back to article Martin Goetz, recipient of the first software patent, logs off at 93

Martin Goetz, regarded by many as the "father of third-party software," has died at the age of 93. An inductee into the Mainframe Hall of Fame – an institution devoted to honoring individuals instrumental in IBM's 1960s mainframe success – Goetz was notable for receiving the first software patent, awarded in 1968, for his …

  1. Johannesburgel12

    > While some in the software industry today might regard patents as somewhat burdensome [..]

    Is this a joke?

    1. Nick Ryan

      El Reg has become more and more of a USAian publication and other than monopolies, patents are considered to be the pinnacle of USAian business practices.

      In the more civilised world, software is not patentable.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    nah

    fuck the twat.

    start of a long line of greedy fuckers patenting the algorithms

    if i believed in religion, I'd hope he burns in hell

    1. Vometia has insomnia. Again.

      Re: nah

      That's possibly a bit strong, but marking his dishonour by renaming him Martin Goatse isn't too much of a stretch.

      1. Jedit Silver badge
        Trollface

        "renaming him Martin Goatse isn't too much of a stretch"

        If Goatse isn't too much of a stretch for you, I'd hate to find out what is.

    2. TRT

      Re: nah

      When he gets to the Pearly Gates, St Peter's going to make him stand in the queue whilst the heavenly host shuffle people in the queue around.

  3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Why would copyright not be equally effective? Apart, of course, from the fact that with copyright you have to go to the trouble of actually writing an implementation.

    1. b0llchit Silver badge

      It is called "maximize profits and minimize effort".

    2. Natalie Gritpants Jr

      Because it is easy to rewrite an algorithm to avoid copyright

    3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Why would copyright not be equally effective?

      Copyrights and patents have very different purposes.

      Copyright just allows the author of a work (or their estate) to decide who may copy it, and for what fee, for some defined time period which can be 70 years after the authors death. It exists to make sure that authors aren't deprived of income from their work. There's no actual requirement to publish it.

      Patent protection was created because the only way the inventor of a new machine or process could prevent others from copying, modifying and making money from it was to keep it secret. That secrecy prevented people from understanding it and making improvements to it, at a time when lots of new technologies were starting to appear. In return for a much shorter period of protection (more like 20 years after the patent was granted) the author had full control over who the design was licensed to, but in return they were required to publish it so that peole could understand how it worked. The scheme was specifically designed to advance the state of the art, while allowing the inventor to make money from their invention for a while

      Whether it's valid to permit software patents is a different issue.

      These days most patents, software or otherwise, are used in horse-trading between businesses. Company "A" wants to use something patented by company "B", so they look for something they have which "B" wants, and cross-license.

      A much bigger problem with patents, of all sorts, is that patent offices are far too free in granting nonsensical patents without proper analyis and assuming that the courts will sort it out. Inevitably that means the person or company with the deepest pockets has the advantage, which was not the intention. Don't shoot the inventor, fix the patent system.

      1. OhForF' Silver badge

        >fix the patent system<

        Got a good idea how to accomplish that fix?

        Currently the patent system only works for the big players as a means to use their patent portfolio from stopping agile newcomers to get a hold in the market.

    4. katrinab Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      The difference with copyright is that I can look at how your program works, without looking at the source code, and write my own implementation of it, maybe changing some stuff where I don't like the decisions you made, whereas a patent stops me from doing that.

    5. Blackjack Silver badge

      Modern patent law is insane.

  4. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Is there a wall of SHAME?

    That's where his name should be.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, only 70 years until we can make use of it. F.U. Walt Disney and Sonny Bono.

    1. Greybearded old scrote

      That's copyright. Patents are for 20 years, so that one expired long ago.

      The damage caused by that precedent endures however.

      1. TRT

        See Dr Who 60th Celebration on iPlayer furore over An Unearthly Child.

  6. Gene Cash Silver badge
    Stop

    Can we honor the occasion

    And retire software patents?

  7. talk_is_cheap

    So up beat with the complicated history of IT, but to then end on Computer Associates...........

  8. PerlLaghu
    Mushroom

    Copyright vs patents

    Ach... all you haters... get off your high horse!!

    There's a vast difference between "patents" and "Monetization"

    Consider the humble shipping container - a "patented" concept [to create a standard], gifted freely..... and used almost everywhere.

    Yes, there are people who use patents (and trademarks & copyrights) to make money.... shocker: humans have been trying to sell "The One True Way" for as long as humans have been alive!

  9. munnoch Silver badge

    The FOSS is strong in these ones...

    I think in majority of cases software isn't the art form (copyrightable) many programmers would like to believe they produce.

    Its more prosaically just a mechanism for getting a job done and might occasionally have novelty value (patentable).

    My pity if you rely on either protection to make your way in the world.

    1. tyrfing

      Re: The FOSS is strong in these ones...

      That way leads to a committee of "artists" (read politicians' nephews) deciding whether your painting is ART, and thus whether it is copyrightable, or just work, and therefore not.

      The French had the "Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture" for centuries. If you didn't have their imprimatur, you were extremely restricted in your art.

      "Official" art is not a good idea.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    $2 million. The struggle was worth it.

    Goetz said: "In August 1970, ADR settled its antitrust suit with IBM with an out-of-court settlement of $2 million. The struggle was worth it.

    That's really all you need to know.

    The vast majority of "pioneers" did whatever they're famed for, for the same reason. Take the money out of the equation and see how much they give a fuck.

    1. Blue Pumpkin

      Re: $2 million. The struggle was worth it.

      Sure, they want to run a business like lots of other people.

      But being shat on by bigger unrestrained monopolistic companies with can make that difficult.

      Was software patenting the right way to go ? Probably not, but what other effective avenues were available ?

      The patent world of the 60s is not the patent world of today.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like