Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Comp Sci 82
Group 3 Synopsis
9/16/09
For Richard Stallman, a large proponent of unabashed and unrestrained software
Computer Labortory in 2002, Stallman describes the dangerous obstacles that patents create for
software development. He says that laws are grossly misused and the description of the term
trademarks, and trade secrets, which were initially designed separately of one another, have been
lumped into the same category. This is a travesty since there are overwhelming differences
between copyrights and patents. Copyrights regulate the expression of a work while patents only
cover an idea. Copyrights go into effect immediately after the release of a documented work.
Patents are a much more expensive and lengthy process to obtain. Some copyrights last up to 150
years, while patents are only good for 20. In a domain like technology, where new products are
emerging on the market every few months, a patent lasting 20 years will only hinder the
development of new products. This holds true particularly in the area of software development;
20 years can seem like an eternity to wait to make modifications off of already existing but still
patented software.
idea.” Stallman also illustrates the analogy of a patent and the lottery: there are only a small
percentage of patents that actually bring a profit to their holders. The patent system seems quite
enticing, but the odds of turning out unsuccessful are far greater than the odds of winning.
Stallman also expresses his contempt for the language of patents. He says they are frequently
written in legal jargon which is very difficult to understand. This contributes to the monopolizing
tendencies of a patent: it is seemingly impossible to understand what exactly the patent entails.
Stallman suggests three options for conducting business in a manner which avoids the loop holes
of the patent: the first is to avoid the patent completely but this depends upon the situation. The
second option is to license the patent, however many patent holders do not offer licenses. The
third option is to overturn the patent in court. Stallman says, “The patent office does things that
are so obviously foolish, you wouldn’t even have to know the state of the art to see they are
foolish.” Stallman looks to Europe and the free software community it has created for itself to set
the example for the United States. The UK Patent office held a public consultation and it found
that a large proportion of its responders were opposed to software patents. Stallman wants the
United States to get support from countries in Europe to fight against software patents.
Mark H. Webbink’s article entitled A New Paradigm for Intellectual Property Rights in
Software(2005) echoed many of the same sentiments expressed by Richard Stallman. Webbink
says, “Today software patents are widely recognized as a threat to the freedom to innovate within
the software industry.” Webbink used support from Bill Gates to bolster his claim. Gates had
publicly stated in a memorandum from 1991 that, “If people had understood how patents would
be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry
hypothetical situation: if patents had been around in 1975 when many of the great technological
advancements were taking place such as WordStar, the first PC-based word processor, 1995
would have been the earliest date of new product development. This would have been twenty
years after the initial patent. In those twenty years it can only be imagined what advancements
would have taken place. It certainly is a relief to know that in 1975 this was not the case and
Webbink does explain, however, that patents are important for other business such as
pharmaceutical companies that compete with each other to produce medications. Pharmaceutical
patents are rewarded far less frequently than software patents, to the point that every minute
development of prior software technology is patented. As an example, there are in fact fourteen
different patents for the positioning and movement of a cursor. In comparison, there is only one
patent for the drug Viagra. Like Stallman, Webbink also looked to Europe and the European
Commission and European Parliament as a good example of how patents should be handled-
I can certainly see how the patent system in the United States hinders innovative growth.
If patents are issued for up to 20 years at a time, it seems that the amount of progressive changes
that could occur within this time span is enormous. I find the Richard Stallman’s myth of a
“starving genius” quite interesting because as far back as I can remember, I only thought of
patents as helpful entities. I certainly believed the myth that patents helped brilliant inventors
save their ideas so that no one else could steal them. When the concept of a patent is put into a
larger context, such as in the hands of a corporation like IBM, it is easy to see where patents can
create an overwhelming monopoly that limits the growth of product development and controls
the financial sector surrounding the product or line of products. Philosophically, I completely
agree with Richard Stallman. I think that technological and software development should be free
in the sense that everyone has equal access and ability to alter the product. Realistically,
however, human beings have never been good at “sharing” especially when a profit can be made
from an idea. Most people will jump at the opportunity to make a buck and forget their neighbor.