A patent is government enforcement of a reward for an idea lasting a limited period of time. Having and disseminating good ideas is beneficial to everyone, and paying for a patent is an ordinary part of doing business.
So software patyents are in principle good things.
If a patented idea is providing an ideal solution to a problem, then avoiding the patented idea means reducing the effectiveness of other products.
You might argue that a standards-setting organization shouldn't advocate paying money for standards because that increases the likelihood of manipulating the standards-setting outcome for commercial advantage. As shown vividly by the attempt to enforce ODF.
But do you have any difficulty with a patented idea becoming a de facto standard because every competitor has to include the idea as part of a solution acceptable to the market?
Kryptiq, a Portland company that specializes in electronic communication complying with HIPAA, says it has a patent in how it moves that data.
The patent covers a method for encrypting data on a server so that the data hosting it does not actually have direct access to the decrypted data. This protects the data from interception or from capture by a hacker without the decryption key.
On the surface, not a bad thing. And Kryptiq is highly admired for both its systems and customer wins. It is acquiring rivals and moving forward.
The question is what it does with the patent. If the patent acts as a differentiator, a reason for a hospital group to choose Kryptiq instead of something else, that’s one thing.
If Kryptiq seeks to make its system a standard, that’s something else.
It’s vital that health care IT standards be open, that there be no gatekeepers, nothing to prevent free and open competition among vendors.
Patents may validate a method, but that means other methods must also be available. Patented technology should not be made a standard or you’re raising health care costs for everyone.
