Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Idiosyncrasies of the Software Development Process and Their Relation to Software Patents: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence

  • Published:
Netnomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Europe, the future patenting of software-related inventions has been the subject of intensive discussions for some time, since there exists a strong dispute between the supporters of the U.S. practice of allowing patents in order to increase Europe's competitiveness and the opponents postulating negative impacts of patents on the software development process. This paper presents empirical results about the idiosyncrasies of the software development process and tests hypotheses on their impact on the likelihood of patents being obstacles for software dvelopment. The paper concludes with the identification of determinants for preferences concerning different possible patent regimes in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Analyse und Evaluation der Softwareentwicklung in Deutschland, Report on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research, GFK/ISI/IESE (December 2000).

  2. K.J. Arrow, Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, National Bureau of Economic Research, (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Avis de l'Académie des Technologies concernant la brevetabilité des inventions mises en oeuvre par ordinateur, Académie des Technologies, http: //www.internet.gouv.fr/francais/ textesref/avisacatecl80701.htm (24.07.2001)

  4. J. Bessen, Open source software: Free provision of complex public goods, working version 4/01, http://www.researchoninnovation.org/opensrc.pdf (25.04.2001).

  5. J. Bessen and E. Maskin, Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation, MIT Working Paper, No. 1/2000, Cambridge, MA (2000).

  6. S.M. Besen and L.J. Raskind, An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property, J. Economic Perspectives 5(1) (1991) 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  7. K. Blind, J. Edler, R. Nack and J. Straus, Mikro-und makroökonomische Implikationen der Patentierbarkeit von Softwareinnovationen. Geistige Eigentumsrechte im Spannungsfeld von Wettbewerb und Innovation, Report on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, Berlin, http: //www.bmwi.textonly/Homepage/download/technologie/ Softwarepatentstudie.pdf (2001).

  8. J. Church and R. Ware, Network industries, intellectual property rights and competition policy, in: Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy, eds. R.D. Anderson and N.T. Gallini (Univ. of Calgary Press, Calgary, 1998) pp. 227–286.

    Google Scholar 

  9. W. Cohen, R.R. Nelson and J. Walsh, Appropriability conditions and why firms patent and why they do not, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 7552 (February 2000).

  10. K.W. Dam, Some economic considerations in the intellectual property protection of software, J. Legal Studies XXIV (June 1995) 321–377.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B.J. Dempsey et al., A quantitative profile of a community of open source Linux developers; SILS Technical Report TR-1999-05 (1999).

  12. A. Endres, “Open Source” und die Zukunft der Software, Informatik Spektrum 23 (October 2000) 316–321.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Farrell, Standardization and intellectual property, Jurimetrics Journal (1989) 35–50.

  14. J. Farrell, Arguments for weaker intellectual property protection in network industries, in: Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, eds. B. Kahin and J. Abbate (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995) pp. 368–377.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Farrell and M.L. Katz, The effects of antitrust and intellectual property law on compatibility and innovation, The Antitrust Bulletin (Fall-Winter 1998) 609–650.

  16. J. Farrell and G. Saloner, Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation, RAND J. Economics 16 (1985) 70–83.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Farrell and G. Saloner, Converters, compatibility, and the control of interfaces, J. Industrial Economics (March 1992) 9–36.

  18. R. Gehring, Berliner Ansatz zu open software patents, http: //130.149.19.71: 8080/ Think-Ahead.ORG/Cyberlaw (15.03.2001).

  19. G. Gross, Leserbrief zu Albert Endres, “Open Source und die Zukunft der Software”, Informatik-Spektrum (24 February 2001) 38–39.

  20. R. Hart, P. Holmes and J. Reid, The economic impact of patentability of computer programs, Report to the European Commission, London (2000).

  21. P. Heckel, Deunking the software myth, in: High Noon on the Electronic Front: Conceptual Issues in the Cyberspace, ed. P. Ludlow (Boston, 1996) pp. 63–108.

  22. W.N. Holmes, The evitability of software patents, Computer 33(3) (2000) 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  23. A.H. Horns, Der Patentschutz für softwarebezogene Erfindungen im Verhältnis zur “Open Source” Software, JurPC Web.Dok.223/2000 (2000) paragraphs 1-80.

  24. A.B. Jaffe, The U.S. patent system in transition: Policy innovation and the innovation process, Working Paper 7280, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  25. D.E. Kash and W. Kingston, Patents in a world of complex technologies, Science Public Policy 28(1) (2001) 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  26. M.L. Katz and C. Shapiro, Network externalities, competition, and compatibility, Amer. Econom. Rev. 75 (1985) 424–440.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M.L. Katz and C. Shapiro, Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities, J. Political Economy 94 (1986) 822–841.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. Lerner and J. Tirole, The simple economics of open source, Working Paper 7600, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  29. B. Lutterbeck, R. Gehring and A.H. Horns, Sicherheit in der Informations-technologie und Patentschutz für Softwareprodukte - ein Widerspruch? Report on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology, Berlin (December 2000).

  30. R. Mazzoleni and R.A. Nelson, The benefits and costs of strong patent protections: A contribution to the current debate, Research Policy 27 (1998) 273–284.

    Google Scholar 

  31. P. Mennell, An analysis of the scope of copyright protection for application programs, Stanford Law Rev. 41 (1989) 1045–1104.

    Google Scholar 

  32. D.G. Messerschmitt and C. Szyperski, Industrial and economic properties of software: Technology, processes, and value, Technical Report UCB//CSD-01-1130, University of California at Berkeley, Computer Science Division (18 January 2001); and Microsoft Corporation Technical Report MSR-TR-2001-11 (18 January 2001); http: //divine.eecs.berkeley.edu/~messer/ /PAPERS/01/Software-econ/.

  33. G. Murillo, Institutional development in the software industry: Intellectual property protection, UMI Dissertation abstract, Ann Arbor, MI (1998).

  34. E.T. Nalley, Intellectual property in the computer programs, Business Horizons 43(4) (2000) 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  35. K. Nichols, The age of software patents, Computer 32(4) (1999) 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  36. M. Nüttgens and E. Tesei, Open Source-Konzept, Communities und Institutionen. Working Paper of the Institute for Informatics (IWI) Saarbrücken, No. 156 (January 2000).

  37. M. Nüttgens and E. Tesei, Open Source-Produktion, Organisation und Lizenzen. Working Paper of the Institute for Informatics (IWI) Saarbrücken, No. 157 (January 2000).

  38. M. Nüttgens and E. Tesei, Open Source-Marktmodelle und Netzwerke, Working Paper of the Institute for Informatics (IWI) Saarbrücken, No. 158 (January 2000).

  39. J.A. Ordover, A patent system for both diffusion and exclusion, J. Econom. Perspectives 5(1) (1991) 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  40. E. Oz, Acceptable protection of software intellectual property: A survey of software developers and lawyers, Inform. Managm. 34 (1998) 161–173.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Patently absurd?, The Economist (21 June 2001).

  42. Patentabilityt of computer-related inventions, Discussion Paper of DG Internal Market, Commission of the European Community, Brussels (2000).

  43. P.M. Romer, Endogenous technical change, J. Political Economy 98 (1990) 71–102.

    Google Scholar 

  44. J. Schmidt, Dasein oder Nicht-Dasein, Analyse der Ausfallzeiten von Web-Servern, c't 8/2000, p. 179.

  45. C. Shapiro and H.R. Varian, Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  46. S. Shavell and T. van Ypersele, Rewards versus intellectual property rigths, J. Law Economics 44 (2001) 525–547.

    Google Scholar 

  47. L. Smarr and S. Graham, Recommendations of the panel on open source software for high end computing, President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (11 September 2000).

  48. J.-P. Smets-Solanes, Software useright: Solving inconsistencies of software patents, in: Contribution to the 2nd Nordic European/USENIX Conference, Malmo, Sweden (8-11 February 2000).

  49. Software patenting consultation, UK Patent Office, http: //www.patent.gov.uk/news/ softpat.htm (2001).

  50. M. Stolpe, Protection against software piracy: A study of technology adoption for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, Economics Innovation New Technol. 9 (2000) 25–52

    Google Scholar 

  51. The results of the European Commission consultation exercise on the patentability of computer implemented inventions, Notts, PbT Consultants (2001).

  52. L.C. Thurow, Needed: A new system of intellectual property rights, Harvard Business Rev. (September/ October 1997) 95–103.

  53. R. Webb, Software and business methods patents: The UK consultations, in: Contribution to a Workshop, The German Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology, Berlin, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Knut Blind & Jakob Edler

Authors
  1. Knut Blind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jakob Edler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blind, K., Edler, J. Idiosyncrasies of the Software Development Process and Their Relation to Software Patents: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence. NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking 5, 71–96 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024950302713

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024950302713

Search

Navigation