 |
|
|
|
|
Welcome to Harrison Paul's Web Site
|
|
|
Hi, I'm Harrison Paul. Welcome to my website. I write science fiction, fantasy, and young adult novels, and am actively seeking representation for my novel Kaybree versus the Angels, a YA fantasy about a girl in medieval Scandinavia who fights angels to defend her city. Check back from time to time for updates and new blog posts. Thanks for visiting!
|
|
 |
Lastest Blog Entry
| Written By E. Harrison Paul | |
|
|
Innovation: The Hellmouth's Next Victim
MARCH 20, 2012 8:41 AM
If you haven't heard, search engine titan Yahoo is bringing a lawsuit against Facebook for patent infringement. Software patent cases are by no means new, but most of the time they are carried out by firms with empty rooms for offices who siphon money from successful software developers. They buy up patents that have been made for virtually any type of software imaginable and pounce when a moneymaking company stumbles upon the same idea. Essentially, software patent cases revolve around the idea that someone can patent an idea--which could have disastrous consequences for creative freedom in America.
According to a BBC article on the subject, this has never been tested in social media before, and if appealed, could become a landmark case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17345935): "'This is particularly interesting as it is one of the first patent cases concerning social media,' said Andrea Matwyshyn, assistant professor of legal studies at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. 'The patentability of computer code is uncertain and recently several groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Computer and Communications Industry Association have asked the US Supreme Court to examine the state of the law and accept a case to clarify when computer code can be protected through patent.'"
I think that the law does need examining. Who invented email? Shouldn't Yahoo have to pay them royalties for using their “patented” idea of sending electronic messages? In storytelling, the issue becomes even more transparent; should the estate of Joseph Campbell sue George Lucas for his Star Wars films (and myriad other authors) blatantly employ ideas from The Hero with a Thousand Faces? According to publishing copyright law, ideas are not available for copyright. When a product has been created through an idea, that product becomes the intellectual property of its creator, but if others use the same ideas (think of the numerous Tolkien derivatives), the worst they get are negative reviews for lack of originality.
A patent's purpose is to recognize the creation of something unique and new, and to protect the inventor's right to profit from the invention. The same goes for copyright; it exists to protect the intellectual property rights of the owner, the creator of the work. Yet history shows that free flow of information--including borrowing and building upon previous ideas--is the most efficient, if not the only, way to better inventions. The automobile, the steam engine, the computer, the printing press, even clothing--all came in incremental steps, with each link along the way adding something useful to the model that had already been established. Nobody invents anything ex nihilo; every inventor stands on the shoulders of giants, as do storytellers and creators of new ideas (see, for example, Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel).
When the process that is supposed to protect rights ends up bogging down creators in legal battles--benefiting no one but the lawyers--then the balance tips the other way. People become afraid to innovate by borrowing from others in anticipation of time-draining, financially perilous lawsuits. This stymies the innovative process and ultimately defeats the purpose of copyright and patent law. It's also a backward step on the evolutionary ladder; free flow of information and ideas is vital to the continued social evolution of human culture.
In fact, I would venture to say that overly petty laws and lawsuits are more actual threats to capitalism and invention than the government and regulation. Although I am no Ayn Rand acolyte, I'm willing to give credit where it's due, and Rand's Atlas Shrugged contained a haunting vision of a world turned parasitic, where producers and innovators are held hostage to the schemes of lawmakers. Making money through dishonest means is even worse when it's legal--such as pirated material in China on one end of the spectrum, or lawsuits over “patented ideas” on the other. And just like the financial industry is criticized for skimming rather than creating, so does this kind of law practice drain the producers and produce nothing of value in return.
Maybe Yahoo is right. If software patent law holds, then Facebook did infringe on their patents and should have taken care of this back when they created the Facebook website. Maybe Yahoo is justified in laying claim to Facebook's profits from their “patented” ideas. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right. If the Supreme Court ends up ruling in favor of needlessly stringent patent laws for software, then we're killing innovation, one patent at a time.
If the search engine from Sunnyvale wants to succeed, it should create and develop a product that wins in the marketplace, not in the fine print warfare of court. If Yahoo's profits aren't flagging, then it risks appearing miserly to consumers already deluged with reports of corporate greed. And if profits are diminishing, then maybe Yahoo should try to use all of its vaunted patents to produce something worth buying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
