Software patents going to the SCOTUS

[SunnyD]

Text

Wow... I never thought I'd see the day where abstract patents finally come into question.

Personal note: Now if we could only do away with egregious software "licensing" and reverse engineering restrictions, life would be great. (Note, this puts me in an ironic position particularly since I'm responsible for ensuring my company's licensing model is secure.)

 

[Apathetic]

Sotware patents need to be banned. How the hell can someone patent math? You didn't invent anything - you discovered it.

Dave

 

[Markbnj]

I have detested the whole idea of software patents for almost 20 years, and I hope the SC invalidates every one that has ever been issued, goes out for lunch, then comes back and invalidates all the business process patents just for good measure.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I still remember the rejoicing when the submarine patent for GIF encoding finally expired, after years of abusive licensing terms. It will be a similarly happy day when we can say goodbye to Fraunhoffer's stranglehold on MP3.

The current system stifles innovation since small companies often can't fight the trolls, and big companies keep massive arsenals of patents to aim at the little guys.

If I was trying to start a software company, one of my biggest worries would be submarine patents surfacing to attack me just as the company became successful.

 

[dinkumthinkum]

This is probably not such a wonderful turn of events. I think there is a strong possibility that the SCOTUS is going to consider overturning the Federal Circuit decision.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: dinkumthinkum
This is probably not such a wonderful turn of events. I think there is a strong possibility that the SCOTUS is going to consider overturning the Federal Circuit decision.

I fear that as well - due to the power of lobby. Of course if they uphold it, lobby will simply get congress to draft a new bill legalizing draconian patent measures (and possibly making them far worse).

 

[chronodekar]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I have detested the whole idea of software patents for almost 20 years, and I hope the SC invalidates every one that has ever been issued, goes out for lunch, then comes back and invalidates all the business process patents just for good measure.

I've been following this issue up with IEEE Spectrum, and I have to agree with this. "Buisness processes" is just another fancy way of saying the same thing.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Er....so, you guys don't want patents, you don't want licensing, you want reverse engineering.....
how exactly are we supposed to make a living?

 

[DaveSimmons]

We don't want patents for things like 1-click ordering or the FAT32 long filenames lookup scheme.

That just forces Amazon to compete on prices and service, and MS to scrape by on the Windows tax without also squeezing the flash card makers. I think they'd survive, somehow.

Patents != copyrights, so Microsoft can still rake in the cash from Office, they just can't (hypothetically) use some patent on ribbon behavior to stifle other word processing apps.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Er....so, you guys don't want patents, you don't want licensing, you want reverse engineering.....
how exactly are we supposed to make a living?

I have no problem with patents, and who said they didn't want licensing? What I have a problem with is patents on software algorithms that are... ehm... patently obvious from prior art. And that category includes just about every software patent.

 

[Rangoric]

The patent on 1 click ordering still pisses me off and I don't use that system because of it.

 

[chronodekar]

Originally posted by: Rangoric
The patent on 1 click ordering still pisses me off and I don't use that system because of it.

You're right. 1 Click is really ... mid boggling. How did THAT get approved in the first place ?!?!!!

@ PhatoseAlpha,

Patents are needed in life. You have to protect intellectual property and all that. I have no arguments with their existance. What I'm unhappy with, is this concept of "software" patents. ( Feel free to license/copy-right it, I don't mind )

But, at the methodological level, they are very similar to mathematical formulas. Just think, can you conceive a world where Pythagorus Theorm was patented by someone? And you had to pay for it's use each time?

That takes the cake too far.

-cd

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I have no problem with patents, and who said they didn't want licensing? What I have a problem with is patents on software algorithms that are... ehm... patently obvious from prior art. And that category includes just about every software patent.

Sunny D, IIRC.


At any rate, I'm kind of curious. Pretty much the whole reason we even have a patent system is because it's infinitely easier for someone to copy then to create. Seems like removing financial impetus for creating new ways of doing things hurts comp sci, not helping it. So uh....if you can just copy any good idea, why spend time finding new ones?

 

[degibson]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Pretty much the whole reason we even have a patent system is because it's infinitely easier for someone to copy then to create. Seems like removing financial impetus for creating new ways of doing things hurts comp sci, not helping it. So uh....if you can just copy any good idea, why spend time finding new ones?

Undoubtedly that was the original intent. However, holding the patent is not protection, it merely provides a position from which one can litigate if someone infringes the patent. Unfortunately, this means that it is in the interests of huge organizations to aggressively over-patent, as they can afford the litigation. Small organizations and individuals can patent all they want, but their patents are next to meaningless because patent-infringing large organizations can easily out-spend the patent holders in court.

 

[dinkumthinkum]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I have no problem with patents, and who said they didn't want licensing? What I have a problem with is patents on software algorithms that are... ehm... patently obvious from prior art. And that category includes just about every software patent.

Sunny D, IIRC.


At any rate, I'm kind of curious. Pretty much the whole reason we even have a patent system is because it's infinitely easier for someone to copy then to create. Seems like removing financial impetus for creating new ways of doing things hurts comp sci, not helping it. So uh....if you can just copy any good idea, why spend time finding new ones?

You didn't quite get his gist -- he said that people first copy, then patent, ideas. Which means they are not the original, they are just the first one with high-powered lawyers (e.g., Amazon). Also these days a lot of companies with money to sling around create patents with extremely vague claims and then pay lawyers to convince courts after-the-fact that their language covers ideas invented elsewhere.

A lot of the problems could be fixed by installing competent patent examiners, but that's a pipe dream.

In any case, mathematical formula were never patentable, and software patents are in direct contradiction to that principle. This is obvious to anyone who understands the connection between computer science and math -- and the legal system, as usual, hasn't figured that out. In addition, patents are antithetical to computer science research because they encourage secrecy and discourage collaboration. Greed is a poor -- some might say immoral -- motivation for research.

And remember: patents were established not for your benefit, not for the benefit of computer science, but for the benefit of society. It does not benefit society to have the United States (or any country) waiting for years to innovate while a patent holds everyone hostage. The RSA patent, the GIF patent, and the MP3 patent are all good examples of this retarding of progress.

The same goes for the extension of copyright. A work that already exists was produced under some copyright law that was acceptable to the author. You cannot go back in time and get more value to society out of the work by extending the copyright retroactively.

 

[chronodekar]

Originally posted by: dinkumthinkum
and the legal system, as usual, hasn't figured that out.

I may not be a US citizen, but I have a lot of respect for your legal system. Just give it time. Like all new things, it takes a while for everyone to get adjusted.

 

[Markbnj]

In addition, patents are antithetical to computer science research because they encourage secrecy and discourage collaboration. Greed is a poor -- some might say immoral -- motivation for research.

The original point of patents, ironically, was safe disclosure. Without patents secrecy is the main protection, and reverse engineering the main attack. With patents, you have safe disclosure, and your competitors can read your patent and innovate on your existing designs. Patents are a good thing, just not for software. IANAL, but the main problem in my view is that software patents attempt to protect ideas. Every other kind of patent, save business process patents (which I view as close cousins to the software kind), explicitly cannot protect an idea: you can only patent a manifestation of the idea in a physical device. And you have to submit the complete design with detailed drawings to a public review process.

If that same logic were applied consistently to software patents then Amazon could only protect their specific implementation of one-click, not the idea of one-click. And if they can only protect the specific implementation (and, in the process, have to publish that source for review), then copyright is a sufficient protection for that purpose. In fact it is safer, because you don't have to publish anything to secure your rights under copyright law.

So, if copyright is safer, then why do software companies prefer patents? Because, as degibson alluded, they can be used as a legal club to batter other companies that appear to be trying to enter your business. Since the current patent system allows these companies to patent ill-defined concepts as if they were fully-developed devices, without disclosure, they naturally take advantage of them. I've written two complete software patent applications, under guidance from patent lawyers, and neither one included detailed source code listings. Snippets, flow charts, and block diagrams. And neither was for anything even remotely original. It's ridiculous.

 

[chronodekar]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I've written two complete software patent applications, under guidance from patent lawyers, and neither one included detailed source code listings. Snippets, flow charts, and block diagrams. And neither was for anything even remotely original. It's ridiculous.

I'm curious, were they approved ? And if you don't mind me asking, what were the 2 about?

-cd

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: chronodekar

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I've written two complete software patent applications, under guidance from patent lawyers, and neither one included detailed source code listings. Snippets, flow charts, and block diagrams. And neither was for anything even remotely original. It's ridiculous.

I'm curious, were they approved ? And if you don't mind me asking, what were the 2 about?

-cd

One was approved, the other is still in review. The first was for a technology stack that distributed transactions to multiple back-end bank partners. It was essentially just a CORBA implementation of messaging. The second was for a system to uniquely identify and link messaging to merchants in a credit card billing statement.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Er....so, you guys don't want patents, you don't want licensing, you want reverse engineering.....
how exactly are we supposed to make a living?

By being innovative and reliable. Same reasons why people buy name brands instead of generics, and same reasons why a brand becomes a name brand.

This country (for those in the US) wasn't founded on patents and litigation (oh the irony).

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Er....so, you guys don't want patents, you don't want licensing, you want reverse engineering.....
how exactly are we supposed to make a living?

By being innovative and reliable. Same reasons why people buy name brands instead of generics, and same reasons why a brand becomes a name brand.

This country (for those in the US) wasn't founded on patents and litigation (oh the irony).

People are free to build from our innovations.

Howver, when it is our personal property; we deserved to be compensated for it if you make $$ from it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Er....so, you guys don't want patents, you don't want licensing, you want reverse engineering.....
how exactly are we supposed to make a living?

By being innovative and reliable. Same reasons why people buy name brands instead of generics, and same reasons why a brand becomes a name brand.

This country (for those in the US) wasn't founded on patents and litigation (oh the irony).

People are free to build from our innovations.

Howver, when it is our personal property; we deserved to be compensated for it if you make $$ from it.

Since when is an idea property?

 

[Cogman]

Barring the complete dismissal of patents (They should DIAF). I think one reform that would go a long way to making them not so bad would be a stipulation that if a company doesn't sell a product with the patented idea within a year of the patent, or stops selling the product for a year, then the patent enters public domain. This would go a long way, expecially int he hardware industry where we have entire companies dedicated to filling for patents and suing anyone who dares to tread on their soil (Rambus, I'm looking at you).

Patents in general bread a horrible non-competitive environment. Look at the state of current microprocessors. Had intel not given AMD a joint patent for the x86 processor there would be no way another consumer level processor would be on the table.

 

[chronodekar]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Barring the complete dismissal of patents (They should DIAF). I think one reform that would go a long way to making them not so bad would be a stipulation that if a company doesn't sell a product with the patented idea within a year of the patent, or stops selling the product for a year, then the patent enters public domain. This would go a long way, expecially int he hardware industry where we have entire companies dedicated to filling for patents and suing anyone who dares to tread on their soil (Rambus, I'm looking at you).

Patents in general bread a horrible non-competitive environment. Look at the state of current microprocessors. Had intel not given AMD a joint patent for the x86 processor there would be no way another consumer level processor would be on the table.

I can't think of any examples of the top of my head, but the counter-point is if the patent holder didn't have enough funds to invest.

You know, the scenario where a professor applies and gets a patent for some new invention of his, then spends the next 3 years saving up and finally releasing a product?

Ok, granted, THAT was really far-fetched, but I hope you get the idea?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: chronodekar

Originally posted by: Cogman
Barring the complete dismissal of patents (They should DIAF). I think one reform that would go a long way to making them not so bad would be a stipulation that if a company doesn't sell a product with the patented idea within a year of the patent, or stops selling the product for a year, then the patent enters public domain. This would go a long way, expecially int he hardware industry where we have entire companies dedicated to filling for patents and suing anyone who dares to tread on their soil (Rambus, I'm looking at you).

Patents in general bread a horrible non-competitive environment. Look at the state of current microprocessors. Had intel not given AMD a joint patent for the x86 processor there would be no way another consumer level processor would be on the table.

I can't think of any examples of the top of my head, but the counter-point is if the patent holder didn't have enough funds to invest.

You know, the scenario where a professor applies and gets a patent for some new invention of his, then spends the next 3 years saving up and finally releasing a product?

Ok, granted, THAT was really far-fetched, but I hope you get the idea?

Ok, so he keeps his mouth shut about his idea, saves up for 3 years, THEN applies for a patent and we see where it goes from there. Heck, even if he applies for the patent, can't produce it, and waits for 3 years the patent is in public domain, chances are, nobody is using it.