This isn't anything new. Pretty much anyone who knows anything about software is against software patents except for a few with a vested interest.
The patent system was originally created to protect investment and foster innovation by providing exclusivity but requiring disclosure to further research by others and of course there is a time limit.
The problem is that ideas (which is what software patents and business models come down to) have next to no cost (unlike, say, new drugs that have substantial R&D costs, trials, etc).
Lawyers have gotten very good at perverting this system [1]. I remember reading about Intel's system bus (I think in relation to Nvidia producing chipsets without a license). Basically parts of the system were patented, some copyrighted and the rest was a trade secret. Combined it meant Intel basically didn't have to disclose anything but could still go after those who reverse engineer.
Once I used to support pharma-patents but I'm changing my mind on even that. I believe the high cost of health care in the US is in large part to the protections and monopolies suppliers have. The counterargument is that many of these things wouldn't exist without these protections but I think the pendulum has swung too far.
Something like two-thirds of the budget for a new drug goes on marketing [2].
Worse, we're starting to see copyright trolls [3] who are basically producing reams of crap in the hopes that someone inadvertently infringes on that so they can be sued.
As a biochemist, I can assure you that if pharma-patents went away, drug-development would disappear overnight. One can argue over the specifics, but some form of IP protection is necessary in that arena.
My understanding of the traditional drug development model is basically that companies spend millions of dollars testing large numbers of substances in vitro, then in animals then finally in human trials to find a very small number of drugs that work. Once such a drug has been found and approved by the FDA it is fairly trivial for a competitor to reproduce, which in the absence of patents, would allow the competitor to essentially appropriate all the R&D the initial developer did.
This development model is extremely different from that seen in software and related technologies where many small ideas are combined to form compelling technological solutions. I suspect this difference in development models is the main reason for the much slower (linear) progress seen in medicine compared to information technologies (exponential). I also suspect that as our understanding of biological systems improves, the pharmaceutical industry will evolve towards a more information based development model.
In any case, it seems to me that in the present, IP policy needs to accept that different industries have different development models and that a one size fits all IP policy is not a good solution.
The patent system was originally created to protect investment and foster innovation by providing exclusivity but requiring disclosure to further research by others and of course there is a time limit.
The problem is that ideas (which is what software patents and business models come down to) have next to no cost (unlike, say, new drugs that have substantial R&D costs, trials, etc).
Lawyers have gotten very good at perverting this system [1]. I remember reading about Intel's system bus (I think in relation to Nvidia producing chipsets without a license). Basically parts of the system were patented, some copyrighted and the rest was a trade secret. Combined it meant Intel basically didn't have to disclose anything but could still go after those who reverse engineer.
Once I used to support pharma-patents but I'm changing my mind on even that. I believe the high cost of health care in the US is in large part to the protections and monopolies suppliers have. The counterargument is that many of these things wouldn't exist without these protections but I think the pendulum has swung too far.
Something like two-thirds of the budget for a new drug goes on marketing [2].
Worse, we're starting to see copyright trolls [3] who are basically producing reams of crap in the hopes that someone inadvertently infringes on that so they can be sued.
So IP is horribly broken, not just for software.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Overlap_with_co...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll