[Some] patents are definately a problem, but:

1. Your opening sentence makes no sense. ALL patents "pertain to Intellectual Property". Patents are a form of intellectual property.

2. Microsoft are not patenting "the networking capacity of human skin". Human skin has no networking capacity unless it is used in a method invented by Microsoft. Microsoft have patented a method of using human skin for networking. They have ownership of the method of using human skin, not of the skin itself. A patent claim to "Human Skin" would not be allowed because "Human Skin" per se is no novel - it has existed for as long as humans have.

3. The method developed by Microsoft does have serious human rights implications related to the use of traking devices etc. However, these issues have nothing to do with the fact that the method is patented. Having a patent doesn't give you the right to do anything, only to stop other people doing it. If I have a patent to an internal combusion engine, I don't have the right to drive my car anyway I like. In addition to bringing benefits my invention may cause environmental and social problems if over used, but these problems result from out failure to control the motor car not from the fact that I have a patent for the engine. As a real example, lots of GM crops have patents, but this doesn't allow them to be grown without being tested first. It is a perfectly legitinate situation for a new variety of wheat to have a patent because it is new and non-obvious but to be banned from growth on UK farms because it is dangerous to the environment. Patents only cause problems if they are for "good" things (for example AIDS drugs) because they can be used to limit the number of people who are allowed to do this "good" thing.

4. Software patents are problematic. The balance between rewarding inovation and stifling third party involvation is wrong at the moment. I personally think that for software a short-term right (perhaps 2 years instead of 20 would be better). There is no reason why a one-size fits all approach to IP is best.

5. The EFF patent busting project is great. However finding prior art in order to challenge the validity of patents isn't a subversive act or a form of activism. It is a legitimate tool provided by the patent laws and one that is used by lots of companies - including Microsoft itself.



4.

The comments made by Tim above make some good points. Let me clarify some aspects of the initial article that were unclear:

1. First sentence was a fuck-up. It should have read `software development' not `intellectual property'. Don't know how that happened.

2. Tim's point that Microsoft are `not patenting "the networking capacity of human skin"' so much as a method for exploiting this capacity is, on the face of it, a fair point. It could be argued however that patents are being handed out at present in such an enthusiastic way that we are reaching the point where companies do effectively control natural resources or phenomena rather than methods. This is more obvious in the software arena where companies are taking out patents on sub-routines which are really nothing more than obvious answers to obvious questions. The patent-owner may have thought of the answer first (or, more pertinently, patented it first) but the routine may be really nothing more than a set of logical consequences.

One gets into the philosophical realm here - are companies really CREATING new things (drugs/ software routines/ crops) or are they simply DISCOVERING things that are part of the world. If you take the latter view you might be less inclined to allow companies to claim ownership of a particular intellectual property. In law a company can couch its patent in terms of a `new method' but the reality may be that they are just privatising what should be public property.

3. Tim's comment about safeguards being needed on the use of patented ideas is, of course, a good one. Clearly patents aren't the root of all evil :) How he manages to distinguish between patenting `good things' and bad things is a mystery to me though. Is he suggesting that AIDS drugs shouldn't be patentable because the consequent restrictions on their circulation can kill?? A very worthy position, but is he willing to generalise? Presumably most R&D is into `good things' - the implications of this observation with respect to patents are clear and potentially very problematic to his position...

4. Finally, his point about the Patent Busting Project not being `a form of activism' seems to be nothing more than rhetoric. A thing isn't good only if it's activism, what does he take me for?

Of more substance though is his point that a re-examination request is a `legitimate tool provided by the patent laws and one that is used by lots of companies - including Microsoft itself'. The problem with this legitimate tool however is that, while the mechanism may be fair on paper, the practice of in reality depends a lot on money. Of course Microsoft uses this tool - their legal teams are massively funded and can afford the costly legal processes involved in challenging a patent. Small players do not have this luxury and so the current system of patents massively favours large corporations like Microsoft. In this context then, the Patent Busting Project can be seen to be distinctly (and worthily) subversive. It is a project for the small player.