next up previous
Next: The modularization paradox Up: Discussion Previous: Implications for government-funded research

Implications for the debate on the software patents

The introduction of software patents in any form immediately raises the following questions:

a
What constitutes prior art, and what is the status of existing programs.
b
How to avoid trivial patents.
c
How to design a patent-based software engineering life cycle.
d
How to design a patent aware life cycle (less crucial but economically vital).

In the recent debate in the EU we get the impression that the (recently rejected) directive "on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions" (software patent directive), as it stands would lead to de-facto software patents (in spite of the CII jargon) without the prerequisite clarification concerning the issues listed above, thus creating unpredictable legal risks for many parties involved.

Amending the directive to such extent that there is no legal basis left for the protection of any software components deprives manufacturing companies from legal means available to them now, and thereby introduces additional risks just as well. This seems to lead to the position that neither the directive nor a version of it that cuts out any IPR protection for software components (or against infringing software components) is a step forward.

The rejected proposal seemed to focus on software/hardware component specifications that constitute a vital part of CII's. The functional specification of a unit is given (as part of the proposed CII architecture) and then an infringement may result by producing a software component that meets the specification even if the manufacturer has shown the ability to implement the specification by means of the description of a piece of hardware. Thus some branches of industry propose (understandably) a capability to provide this form of protection. Unfortunately, the resulting scope of IPR and infringement protection has been insufficiently demarcated.



Subsections
next up previous
Next: The modularization paradox Up: Discussion Previous: Implications for government-funded research
Paul Klint 2006-05-22