Microsoft takes on the Free World

Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007

I honestly don't see how one should be able to patent "WHAT" a computer does. The whole idea of a programmable computer is that it can be programed to do ANYTHING. To say that I can't program my own computer to do "task A" because you have patented the concept "task A" is silly.

It's like saying I can't use my own typewriter to type a "detective mystery novel" because you have patented the IDEA of the mystery novel. This is very different from copyrighting a specific Sherlock Holmes novel, because patenting it would prevent me from writing any book about a really smart detective and his friend that solve mysteries in 18th century London.

Back to software, at most a software patent could only patent a "specific technique" for doing "task A" and not "task A" itself. But this too can be silly. If task A is calculating the area of a rectantgle, then there is ONLY one way to do that, and it's an open source mathematic formula. To try to patent "multiply height by width" is just silly.

But can you patent something like a "drop down menu bar"? Have you invented anything? Should I not be able to write a different program that does similar things? If my menu is at the bottom of the screen and "pops up" instead of "drop down" have I violated your patent? If you patent both, but only use one in your program, should your 2nd patent be valid, when its purpose isn't to protect what you're actually selling, but just to stop competition?

Finally, if software patents are to be allowed, they're length should be very short and match the speed of change in the software world. If you do patent something, you should have a short window to make some money off of it before it becomes public domain. Nothing about the DOS or Windows 3.1 user interface should still be protected by a patent. This is stuff Jr High kids are playing with now, while learning programming, keeping it patented will stifle their innovation.