Re: "I'll even take anecdotes -- even just one -- of people who have started software businesses or invented software because they knew they'd have a patent or copyright. "

Companies are started all the time without sufficient capital to actually operate or bring a product to market. The innovator has an idea, does an initial tech demo, and then must raise money from institutional investors (venture capitalists, etc). One of the criteria to make a company investable to these players (i.e., make as much money as possible for the people doing the investing), is defensibility against competitors--the platforming that Eben strongly attacked in a previous lecture. Without various barriers of entry, the company will not be investable, and will not receive venture capital. The idea will not be commercialized. The innovator did not make moral decisions about freedom, rather she faced the set of choices available.

I know this because the software company I am starting has pursued a provisional patent solely for the purpose of securing funding. I know that in our business, the patent itself is unlikely to make any meaningful difference.

-- AlexeySokolin - 07 Oct 2011

First, the link Mia provided was fantastic. Second, and in response to the first overall point in this discussion, isn't 20 years too long already? In the world of rapidly evolving tech, only big, fundamental patents might reflect tech that is still useful 20 years after its invention.

More about how the above infographic helps demonstrate why patent protection is stifling rather than encouraging innovation: Consider the possibility that Insert Evil Company Here (IECH) has some tech out in the consumer sector that's massively profitable. They've got the production or whatnot down so well it's 99% profit. Consequence #1: Their R&D may be churning out wonderful new ideas that consumers would adore having in their homes, but they aren't as profitable, so they patent the idea and put it in a closet in case someone else tries to bring it to the market and undermine IECH's enormous market share. Realizing the potential of this strategy (allowing IECH to ride the gravy train of tech #1 for eons), Consequence #2: IECH begins using its massive profits to buy up patents, even at outrageous prices, from tech companies the world over to make sure its closet full of patents is even more well-stocked. The atmosphere is now ripe for innovators to get their pants sued off for anything that might compete with tech #1, all while IECH has no incentive to roll out anything innovative themselves until it displaces tech #1 in terms of profitability.

-- JohnJeffcott - 06 Oct 2011

A few things. First, just because software patents use the magic words "with a computer" doesn't make them any less patents on mental processes -- they're just being written with an artificial formality of language to evade Section 101. A general purpose computer is just a machine for implementing algorithms, and it's the algorithms that are being patented. Second, the absence of software patents doesn't mean that people "innovate for free." I don't really know how to argue about this except to say that lots of innovators have gotten very rich without enforcing software patents. Third, there are large companies that have grown successfully large without software patents (not sure what "large" means in this context).

Finally, re, which is the "better solution." What is the problem? What are we solving with our solutions of copyright or patent or whatever else. How is the problem defined? I'd love to see some empirical data describing the scope of this problem. I would like to see any evidence at all that we need IP for what it's claimed it does, which as far as I can tell is "incentivize innovation," I guess? I'll even take anecdotes -- even just one -- of people who have started software businesses or invented software because they knew they'd have a patent or copyright. Because I can point you to all kinds of people who never expected IP to give them monopoly power (even if they did end up getting patents or copyrights because their university or funders made them) who still innovate, of products that are improved and make more money for their producers because of end-user innovation, of how all sorts of IP formulations end up hindering innovation and introducing inefficiency, etc.

-- BahradSokhansanj - 06 Oct 2011

From what I can surmise based on my budding IP knowledge, I think copyright is a better solution than patent because copyright protection does not extend to ideas or methods of operation that are too functional to be expressive. Reverse engineering is also allowed with copyrighted works, but not with patented works. Copyright could definitely be improved by expanding the fair use doctrine so that its applications to the software realm are more apparent. For instance, eager, altruistic Linux-type developers could push out improvements to popular commercial software without fear of retribution.

Also, here's an infographic on tech companies' patent wars and their stifling effect on innovation.

-- MiaLee - 06 Oct 2011

Responding to Austin's comment, original authors or inventors do care that minor changes off their works are protected and whose IP rights are given to someone else. On the patent side, an inventor of a pioneering product would expect to recoup not just the invention itself, but also the market for products that "proximately" branch off it. Having another inventor monopolize and block the ability of the first inventor to realize the market off his invention would produce less incentive to invent in the first place. Therefore, patents has the doctrine of equivalents to allow inventors to claim infringement on products that are substantially similar. The system realizes the need of broad market rights for inventors to realize profits off their inventions, and thus requires any improvement off a previous invention to itself satisfy the threshold of patentability.

Responding to Bahrad, software patents are not monopolies on mental processes, which are themselves unpatentable per se. They involve application of the mental process to a specific procedure or machine. The protection granted by patent law is on the specific application, usually tied to the machine/computer or transformative effect. Now I agree with you and other authority that many software patents are not worthwhile for the software industry or society. And I think the Fed. Cir. is continuing to mess up Section 101 (patentable subject matter), including computer software. But some patent protection may be desirable for the next new software that can change how we work or use computers. Some software programs that might be created would require enormous time and resources beyond the willingness and ability of individuals who can try to innovate for free. Even though it may sound cynical and against what our class is about, we may need large companies and patent protection to encourage broadly the development of all kinds of software.

-- ThomasHou - 06 Oct 2011