"Software idea patents"
--> [ ePatents ]
Introduced as a term by Richard Stallman. RMS exlains his motivation as follows (mailing list discussion on 2004-10-26):
- "So when they hear the term "software patents", they get the wrong meaning. Many discussions of this issue in the media make it sound like the issue is patenting of specific programs, and that particular mistake is crucial in why many people expect software patents to be beneficial for software developers."
Hartmut Pilch disagreed:
By saying
- "software idea patents"
you also convey misunderstandings, such as
- there are "software xxx patents" (e.g. "software implementation patents"), which might be OK
software such is not being patented, only software ideas. Therefore the European Patent Convention has not been violated.
the term "software patent" is inaccurate, even RMS agrees. A term like "computer-implemented inventions" is called for.
Our approach to this has been to make people understand what patents are, what claims are, how patents and software interact, see
On the other hand, if we want to package the important message into a name, there are alternatives such as
- idea monopolies
- logic patents
- computing patents
- data processing patents
- information patents
- patents on computing rules and business processes
- rules of organisation and calculation claimed in terms of general-purpose computing equipment
- ...
which can be used in addition to the term "software patents". They help people overcome a misunderstanding for which the term "software patent" is not to blame. And they maintain this term in its prominent position in the current debate. The patent movement has tried hard to displace the term "software patents" and establish "computer-implemented invention" instead. They have failed, and the attempt has backfired on them. Why should we now come to their rescue?