« OSS Beginning to See The Light on Patents? | Main | Why One Should Not Bill By The Hour »
August 12, 2005
What if VisiCalc was Patented?
One of the Patentbaristas has talked a little bit about the link between innovation and patents. I have also been thinking about the correlation as well.
Many articles about software patents refer to the fact that Dan Bricklin was not able to patent VisiCalc. If VisiCalc was patented, it would have come off of patent a few years ago. These articles go on to imply that we would not enjoy the MS Excel spreadsheet program we have today.
I think the conclusion is right, but for a completely different reason.
It is exactly because VisiCalc was not patented that innovation was not necessary in the spreadsheet world. Lotus 1-2-3, QuattroPro, and Excel all used the same basic elements that were found in VisiCalc. None of VisiCalc’s competitors were forced to design around VisiCalc, they merely executed the same concepts in slightly new flavors. Once a viable formula was found in VisiCalc, the competitors were more apt to emulate the formula than they were to radically change or improve on it.
I suggest that if VisiCalc were patented, it still would have become the killer application. However, competitors to the market would have been forced to significantly change and improve their product to compete. Many new formats for alternative spreadsheet technologies would have been tried and maybe some would have succeeded. Instead, it was safer to copy the currently winning formula and avoid having to innovate.
In this case, the lack of patents brought innovation to a standstill and we are all running spreadsheet programs that still operate like 25 year old software.
Posted by krajec at August 12, 2005 12:54 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.krajec.com/mt/mt-tb.pl/178
Comments
There actually were many different "non-VisiCalc-like" calculating systems developed over those years. We even tried one at Software Arts with TK!Solver, and Lotus tried Improv. Then there was T-Maker, Javelin, etc., etc. Many of us tried to find new metaphors. They didn't catch on (there are reasons why, I believe, but it isn't for lack of trying). On the other hand, innovation in VisiCalc-like spreadsheets continued, with Lotus doing things we wouldn't, and then Microsoft moving things further ahead with Excel going in areas Lotus neglected.
When Mitch Kapor did 1-2-3, he copied the features of VisiCalc he thought were worthwhile and didn't copy (or changed) features he didn't think were appropriate. Microsoft added features (and Windows support) that Lotus held back on.
Innovation sure didn't "stand still". There was no "avoiding" of innovation.
Posted by: Dan Bricklin at August 12, 2005 07:44 AM
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but the facts show that software patents halt innovation rather than move it forward. The idea that having to work around patents would bring about innovation is pretty foolish.
It's clear you have never had to work around a software patent - if you had, you would have found that even working around a narrow patent would eat time and resources that would otherwise be spent looking at solving the problem better, rather than solving the problem almost as well.
Worse still, every software patent issued has been so broad and worded in such a way as to fail in the main goal of patents - to move the state of the art forwards. It is impossible to make good use of any software patent and build on it as they are so vaguely defined, written in legalise and now schematics, pseudocode or design ever provided.
Posted by: Aaron Trevena, BSc Hons at August 14, 2005 04:27 AM
Dan, thanks for your insights.
The point of the posting is that even though there is always incentive to innovate, which is illustrated by the other systems cited above, the lack of patent protection gave competitors the option of merely reimplementing someone else's ideas. Patents would have forced different behaviors in the competitors.
The spreadsheet landscape would have undoubtedly changed if there were patents on VisiCalc. How the technology would have developed is pure speculation, but there is a case supporting the view that more dramatic changes would have occurred. Whether those changes would have been 'better' or 'worse' is mere conjecture.
There simply is no certainty whatsoever in suggesting that patents would have stifled innovation in this scenario. It is very likely that the reverse is true.
Posted by: Russ Krajec at August 14, 2005 09:45 AM