I was asking this question because protection against others independently developing a similar algorithm is what the patent system provides, and that's why many people, including myself, are opposed to it.
I wasn't assuming that you personally or even your employer actually wanted that kind of protection. So my rather rhetorical question was intended to highlight that discrepancy.
You want to prevent others from copying your work but what you do by patenting it is more than that. You prevent others from making or benefiting from their own original invention. Of course, as long as software patents exist, you don't have much choice.
>"protection against others independently developing a similar algorithm is what the patent system provides, and that's why many people, including myself, are opposed to it"
Flip this around. It is protection against others wasting research on something that has already been invented and [supposedly] enables them to add their research to your own and thus add effort rather than waste it. Is that not a noble cause?
Patents have a double purpose: One is to ensure implementation details of inventions enter the public domain and the second is to provide a limited monopoly as a bribe to ensure that the public domain will ultimately benefit.
In this way patents promote innovation, encouraging the release of new technological developments quickly to other practitioners in the art and so accelerate said development.
The only (large) part I see broken in the current patent system is that the duration of monopolies hasn't reduced to keep pace with the acceleration in the life cycle of new technologies.
I don't understand the "destroy software patents" crusade. "Destroy all patents" makes sense, and "improve all patents" makes sense, but why are software patents any different than device or chemical patents?
My main point is not limited to software patents, it's just more striking in this area because the drawbacks of patents are so clearly demonstrated every day. And contrary to other disciplines, copyright covers a lot of ground when it comes to software.
But to understand what might make software special you have to look no further than the things that are currently not patentable and never have been, like mathematical approaches and business processes.
So, for instance, if you invent some data mining approach based on graph theory and you write your formulas on a piece of paper or into your matlab or R worksheet you cannot patent it. If you express the same ideas in a couple of C functions you can patent it.
Another example. Say you are the first to have the idea of selling coke and sandwiches at gas stations. You cannot patent it. But if you are the first to have the idea of selling avatars from within some computer game, you can patent it. Why is that?
The differentiation between patentable and non patentable types of approaches and ideas is not something that was invented by software patent crusaders. It's right there in the law already.
The trouble is that it's a lot easier to copy an algorithm without in any way violating copyright than it is to copy it without violating a patent on it.
I'm not so sure about that. If the license prohibits reverse engineering and someone still does it, that's clearly a violation of the law. If a commercial company does it, it's going to be difficult for them to keep secret as some employees will surely know about it.
I agree that part of what patents intend to do, protecting original invention from copycats, is legitimate. But if it's done in a way that punishes original invention that seems counter productive to me.
If the law allows reverse engineering (like here in Germany) your license can prohibit it as much as it wants. It's still legal and no violation of the law.
I believe even in Germany you cannot use the results of reverse engineering to copy the product and sell it commercially without violating some copyright law. But I'm not denying that patents can sometimes be helpful to protect against copycats.
I just think that prohibiting original independent invention in order to prevent copying is absurd because it punishes exactly the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of patents.
I wasn't assuming that you personally or even your employer actually wanted that kind of protection. So my rather rhetorical question was intended to highlight that discrepancy.
You want to prevent others from copying your work but what you do by patenting it is more than that. You prevent others from making or benefiting from their own original invention. Of course, as long as software patents exist, you don't have much choice.