LSAT 157, Section 4, RC Passage 4, Software Patents

RC Passage 4 Explanation

PASSAGE TEXT: Because it is relatively easy and inexpensive to produce copycat computer programs, most …

Paragraph Summaries

1. Copycat software is easy and cheap to make, so most people think software creators need some legal protection. Copyright has generally worked well, but some people think patents are also needed to stop copycatting.
2. Software is made up of algorithms, which are step-by-step methods for doing tasks. But algorithms are general principles, so they shouldn’t be patentable in the same way that basic natural principles or logical ideas aren’t patentable.
3. Software developers don’t need patent protection because copyright already fits software better. Copyright can protect the specific code or expression of an algorithm, while patents would wrongly protect the underlying idea or design.

Analysis

The author agrees that software creators need legal protection from copycats. The issue is whether it should get patent protection.

• Copyright protects the specific expression: the actual code, or the particular way an algorithm is written into a program.
• Patents protect the underlying design or process.

That matters because the author thinks software algorithms are too general to be patented.

The author’s big move is to separate specific software code from the algorithm behind it. The code can be protected because it’s a particular expression. But the algorithm is more like a general principle or method, so giving someone a patent over it would go too far.

The windmill example helps show the line. A specific windmill design might be patentable, but the broad idea that wind can produce energy isn’t. Similarly, a specific software program can be protected, but the general algorithm behind it shouldn’t be locked up with a patent.

The author’s position is clear: copyright is enough, maybe with small changes. Patents would give software developers too much protection without a good reason.