Well, you have to love the blogosphere. I wrote a bunch of pieces on patents and patenting last Wednesday, checked my refer logs the next day, and figured no one picked up the posts. 
Brad Feld weighs in
Then over the weekend I managed to catch up on my reading and, lo and behold, Brad Feld–who I very much like and admire–and who I had (mildly, in intent) tweaked in the piece–Brad posted a response thoughtful and good natured and humorous. I.e. the best kind. Thanks Brad!
Here is what I think is the essence of Brad’s message, quoting Brad from the post:
Patent System is great. I love the notion of property rights for an
inventor. My problem is with how this gets applied to software (and more importantly – what gets classified as non-obvious invention in the
context of software.) Unfortunately – in my experience the vast
majority of the software patents I’ve been exposed to simply do not
pass the test of “non-obviousness” or are invalidated by prior art (the
most annoying and entertaining ones are those that stuff I was involved
in creating in my first company in the 1980s actually invalidate.) I
made this point in my original “Abolish Software Patents” post.
Agreement on values and goals
Brad and I seem to agree that the patent system reflects our values (see below).
I agree with Brad that software patents need to meet a high test of innovation. I agree that during historical period that software patents have been recognized, it has been a problem that stupid software patents have been issued by the patent office.
What I want to do is improve the system to make it hard to get stupid software patents issued, and easier for true innovators to get patents and protect their rights.
I don’t think that the right answer is to abolish software patents. I think that this will lead to big companies becoming big bullies. My experience is that big companies already steal lots of ideas from small companies, independent inventors, and the open source community. Abolishing the patent process will let theft run wild. And/or it will lead to secrecy among inventors. Neither result is good.
Let us continue to improve the software patenting process. My vision includes creating some new private institutions to support independent inventors of software.
Finally, Let us also disclose our sources of funding for patent reform. I am very suspicious of IBM, Microsoft, and other large firms who currently–this is fact–are the major funders of the “patent reform” movement. The fox is reforming the hen house. If you look at the big funders of, say, the EFF patent reform activities, what you will find, undisclosed unless you ask, is IBM money. You be the judge. Good or bad? I think, probably, bad. I love the “free culture” movement, but I think it is becoming currupted by its big company funders. I think this is a BIG problem that no one is focused on in the blog community.
Context thread:
Moore on Web 2.0 Open Technology Values,
Steal My Invention
Cringely on how “patent reform” promotes big company agendas and screws the small guys
Feld on intellectual property rights,
Moore on intellectual property rights,
History of software patents in context,
Provisional patents as affordable 1-year protection for the small guy,
IBM leads conspiracy to alter patent system in its favor,
Feld on IBM Takes Another Step to Change the Patent Process.
From the US Patent and Trademark Office website, General Information Concerning Patents
What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor,
issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the
term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application
for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from
the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment
of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the
United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions.