Software Patent Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- [Recorded: August 24, 2011]
THE MOTION: SOFTWARE PATENTS ENCOURAGE INNOVATION
Proponents of software patents argue that software deserves the protection of patents just as any other invention does. Software is simply a description of computer instructions that allow a processor to perform complex tasks. Particularly in today's knowledge economy, the value of software is growing and patents protect the investment of time, effort, and money made by companies and individual programmers.
Critics of software patents argue that they stifle innovation rather than promote it by cutting off the free flow of ideas needed to advance technology. Software consists of mathematical equations, which cannot and should not be patentable. Most software patents describe algorithms that are simple or obvious to a programmer of ordinary skill and thus do not deserve patent protection.
FOR THE MOTION
Bob Zeidman is the president and founder of Zeidman Consulting, a premiere contract research and development firm in Silicon Valley that focuses on engineering consulting to law firms about intellectual property disputes. Clients have included Apple Computer, Cisco Systems, Cadence Design Systems, Facebook, Intel, Symantec, Texas Instruments, and Zynga. Bob is also the president and founder of Software Analysis and Forensic Engineering Corporation, the leading provider of software intellectual property analysis tools. Bob has worked on and testified in nearly 100 cases involving billions of dollars in disputed intellectual property.
Bob is a prolific writer and instructor, giving seminars at conferences around the world. Among his publications are numerous articles on engineering and business as well as four textbooks, two novels, and three screenplays. Bob holds numerous patents and earned two bachelor's degrees, in physics and electrical engineering, from Cornell University and a master's degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University.
AGAINST THE MOTION
Edward A. Lee has been on the faculty in the Electrical Engineering
and Computer Sciences (EECS) department at U.C. Berkeley for more than 25 years. He has served as chair of the department and currently holds the Robert S. Pepper Distinguished Professorship. He has been a proponent of open source software and has headed the design and development of an open source design environment known as Ptolemy. He is a co-founder of BDTI, Inc., a technical analysis and advising company, where he is currently a Senior Technical Ad visor, has consulted for a number of other companies, and has served as an expert witness and/or advisor in software patent litigation cases. His research interests center on design, modeling, and analysis of embedded, real-time computational systems. He is a director of Chess, the Berkeley Center for Hybrid and Embedded Software Systems. He has published extensively, including six books and hundreds of research papers. Prior to Berkeley, Prof. Lee was a member of technical staff at Bell Telephone Laboratories in Holmdel, New Jersey, in the Advanced Data Communications Laboratory. His Bachelors degree (B.S.) is from Yale University (1979), his masters (S.M.) from MIT (1981), and his Ph.D. from U. C. Berkeley (1986). He is a Fellow of the IEEE, was an NSF Presidential Young Investigator, and won the 1997 Frederick Emmons Terman Award for Engineering Education.
MODERATOR
John C. Hollar, President and Chief Executive Officer, Computer History Museum. He has served as CEO since 2008, and holds bachelor's degrees in political science and journalism (BFA), and in law (JD) from Harvard Law School. 
Наука
Fascinating, I'm surprised this video isn't more viral !
Very interesting debate. It's good to see the pro-software patent side presented so strongly as you don't often see that online as much as that against.
Finally took time to listen to this at lunch after some of our dev/engineers kept mentioning how bad this was. You were all right.
This transcends pathetic if you use the word debate in its most common form. The 'con' side was just awful, beyond words while the pro side used very easily attacked arguments.
But this is common in many 'debates' and 'panels' that push an industry's views.
We don't need to worry about intellectual property if the law enforcer protect privacy without compromise public safety then it is a genius way to do it by ensure the outbound traffics of information is properly authorizes then everything is considered as consensus
Thank you for Upload
Good information regarding both sides of the debate. I would vote on Bob's side for Patenting Software.
@kid29a Edward's point wasn't to compare software companies to criminals, but rather to illuminate that property claims that are difficult to even recognize or unclearly defined are prone to lead to conflict and litigation because of unwitting and unintentional violations.
How can anyone be "on the fence" on this issue? Patenting software is like patenting a chord progression... Or patenting an exercise. Software patents are doing tremendous harm to business. Every software developer around has likely written code that in some way infringes on some odd software patent--Not because they have ill will or are trying to copy an "invention," but because every idea under the sun has been patented by broad, sweeping, obvious ideas. Software patents have to go away. Bad for business. Bad for everyone.
The only one who wants software patents are rich companies.
So its a video about a guy who is for software patents vs another guy who is also for software patents. The first guys arguments are intentionally misleading. Comparing method patents to regular ones. Comparing patent trolls to grocery stores (which distibute goods, patent trolls distrbute nothing.)
fabulous talk
interesting discussion. - undecided.
less "disputes" doesnt mean a better system for processing disputes. you mean less regulation leads to less "dispute-solving"
still pretty relevant
some people are too busy to build their own products. and what proof is even attainable that someone developed an idea independently.
I like how they get the uncharismatic prof to argue against the motion.
This is why we can't have nice things.
thanks for sharing ComputerHistory
Sorry, but the professor is simply doing a bad job. I would almost think he was chosen because of his inability.
The key problem with patents is that software developers simply do not use patents at all, in their work flow. Never. That means the system is completely useless for its purpose. The pro-guy uses all sorts of strawman arguments that are not unmasked by the professor.
Classical propaganda.
Thanks for that input. I am 16 minutes in and your comment has convinced me not to proceed further.
I'm less than 8 minutes in and raging. Be philosophically consistent!
The method for physical construction is a legal way of avoiding the use of variable construction outcomes despite having a functionally similar physical outcome. Software is not an object as much as it is an automated "how-to". The Ford patent is not a how-to on welding...a program for robots that weld on accomplishing the welding is.
For fucks sake...
no man or woman @PROPERTY.