigation now exceeds the profits companies generate from licensing patents.”

I’m not saying there should be no patents, but they need to be limited to real things. Not code. I hope that the Supreme Court rules to servilely limit what can be patented after they review Bilski v. Doll. If they don’t, the expressed goal of patent law in the United States Constitution — “to promote the progress of science and useful arts” will be defeated.