Summary: Quote-worthy truisms about what gradually became a protectionist mechanism that not only harms the industry but people's well-being too

TECHRIGHTS works hard to undo the spin from the 'Patents Industrial Complex', which mostly comprises lawyers who market themselves to monopoly seekers. Against Monopoly has this new post about a New York Times report on Roche. It's insightful, as always:

What struck me, however, was that Aileron holds patent rights to the stapled technology from Harvard University and its associated Dana Farber Cancer Institute. So now creating a patent monopoly, granted according to the constitution to individuals ostensibly to encourage innovation, becomes a way to make the university richer than it already is. Harvard is the same place that lost millions from its fat endowment when its then president Larry Summers began giving directions as to how it was to be invested and guessed wrong. Aileron will get a potential minimum gain of $25 million and a maximum of $1.1 billion if Aileron's projections work out. The article doesn't tell us what Harvard gets, beyond the original patent license fee of an undisclosed amount. Or whether the original research was funded by Federal Government research grants as is common or what the individual scientists involved get. A lot seems to be missing from this story.

Against Monopoly is also a Web site which is dedicated to undoing spin and challenge conventional wisdom that's inherited from lawyers. Referring more specifically to software patents, America has "already lost a number of companies to Europe and Asia over our software patent system," says this new article: [via Wildeboer]

So to try to gain control, and more importantly to get money from Google’s deep pockets, Oracle is suing Google, alleging patent infringement. Should Oracle win, or even force a settlement, once again software patents in America will have stifled, not enhanced, innovation. We’ve already lost a number of companies to Europe and Asia over our software patent system, which is so out of touch with the industry it’d be laughable if it weren’t costing us jobs, adding a layer of burdensome compliance costs to everyone, and reducing competition in the software field.

Some say Google is a free rider. Well, I’ll let you in on a secret: everyone’s a free rider in software. Software is not a widget that has costs in its manufacture. It can be written once, copied indefinitely, and given away freely without any marginal costs. This is how there can be so much free software around. And I know; there’s code of mine floating around in most Linux and FreeBSD OS releases. Less than in the past, but I’ve given away a lot of software in my day. And Oracle is as much a free rider on that as anyone. We don’t need software patents to get innovation, and when they are enforced they only hold back competition. Let’s end them. Software authors have copyright, trademark, and trade dress to protect them as it is. Software patents are a step too far, last too long in this fast moving field, and are almost always too broad.

Software patents not only harm competition but they also harm society, as shown by Apple. More Web sites ought to sceptically investigate and report on the full impact of patents. Just like the 'Military Industrial Complex', the 'Patents Industrial Complex' can go out of control when its needs are exaggerated (lobbyists play a role here), its budget expands, and disinformation gets spread to justify its existence. Let's squash the 'Patents Industrial Complex' before it squashes society. ⬆

“Software patents are a huge potential threat to the ability of people to work together on open source. Making it easier for companies and communities that have patents to make those patents available in a common pool for people to use is one way to try to help developers deal with the threat.”

--Linus Torvalds