Made for science, but used for profits at science's expense

Software patent myopia is the name of a new essay that contains a very apt analogy:

Whatever one thinks of software patents a priori, surely we can do better than to take a myopic view of the potential problems of software patents and of where they are likely to be found. This research seems a lot like arguing that cigarette smoking isn’t bad because it doesn’t cause cirrhosis of the liver or because it helps fight obesity.

A newer article from Forbes, "Patenting For Profits", provides insight into the mind of those striving to possess all sorts of knowledge. In particular, it is made clear that patents become associated with money (investor) rather than knowledge and defense of inventor (the reason for having patents in the first place).

By monetising portfolios, it becomes apparent that patents become a product, so need we be surprised that the legal system gets misused by trolls whose only product is a set of acquired patents? Here is the opening paragraph:

Managing technology patents is becoming a science in itself. IBM, for example, consistently one of the global leaders in patent filings, recently filed an application to create a unique system for protecting its patents.

See Novell's annual report which puts emphasis on its intangible assets at times. Novell is essentially part of the same 'club'. It happens to explain its endorsement of Microsoft's claims.

Europe is still in a better position when it comes to handling of patents. The following fragment from Slovanian presidency programme drops a hint.

Slovenia will aim to take forward work on a number of priority areas for the internal market, including the electronic communications legislative package,financial services, postal services, establishing the Community patent, the Customs Code and taxation.

Mind the word "Community". It is unlikely that Slovenia will adopt a system that resembles the American one. No country in Europe has gone that way. ⬆