Hi Folks,
   I've been reading a lot lately about patent problems on Slashdot and have read a few pages I've stumbled across on the internet. It doesn't appear that we as a computing community have made many advances over the past dozen years or so in fighting patents...
   I'd like to ask you two questions. First, do you think there should be patents on software?
   Secondly...If a foundation was made that placed patents under a similar license to the GPL and refused to allow companies that charge high royalties or kept their patents under tight licenses to use these(lets call them) OPL licenses, that patents would effectively be disabled?
Respectfully,
David.

you're second question made me go WTF is he talking about... but i'll answer the first one...

I think that it depends on the software if it should be patented. For example, something that i would allow to be patented would be an entirely new programming language. Something that takes a massive amount of work and is completely orginal. However, i would not allow a VB.NET app. be patented because it is created with another programming language. So, really what i'm trying to say is that only the top level programs can be patented, not the things that spawned from them.

(hope you can understand what i'm talking about, sometimes i don't even know if my message will come accross clear )

so that means that apple would have to use triple clicks

or pay ms for the patent

Semikolon pointed out some good examples of patents which patent common functions, and makes it so that individuals have to use either an inferior function (e.g. triple clicks) or pay the individual holding the patent.
What I was asking in my second question was if you thought this could be successfully done:
John and Maria both hold patents on commonly used computer program functions (lets just make up two, I don't know who if anyone holds these - using a URL to access a website and clicking an icon to open a program). They realize that patents are killing small companies and innovation in general. So, they license their patents under a new license, the OPL. The OPL in sum, states, "Anyone may use the technologies in these patents as long as they (a) do not hold any patents or (b) release the patents they do hold into the OPL irrevocably and (c) agree not to patent any software inventions in the future." Several hundred other patent holders join and now you have 300 software patents for common software functions under the OPL. They begin to sue the companies hold simple patents, pretty soon the patent process would be effectively undermined, no?
Respectfully,
David.

I think the OPL concept is a good one. Many companies - including Microsoft - apply for patents but don't really expect to get them. It's more of a preventative move to make a claim in case someone else applies and does get the patent.

Sometimes companies also apply for patents in order to have the patent rejected up front. That way if someone comes up and says - "I thought of that first. You have to pay me to use it", they're covered while the patents pending, and after the patents rejected.

Getting a patent isn't only about stopping others from doing something. More often it's about ensuring that you have permission to do something. The OPL concept goes a long way towards supporting that.

Thanks dpyers for the encouragment. I've written the SPF and EFF outlining my suggestions and am waiting back to hear from them. There may be a legal reason why my suggestion will not work, but maybe, just maybe, we'll have a break.
I think software should be considered more like a work of art or a book in a legal sense...Instead of like a machine. If we think of software programs as works of art and patents as techniques, then we would have patented the brush stroke, the use of a pencil to draw lines, and the drawing of trees...Ohh well, lets hope something happens.
Respectfully,
David.

I am probably going to move ahead with gathering together a number of individuals interested in submitting their patents under some sort of license in the near future. If anyone knows of any individuals hold patents on an invention for defensive purposes, I would like to contact them to see if they would be interested in joining the pool. I have been told that the main difficulty is that individuals don't want to give to a small pool (probably because it might just fail) so I will attempt to get a large number of individuals who promise to give their patents if I can get a certain number of other individuals to do so (say 200?)...And then they would all submit at once.
If anyone is interested in helping search for such patents, I'd be more than happy to accept the help.
Respectfully,

David.