would be an understatement to say that people have strong opinions on patents. But as Techdirt pointed out, there is a growing consensus that some software patents do not work - James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer wrote a whole book, "The failure of patents" how bad things are there, and what happens in this area rather than elsewhere.

One of the main problems is that software patents are mainly patents on mathematical algorithms - sets of instructions to perform a calculation. As has long been a principle that can not be patented or mathematical formulas laws of nature, there is a tension here: if the software is just math, why should be able to patent it? New Scientist an interesting article in the notification of the American Mathematical Society in April 2013, in which David A. Edwards offers a radical way to solve this puzzle (pdf)

At present, only the things that are made by man is patentable. Therefore, the courts have allowed new forms of bacteria that have been designed to have useful properties by recombinant DNA techniques to be patented, but does not allow patenting bacteria as if it happens naturally even if newly discovered. This is the basis of the non-patentability of computer programs. Are algorithms, which are essentially mathematical formulas, which - as we know - are "eternal" and discovered by man and not created by him. This argument, to say the least, is philosophically controversial, leading to our current unfortunate policy. From an economic point of view, there is no justification for the distinction between discovery and invention, and would be in favor of completely abandoning restrictions apply to be on what can be patented. We should be able to patent something previously known to man.

In particular, it is considered can

mathematics patent, and thus the software

One of their arguments is that it would encourage people to make new discoveries. But this assumes mathematicians do not try to do it now for the glory, the recognition of his colleagues and land, but no evidence to suggest that. The same argument is sometimes made in favor of software patents - which stimulate the production of more software. But this ignores the fact that the computer industry has thrived for decades before the introduction of software patents, and companies like Microsoft have become highly profitable companies without them.

Indeed, in 1991, Bill Gates, famous aware of problems that software patents create for the industry and your business:

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. "Worried that" some large company patent some obvious thing "and use the patent to" take as much of our profits as they want doors. "

This is, of course, is exactly what has happened since the introduction of software patents, which leads to the following situation:


In the smartphone industry alone, according to an analysis from the University of Stanford, as much as 20 billion dollars have been spent on litigation of patents and patent purchases in both last year - the equivalent of eight missions to Mars Rover. Last year, for the first time, the burden of Apple and Google in the trial of patent and patent unusually large purchases of dollars exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public records. Since patents allow you to control the commercial applications of their discovery or invention to the patent owner, the patenting of mathematical formulas, laws of nature and natural phenomena would have no negative effect in the pure science.
Find best price for : --Federal----Madey----Gates----Bill--