[Solar-general] Articulo en NYT sobre patentes de software (en ingles)

Dom Jun 10 08:25:02 CEST 2007

Esto salio en el New York Times. Se lo recomiendo a todos, pero lo
dedico a aquellos que dudan que se puede apoyar la causa del software
libre y contra las patentes de sofware desde "la derecha". Digo esto
porque quien firma este articulo es miembro del Cato Institute
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute).

Published: June 9, 2007

St. Louis

WHAT a difference 16 years makes. Last month, the technology world was
abuzz over an interview in Fortune magazine in which Bradford Smith,
Microsoft's general counsel, accused users and developers of various
free software products of patent infringement and demanded royalties.
Indeed, in recent years, Mr. Smith has argued that patents are
essential to technological breakthroughs in software.

Microsoft sang a very different tune in 1991. In a memo to his senior
executives, Bill Gates wrote, "If people had understood how patents
would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had
taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill
today." Mr. Gates worried that "some large company will patent some
obvious thing" and use the patent to "take as much of our profits as
they want."

Mr. Gates wrote his 1991 memo shortly after the courts began allowing
patents on software in the 1980s. At the time Microsoft was a growing
company challenging entrenched incumbents like I.B.M. and Novell. It
had only eight patents to its name. Recognizing the threat to his
company, Mr. Gates initiated an aggressive patenting program. Today
Microsoft holds more than 6,000 patents.

It's not surprising that Microsoft — now an entrenched incumbent — has
had a change of heart. But Mr. Gates was right in 1991: patents are
bad for the software industry. Nothing illustrates that better than
the conflict between Verizon and Vonage.

Vonage developed one of the first Internet telephone services and has
attracted more than two million customers. But last year, Verizon —
one of Vonage's biggest competitors — sued for patent infringement and
won a verdict in its favor in March.

The Gates memo predicted that a large company would "patent some
obvious thing," and that's exactly what Verizon has done. Two of its
patents cover the concept of translating phone numbers into Internet
addresses. It is virtually impossible to create a consumer-friendly
Internet telephone product without doing that. So if Verizon prevails
on appeal, it will probably be able to drive Vonage out of business.
Consumers will suffer from fewer choices and higher prices, and future
competitors will be reluctant to enter markets dominated by patents.

But don't software companies need patent protection? In fact,
companies, especially those that are focused on innovation, don't:
software is already protected by copyright law, and there's no reason
any industry needs both types of protection. The rules of copyright
are simpler and protection is available to everyone at very low cost.
In contrast, the patent system is cumbersome and expensive. Applying
for patents and conducting patent searches can cost tens of thousands
of dollars. That is not a huge burden for large companies like
Microsoft, but it can be a serious burden for the small start-up firms
that produce some of the most important software innovations.

Yet, as the Vonage case demonstrates, participating in the patent
system is not optional. Independent invention is not a defense to
patent infringement, and large software companies now hold so many
patents that it is almost impossible to create useful software without
infringing some of them. Therefore, the only means of self-defense is
the one Mr. Gates identified 16 years ago: stockpile patents to use as
bargaining chips in litigation. Vonage didn't do that, and it's now
paying a very high price.

Only patent lawyers benefit from this kind of arms race. And
Microsoft's own history contradicts Mr. Smith's claim that patents are
essential for technological breakthroughs: Microsoft produced lots of
innovative software before it received its first software patent in
1988. As more and more lawsuits rock the industry, we should ask if
software patents are stifling innovation. Bill Gates certainly thought
so in 1991, even if he won't admit it today.

Timothy B. Lee is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
Next Article in Opinion (8 of 18) »

-- 
Sebastián Bassi (セバスティアン)
Diplomado en Ciencia y Tecnología.
GPG Fingerprint: 9470 0980 620D ABFC BE63 A4A4 A3DE C97D 8422 D43D
Club de la razón (www.clubdelarazon.org)