hughk's Journal: Patently Absurd

The UK, or at least England and Wales, has the longest continuous history of patents in the world, with the earliest being crown licensed monopolies in the 15th Century. The earliest was granted in 1449 by Henry VI for the supply of stained glass windows, which was a new technology then.

The link of patents to inventions didn't happen until James I, who then enacted a law containing the words:

"for the term of 14 years or under hereafter to be made of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this Realm to the true and first inventor"; such monopolies should not be "contrary to the law nor mischievous to the State by raising prices of commodities at home or hurt of trade".

However, the early patent system had many problems (including the need to get a separate Patent for Scotland). Trouble over Arkwright's loom and Watt's steam engine in the 18th Century established that an idea must be specified in a practical way and that improvements to a patented idea were themselves patentable.

I have no problem with the principle of patenting something physical because it is possible to place two inventions next to each other and compare them. However as we get more abstract then it becomes a lot more difficult. How do you test an algorithm for similarity? Well, the answer to that one is in court and there are plenty of lawyers who will argue the hind legs of a donkey at $300/hour. It becomes simply too expensive to defend the patent in court unless you happen to be a major company.

Another problem is that the 20 year patent term is inappropriately long in a rapidly growing field such as IT, so the released patent does not benefit the public good as was the intention. Indeed, a patent can be a major barrier to progress - think what would happen if Tim Berners-Lee of CERN patented the idea of a web browser?