Paper 3: Patents/Crime

Due: April 30, 2009                    Comp 317/417, Dordal

Choose one of the following two topics:

1. Do Software Patents Help Or Harm Progress?

Are software patents, on the whole, good for society? Do they foster innovation? Do they encourage invention and investment in invention, leading to more software ideas for everyone?

Or do they retard invention? Do they simply tie up ideas for the duration of the patent?

Discuss both sides, and come to some sort of a conclusion (not necessarily either/or).

You don't necessarily have to agree that non-software patents are beneficial for society, but if you're arguing against patents generally, please make that clear. In such a case, you should also be sure you understand your argument's implications for, say, the pharmaceuticals industry.

Keep in mind the following points:

Note that the argument here is framed above as fundamentally utilitarian. However, if you want to take a deontological approach (eg that inventors have a natural right to their inventions), feel free to do so.

You can either ignore the Bilski decision, or stick to software patents that create some sort of "virtual object" (a file format, or a webpage control, for example) that might still be valid post-Bilski.

2. Rules for Software

When you use a software package (free or payware), it seems reasonable to suppose that you are entitled to something that isn't "malware" or "spyware".

What, exactly, does this mean? Are there specific rights that you, as a user, have? Are there specific obligations the vendor has? Are their rights or obligations that it should not be possible to waive or alter through a "clickwrap" agreement?

Negative features might include
Some other examples can be found at stopbadware.org. You might feel that different standards apply to free versus nonfree software; if so, spell them out clearly.

This is a good example of an issue that is relatively undecided legally, and yet there are very specific legal and societal expectations in place when you buy food, or toasters, or automobiles; in these cases the manufacturer is most definitely not permitted to claim caveat emptor (buyer beware). Feel free to draw analogies, if you feel they help (but note that there are essentially no free physically-manufactured products).

Richard Stallman has written an article, Can you trust your computer.

One tricky issue is that of consent: should you be allowed to consent to, say, the sharing of personal information at the end of a long click-wrap agreement? If not, then how would you use free tax-preparation software (which obviously ends by sharing your information with the IRS)? If so, then what if you fail to notice the fine print? Car manufacturers, by comparison, can not require you to waive basic safety features in the fine print.