A patent is a right to an invention. A patents prohibits others from stealing the owner’s idea. This invention that the patent protects includes physical, intellectual, and software ideas and artifacts. Software patents have evolved as computers and technology have developed. According to The History of Software Patents: From Benson, Flook, and Diehr to Bilski and Mayo v. Prometheus, in the 60s and 70s, there was no protection to software development if a computer makes the calculations. In the 80s, only some software and computer developments were patentable. In the 90s, all software was patentable. Then, in the 2000s, patents related to software digressed, and were then reinstated in the last decade.
According to Brad Smith of Microsoft, “Protection for software patents and other intellectual property is essential to maintaining the incentives that encourage and underwrite technological breakthroughs. In every industry, patents provide the legal foundation for innovation. The ensuing legal disputes may be messy, but protection is no less necessary, even so.” I think the main benefit to patents is their incentive for innovation, which ultimately better society. However, on the other hand, patents often lessen competition and take a while to process, which often slows down the pace of industry. With regard to patents in general, I think they are necessary for innovation because they protect the inventions of those who create them. People who invent something should have the right to protect their own ideas without the fear of having it sold or used by someone else.
Software patents, however, are slightly different than tangible artifacts. I think that tangible artifacts should be protected by strong patents when they are distinct, unique inventions. For example, the person who invented a toaster should have the rights to that invention because it has a specific, unique purpose. Someone came up with the idea and designed the physical casing, structure, electrical system, etc. However, it can be argued that software developments are just a manipulation of mathematics and ones and zeros. Requiring patents for software inventions would ultimately slow down the progression of technology because people making advancements would need the permission of those who made prior advancements in math. If software engineering is just math, then shouldn’t all people be allowed to use these discoveries to invent? If we use Euclid and Newton’s geometry and calculus to create inventions, then inventors should be able to use other math discoveries in their software, within reason, of course. According to The Case Against Patents, there is no research that shows that software patents have accelerated the development of technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine say that “A closer look at the historical and international evidence suggests that while weak patent systems may mildly increase innovation with limited side-effects, strong patent systems retard innovation with many negative side-effects.” I think that “weak patent systems” should be implemented. These would give the inventor protection over his property, but allow others to use basic discoveries and apply them to their own separate works.
Patent trolling is ultimately lessening the good that patents were intended to accomplish. Companies are filing patents without the the desire to actually use these ideas to develop products. Instead, they file patents so companies can sue other companies for infringing on these patents that they aren’t even using for inventive purposes. According to Ars Technica, patent trolling has reached an all time high in the past several years. I think that this is a sign that the patent system is broken and needs to be altered. I think that patents are necessary to protect “big ideas” and “big inventions,” but minor details that could be integrated into many software developments or inventions shouldn’t necessarily require patents if they could help innovators with their own unique products.