Unprotected Software Lie

Various large corporations claim that they needed patents because otherwise their software developments were not protected. That representation is wrong since other forms of protection are available.

First of all, software is protected by copyright. That is true of personal computer software as well as any software that is embedded into technical devices, such as tomographer. If a company says that there were no legal protection for its software without patents, then that is a blunt lie. If the claim is that copyright protection were insufficient, then that's also wrong because the largest software companies all became what they are thanks to copyright law.

Keeping the source code of software secret is, due to the complexity of a large computer program, another form of protection. There is no obligation to publish the source code of software. Some voluntarily do it but those open-source developers are against software patents anyway. Without the source code, it is extremely difficult and time-consuming for anyone to understand the inner workings of a computer program. It takes about the same skill level, if not even a higher one, to analyze a program without the source code as writing a program of similar functionality from scratch. So it makes no economic sense to steal someone's code under those circumstances.

Software is furthermore protected by trademark law. An innovative company benefits from its achievements by enhancing its reputation and brand identity. That enables it to always command higher price than those who afterwards imitate any of its ideas. While that is no substitute to the form of protection that copyright law represents, it had to be mentioned.

While copyright law is a proven winner for software, patent law is economically unproven. There is no question that the software industry became highly innovative and profitable on the basis of copyright law. However, economic research still has not produced any conclusive evidence that patent law is beneficial to the economy and society. Like with most things, there are some profiteers who have advantages from the patent system, but most economists are very sceptical of its benefits to the general public.

Those who claim that software needs patent protection are typically those who make money with patents. There are some large corporations that are run by "patentomaniacs" but in a number of organizations it's just the patent department that emphasizes the need for software patents. They say that copyright were no sufficient protection because copyright means no, or much less, of an opportunity to themselves.

Software developers want to be protected from patents, not by patents. The vast majority of software developers want the patent system to be kept away from them. To them, the immense risks and substantial costs of the patent system are so negative that the potential benefits have no practical relevance.

Click here to read about the lie that SMEs could use software patents against large corporations