<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws patents" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Fighting Software Patents
- Singly and Together - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/fighting-software-patents.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="reduced-width"> class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together</h2>

<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>

Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines:
each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can
destroy your project.</p>
Developing a large and complex program means combining many ideas,
often hundreds or thousands of them. In a country that allows
software patents, chances are that some substantial fraction of the
ideas in your program will be patented already by various companies.
Perhaps hundreds of patents will cover parts of your program. A study
in 2004 found almost 300 US patents that covered various parts of a
single important program. It is so much work to do such a study that
only one has been done.</p>
Practically speaking, if you are a software developer, you will
usually be threatened by one patent at a time. When this happens, you
may be able to escape unscathed if you find legal grounds to overturn
the patent. You may as well try it; if you succeed, that will mean one
less mine in the mine field. If this patent is particularly
threatening to the public, the <a
Public Patent Foundation</a> may take up the case; that is its
specialty. If you ask for the computer-using community's help in
searching for prior publication of the same idea, to use as evidence
to overturn a patent, we should all respond with whatever useful
information we might have.</p>
However, fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger
of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitos will eliminate
malaria. You cannot expect to defeat every patent that comes at you,
any more than you can expect to kill every monster in a video game:
sooner or later, one is going to defeat you and damage your program.
The US patent office issues around a hundred thousand software patents
each year; our best efforts could never clear these mines as fast as
they plant more.</p>
Some of these mines are impossible to clear. Every software patent is
harmful, and every software patent unjustly restricts how you use your
computer, but not every software patent is legally invalid according
to the patent system's criteria. The software patents we can overturn
are those that result from “mistakes”, “mistakes,” where the patent
system's rules were not properly carried out. There is nothing we can
do when the only relevant mistake was the policy of allowing software
To make a part of the castle safe, you've got to do more than kill the
monsters as they appear—you have to wipe out the generator that
produces them. Overturning existing patents one by one will not make
programming safe. To do that, we have to change the patent system so
that patents can no longer threaten software developers and users.</p>
There is no conflict between these two campaigns: we can work on the
short-term escape and the long-term fix at once. If we take care, we
can make our efforts to overturn individual software patents do double
duty, building support for efforts to correct the whole problem. The
crucial point is not to equate “bad” software patents with
mistaken or invalid software patents. Each time we invalidate one
software patent, each time we talk about our plans to try, we should
say in no uncertain terms, “One less software patent, one less
menace to programmers: the target is zero.”</p>
The battle over software patents in the European Union is reaching a
crucial stage. The European Parliament voted a year ago to reject
software patents conclusively. In May, the Council of Ministers voted
to undo the Parliament's amendments and make the directive even worse
than when it started. However, at least one country that supported
this has already reversed its vote. We must all do our utmost right
now to convince an additional European country to change its vote, and
to convince the newly elected members of the European Parliament to
stand behind the previous vote. Please refer
to <a href="https://ffii.org/">ffii.org</a> for more
information on how to help, and to get in touch with other

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">

<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.  There are also <a
href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other
corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a

<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
        replace it with the translation of these two:

        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
        to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">

        <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for
information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p>

<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
     document was modified, or published.
     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->

<p>Copyright © 2004, 2021 Richard Stallman</p>

<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>

<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->

<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2021/11/30 11:07:00 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->