Back to VSLive! San Francisco Show Daily Home
IP Debate Heats Up
Panel discusses whether software patents are a boon to innovation or merely a tool wielded by large companies to stuff smaller shops.
by Nick Fuentes
VSLive! San Francisco, February 10, 2005
Panelists debating the efficacy of software patents drew cheers and jeers Wednesday during a lively discussion at VSLive! San Francisco. Moderated by Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology in Washington, D.C., participants in the forum debated whether software patents foster creativity and innovation or simply stifle smaller companies in a competitive marketplace.
|
| Left to right: moderator Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology; Andre Carter, president of Irimi, a consulting firm for startups and small- to medium-sized businesses; Richard Wilder, intellectual property and international attorney; Nathan Torkington, editor with O'Reilly Media |
Andre Carter, president of Irimi, a consulting firm for startups and small- to medium-sized companies, argues that intellectual property acts as the currency of wealth and innovation. "Four hundred years ago, society was largely agrarian, where wealth equaled land," Carter said. Today, it's your intellectual output that holds the most value. "It's things you can't hold, can't feel," Carter said. "How do you change something that's an intangible asset? How do you 'own' it? You have to feel that what you create is the wealth of your company," and it's something that should be protected.
|
Nathan Torkington |
There has been considerable debate, especially in the open source community, about whether patents, copyrights, and the general protection of intellectual property are detrimental to the technology industry. Nathan Torkington, an open source supporter, editor for O'Reilly Media Inc., and PERL developer, contends that protecting intellectual property is not damaging in and of itself, but that large corporations often leverage patents for the sake of collecting on their usage, thereby penalizing smaller companies that need those patents to create their products.
"I'm not saying all IP is bad," Torkington said. "Open source believes in copyrights. It's meant to allow people to license your software. Patents are what we have a problem with." He added that "patent trolls"—companies that do not produce any product but simply acquire patents in order to extract revenue from those who use them in other projects—are a main source of this problem. "Smaller companies are very vulnerable to the leverage patents give to larger companies," Torkington said.
|
Andre Carter
|
Carter disagreed. "All I work with are small firms," he said. "They're the engine of innovation. And once they get a patent, they're a player in the game."
Audience members took their cue to step up to the microphone, ask questions, and debate whether patents do in fact harm the industry. One such member argued that on paper, patents do serve the greater good of the industry by allowing developers to share their ideas, but that some companies—especially larger firms—acquire patents in a clandestine fashion to trap smaller businesses.
"Patents are the converse of trade secrets," he said. "They make it so you can share with the world something that someone else would have discovered anyway. Programmers know that we get together and discuss things, and that it's likely someone else will encounter the same issue. So, patent it so others don't have to reinvent the wheel.
|
Jonathan Zuck |
"But patents are taking capitalism to the extreme, and we worry that if there's big money in patenting, it will squash intellectual development. There's a fear that common ideas were taking over as a method of making money, that IP was not for discovering something interesting, but because 'I'm here first.' Then you're not disclosing it for the rest of the world."
According to Carter, one way to combat the squeezing out of smaller companies is for these firms to partner up with the larger company that holds the patent. "The road is littered with one- and two-person shops that had a patent and did the right thing with it," Carter said. "It literally is a first-come, first-served system. If small firms get into a defensive posture and recognize that they're better [at providing a certain product or service], grab the empowerment, and decide to be good, the value is this intellectual output. It's not a bad idea to create the work and then partner up with a big company."
|
Richard Wilder |
One thing the panelists agreed on was that change is in order for the patent law system. Panelist Richard Wilder, an attorney who specializes in intellectual property law, said that although the system succeeds in fostering innovative efforts, there is room for improvement in regulating who in the United States can obtain patents and for what purpose.
"The system as a whole functions as an engine to attract investment, to create jobs and wealth," Wilder said. "We have to work within the administrative system, the court system, to make sure the goal is accomplished. There are answers to some of the issues that have been raised, such as ensuring patents are issued appropriately."
Though there was ample support in the audience for abandoning the current patent system to halt large companies from taking advantage of it, one audience member asserted that it's the responsibility of developers to take charge and compete—no matter how big the competition might be.
"It's almost as if we as developers are victimizing ourselves," he said. "But this is nothing new. We're not doing anything new, and we're not creating a new product. If you have a product, learn the rules, play the game, and do it better than they do."
About the Author
Nick Fuentes is editorial project manager for FTPOnline. Reach him at ftponlinedit@fawcette.com.
Back to top
|