Abstract
Imagine if each square of pavement on the sidewalk had an owner, and pedestrians required a license to step on it. Imagine the negotiations necessary to walk an entire block under this system. That is what writing a program will be like if software patents continue. The sparks of creativity and individualism that have driven the computer revolution will be snuffed out. Imagine if each square of pavement on the sidewalk had an owner, and pedestrians required a license to step on it. Imagine the negotiations necessary to walk an entire block under this system. That is what writing a program will be like if software patents continue. The sparks of creativity and individualism that have driven the computer revolution will be snuffed out.—Richard Stallman and Simson Garfinkel (1992)
This article highlights the vulnerability of the open source software movement to patent infringement lawsuits. With the number of patents on software algorithms predicted to exceed 100,000 this year, it is now virtually impossible to write any computer program, however trivial, that does not violate one or more patents. This paper argues that this situation is not only ludicrous, but it is contrary to any reasonable reading of the Constitution’s intentions with respect to the protection of intellectual property. In addition, the patentability of software algorithms stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s failure to grasp one of the most fundamental concepts of computer science. From this error stems a long, dysfunctional chain of legal reasoning and patent policies, the effect of which has been to transform the mental reasoning processes, abstract knowledge, and scientific truths of computing into patentable subject matter. The result poses a potentially catastrophic threat not only to the open source software movement and the emerging industry of electronic commerce, but more fundamentally, to the very existence of the sciences of computing, without which further U.S. technological leadership will be impossible to sustain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnes, Bart (1999). "Giles S. Rich dies at 95: oldest active federal judge in U.S. history; as an authority on patent law, he helped establish legal precedents for the biotechnology and computer industries," New York Times (June 11, 1999): B6.
Benkler, Yochai (1999). "Free as the air to common use: first amendment constraints on enclosure of the public domain," New York University Law Review (May, 1999), 74.
Brassard, Gilles (1995). Fundamentals of Algorithmics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brusaw, Charles T., Gerald Alred, and Walter Oliu (1997). Handbook of Technical Writing. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Chandrasekeran, Rajiv (1999). "Y2K patent fortune pending? Holding rights to a common fix, Bruce Dickens is sending the bill," Washington Post (December 17, 1999): E1, E11.
Chisum, D. (1986). "The patentability of algorithms," University of Pittsburgh Law Review 47: 959–1022.
DiBona, Chris, ed. (1999). Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Petaluma, CA: O’Reilly.
Federico, P.J. (1936). "The Patent Act of 1790," Journal of the Patent Office Society, (July 1936): 59–60.
Gibby, John A. (1997). "Software patent developments: a programmer’s perspective," Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 23:293–355.
Gonsalves, Antone (1999). "Patent clouds web server apps," PC Week (June 7, 1999): 16(23): 41.
Heckel, Paul (1992). "Debunking the software patent myths," Communications of the ACM, 35:6:121–140.
Judge, Paul C. (1998). "From the patent wars, a patent medicine," Business Week (May 25, 1998): 111.
Kahin, Brian (1991). "The case against software patents," Optima (June, 1991).
Kaufman, Leslie (1999). "Amazon sues big bookseller over system for shopping," New York Times (October 23, 1999): C1.
Keeley-Domokos, Francisc M. (1999). "State Street Bank & Trust Co. vs. Signature Financial Group, Inc.," Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14: 153–172.
King, Julia (1999). "Net patents stir debate; critics say established ways of doing business granted protection in cyberspace," Computer World (August 23, 1999): 1.
Knuth, Donald (1997). The Art of Computer Programming. Addison-Wesley.
Kreiss, Robert A (1999). "Patent protection for computer programs and mathematical algorithms: the constitutional limitations on patentable subject matter," New Mexico Law Review, 29 (Winter, 1999).
Lessig, Lawrence. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
Menell, Peter S. (1989). "An analysis of the scope of copyright protection for application programs," Stanford Law Review, 41:1045–1104.
Merges, Robert P. (1999). "As many as six impossible patents before breakfast: property rights for business concepts and patent system reform," Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14: 577–615.
Miller, Michael J. (1990). "New laws needed for intellectual property," InfoWorld (Dec. 24–Dec. 31, 1990).
Newell, A. (1986). "The models are broken! The models are broken." Univeristy of Pittsburgh Law Review, 47: 1023–1035.
Raymond, Eric S. (1999). The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Petaluma, CA: O’Reilly.
Riddles, Andrew and Brenda Pomerance (1998). "Software patentee must conduct own search; prior-art searches made by the patent office often are not thorough enough to be trusted," National Law Journal, (January 26, 1998).
Robertson, Michael (1998). "Fraunhofer lowers patent boom on MP3 software developers," MP3.com (http://www.mp3.com), Sept. 11, 1998.
Samuelson, Paula (1990a). "Should program algorithms be patented?" Communications of the ACM, 33(8): 23–28.
Samuelson, Paula (1990b). "Benson revisited: the case against patent protection for algorithms and other computer-related program inventions," Emory Law Journal, 39.
Seidel, Arthur H. (1966). "The constitution and a standard of patentability," Journal of the Patent Office Society, 5:1–27.
Stallman, Richard and Simson Garfinkle (1992). "Against software patents," Communications of the ACM, 35:17–24.
Thrum, Scott (1998). "A flood of web patents stirs dispute over tactics," Wall Street Journal, (October 9, 1998): B1.
Weber, Thomas E. (1999). "Battles over patents threaten to damp the web’s innovative spirit," Wall Street Journal, (November 8, 1999): B1.
Webster, Guy (1991). "Law holds key to high tech," Arizona Republic, (January 6, 1991): F1.
Wolfe, Alexander (1995). "Patent nonsense," Electrical Engineering Times, (March 20, 1995): 70.
Young, Robert and Wendy Rohm (1999). Under the Radar: How Red Hat Changed the Software Business and Took Microsoft By Surprise. Coriolis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
An anthropologist, Dr. Pfaffenberger has authored dozens of how-to and reference books on computers and the Internet. He won the Albert Payson Usher Prize from the Society for the History of Technology and the Best Book of the Year Award from the American Society for Information Science.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pfaffenberger, B. Open source software and software patents: A constitutional perspective. Know Techn Pol 12, 94–112 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-999-1029-x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-999-1029-x