IBM Calls for Patent Reform 292
daria42 writes "IBM has called for tighter regulation of patents and a review of intellectual property ownership issues in collaborative software development. The company is one of the largest patent-holders in the United States. IBM executive Jim Stallings said examining patents for prior art should not only be the job of the patent office but that the wider community should be involved. Stallings also called on the industry to stop what he calls "bad behaviour" by companies who either seek patents for unoriginal work or collect and hoard patents."
What I like about IBM ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably a prerequisite for "culture" in general.
CC.
No answers to Questions to USPTO On-Line (Score:5, Interesting)
On February 24, 2005 [blogspot.com] I tried to pose some questions to USPTO [uspto.gov] On-Line chat for Independent Inventors today, however the digichat java applet does not appear work with any combination of Linux Galeon/Mozilla/Firefox jdk1.5.0/j2re1.4.2_07 or MacOSX Firefox/Safari. Here is what I tried to ask:
I understand that the discovery of prior art and the evaluation of the obviousness of an invention are difficult tasks for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent application examiners to perform. The percentage of patents being overturned under the scrutiny of the courts leads me to believe that the process is not quite as accurate as could be desired. In a few recent cases the existence of publicly accessible digital content has played a part in disclosing prior art. The public, technical and scientific communities use of Internet has to a large extent replaced printed media such as journals for the public disclosure of new ideas. To what extent does the current USPTO patent application examination process take into account public accessible website content? Do the patent examiners currently use Internet search engines such as Google ( http://www.google.com [google.com] ) to locate instances of prior art? Is the changeable and unverifiable nature of some digital content a barrier to its being cited as prior art in the patent application examination process?
The USPTO patent application examiners task could be made more reliable if the examiners could consult one or more public online registries that document cases of prior art and public discoveries. The online registries could provide a means for the public to retroactively point to cases of preexisting prior art for pending patent applications and a means to proactively document publicly known ideas and concepts. Although websites and digitally stored content in general is changeable, individual entries and changes in an online registry could be legally authenticated by means of digital timestamping ( http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=234 7 [rsasecurity.com]). An online
registry could be hosted by the USPTO as an adjunct to the existing
online public patent and patent pending databases. The USPTO could also
publicly recognize other individual registries hosted by third parties
such as a commercial entity or a non-profit community similar to
Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org] ). An individual adding an entry
to such a publicly online registry does not involve granting that
individual any form of monopoly, therefore the action need not have any
artificial barrier involving fees or payments. Would the existence of
digitally timestamped public content overcome any objections by the
USPTO to its citing as prior art? Has the USPTO any plans to add some
form of publicly accessible feedback mechanism to the patent
application process?
It has been nine years since the USPTO updated the Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions ( http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/soft ware/analysis/computer.html [uspto.gov]
). Since that time has the USPTO undertaken, commissioned or evaluated
any studies on the effects that granting software related patents has
had on the progress of science, useful arts and the software industry
in general? If no such study has been performed or evaluated, why not?
Can the USPTO point to any instances where the granting of software
related patents has been an actual benefit to the progress of science,
useful arts and the software industry in general? In a similar vein,
can the USPTO point to any instances where the granting of business
method related patents has been an actual benefit to the progress of
science, useful arts and industry in general?
isn't IBM the king of patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No time to evaluate patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Tom
Re:Hello kettle... (Score:3, Interesting)
They are wanting to rid the world of rediculous patents, not totally shutdown the patening process.
Re:Hello kettle... (Score:4, Interesting)
People patent basically anything. I'd be surprised to learn that LibTomCrypt didn't violate at least a half dozen patents. Heck the kernel probably violates a good dozen or more.
Companies like MSFT and IBM patent every itty-bitty thing they do in the hopes of using it to crush competition. Oh, we put the chip on at an angle, must patent that because it will give us a 0.00001% market boost!! yes!!!
Tom
Related article (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent applicant should rebut (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hello kettle... (Score:1, Interesting)
Companies like MSFT and IBM patent every itty-bitty thing they do
Can you give a specific example of IBM doing this? And don't forget that you can't count the 500 patents IBM gave up voluntarily recently.
Re:No time to evaluate patents (Score:5, Interesting)
What about idiots and others who wrongly affect the ratio of new:exists? A simple account system could be created. You need an account to comment on the validity of a patent, and if a person is discovered to repeatedly be wrong about the final decisions they could be given warnings, then their accounts could be disabled, for some time period or permanently.. That's another discussion though.
Re:isn't IBM the king of patents? (Score:1, Interesting)
IBM is, for sure, one of the best organizations striving for excellent quality hardware and software . Their contribution comes through highly professional and research oriented team (unlike MS). They indeed have invented loads of things. Just google a bit and u get their achievemnets and contributions.
Calling IBM wolf is not correct because of the same reason. (I might have agreed if u use this for MS, who was trying to patent IPV6, some time ago).
Re:Patent Office Runs Like a Business! (Score:4, Interesting)
Concerned parties (Score:2, Interesting)
Shouldn't the patent office be involve and look at claims of prior art from defendants in patent cases, especially when the claims haven't been tested before?
What IBM's proposing is more akin to a polling architecture and I think it sounds rather inefficient.
Best of all, throw software patents away.
Academics may have a conflict of interest (Score:3, Interesting)
I myself keep a file of patents I think are interesting for one reason or another. Usually it's patents I think are on prior art. There a couple of issues here. One is that it's extremely difficult to read a patent. They're not the most clear technical explanations sometimes. This makes it a problem in proving that it is actually prior art and not just some minor enhancement or some special case. But that same vagueness lets patent owners sue anybody and everybody for patent infringement. Sure, you could eventually prevail but not everybody has the resources to defend themselves. I think we need to shift the burden of proof somewhat. Perhaps create a patent status that allows a challenges to be filed. The patent would remain valid but extra steps would have to be taken before anyone tried to enforce the patent. This could be abused by patent challengers but you could take care of it by requiring a bond of of sorts. Individuals can't afford this but the the EFF or IBM could.
Yet another PR stunt by IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
Their not-so-low profile thier sponsorship of open source stuff, releasing all of their patents to OSS projects and their professed patent protection (that was IBM right?) leads me to think they are attempting to woo certain crowds. These same crowds who are a bit fearful of patent issues with OSS perhaps?
Maybe they are truly pushing for an OSS marketplace... for IBM, it would tend to make a great deal of sense since they are primarily a service oriented business now. They still have products to sell, but mostly, it's the service agreements that make their bread and butter. If they get everyone thinking that way, it would put a serious hurt on people who sell software as a product.
Generally, I am inclined to agree with this perspective on things -- what slashdotter wouldn't I suppose? But if they are willing to divest themselves of thier patent practices, I wonder what else they have in mind to follow-up on this? After all, it is "patent trading" that often keeps big businesses from tearing at each others throats with patent litigation every 5 minutes. It has been generally accepted practice not to question or try each others' patents as they will be exposed to the light and probably die from exposure. This serves only to keep the little guy from growing though...
well anyway... any guesses what IBM will follow with next?
Re:Actual research by the patent office? (Score:5, Interesting)
At minumum, such a proposal would mean that you are showing the patent exact steps to build/make whatever it is you want to patent.
For software patents, they should require that actual runnable code implementing what it is you want to patent be submitted to the patent office.
For example, if you have created a new compression algorithim for video data, you have to show something that can compress and uncompress video with your new codec. I would even go so far as to suggest that perhapst this "reference implementation" of the patented item should go on file with the patent. (although whether that is fesable would depend on what it is that has been "invented" and what the working example is/does).
If the patent makes claims over things that the submitted code doesnt implemented, the patent should be rejected (or the claims that arent present in the code should be rejected)
This requirement would not be overly harsh to those who dont have lots of money since (unlike the cost to demonstrate a new kind of sattelite or whatever), the cost to produce a working prototype implementation of a new software thing you want to patent is not huge.
Re:No time to evaluate patents (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, if the prior art "volunteers" are carefully selected for specific areas of expertise, then this might work. There are precidents for this (e.g. public defenders, who are often regular lawyers with a normal practice, being paid only enough to cover minimal expenses).
Re:Big Blue takes the middle path (Score:1, Interesting)
My solution (Score:3, Interesting)
One prior-art filter could be Wiki and Google. (Score:3, Interesting)
patent system change (Score:4, Interesting)
I was wondering what do you think about such change:
Only an limited number of patents to be granted every year. Let's say 500 patents.
This way only really important inventions (not innovations) will be honored with `limited goverment granted monopoly`. The patent office will throw faster the obvious and broad patents, and will have more time to focus on the really good candidates.
As a side effect the less probability of granting patent will discourage the firms to fill as many patents as possible.
The really good thing is that there will be an limited number of patents that could be checked more easy (e.g. only 10'000 valid patents at any time)
The only question is what to do with already granted patents. I think that limiting their life would be good idea. For example cutting to half the rest of their life would be an good option. So if patent is just issued it will have 10 years, but if it would have 4 more years left, it will last only for 2.
Re:patent system change (Score:3, Interesting)
Why?
A good compromise - mod parent up (Score:5, Interesting)
If later research proves that the proposed implementation does not work, the patent should be rejected retroactively.
Patent process works....sometimes (Score:3, Interesting)
However, it's pretty clear that things have gotten out of hand. Too many people were/are making too much money on bogus patents and now that you have more lawyers involved, we're seeing what happens. As with most thing, they (lawyers, sharks, ambulanc chasers) destroy it.
Re:Open Letter to all patent lawyers including IBM (Score:1, Interesting)
Said impoverished developer could have benefitted from a well-implemented patent system. By patenting his innovations, he could do like MySQL, giving away a FOSS version under a GPL, with dual licensing for commercial application.
In fact, patents (if done right) should be a benefit to any developer. They should stimulate people to work hard at developing new ideas, so when they share them, there can be some personal reward (or at least a payback to cover the investment of time and effort).
In summation, the problem isn't with the patent concept itself, but with its implementation-- benefitting the powerful to the expense of the individual. I agree with you that the way the system currently works, it is detrimental to society as a whole as well as individuals and even corporations generally. Small changes could make a huge difference, IMHO.
Curtailing natural rights... (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents on such ideas do not just curtail the economically-sound interchange of such ideas in the future, they actively remove people's rights to the fruit of their own labour, the copyrighted works they produce independently.
A broad software patent can, at a stroke, turn a life's work into something with no value. Unlike patents on physical inventions, this is not unlikely... in fact it's going to become more and more common to hear about such stories.
The patent offices are, basically, in a corrupt symbiosis with patent lawyers, stealing ideas from the "commons", and turning the real inventors into peons. It's a classic abuse of the "tragedy of the commons", in which corrupt officials argue that the commons need "their protection" when in fact there is a well-functioning economy already in place.
It's much expropriating property - someone's house, or a park, or public lands - for business reasons.
Parkinson's law: officialdom will always expand to consume its budget. In the case of the patent offices, the budget is limitless.
The patent offices, and the patent lawyers, are IMHO the real villains of the affair. I am quite surprised that no-one has yet launched a lawsuit against the USPTO for larceny.
I don't think you will get many useful replies from the patent lawyers who read this.
Re:Patent Office Runs Like a Business! (Score:1, Interesting)
Not to deny that IBM has possibly conflicting attitudes to open source, and of course they have a huge patent portfolio. It's a big company with history.
But if you look at where IBM is heading for, it's definitely banking on using Linux, Apache, and other open source as its future platform.
Look at the value IBM gets from Linux, and the amount it spends on it. Now compare the value IBM gets from its own operating systems, and the amount it spends on those. You very quickly see that Linux is incredibly profitable in the sense of creating business at a low cost.
Stallings is possibly presenting a strategy, rather than a current reality, but it's a strategy that makes business sense.
IAAPL (Score:4, Interesting)
Why should software authors have to worry less about patents than independent mechanical designers, chemists, or electrical engineers?
What's the difference between your hypothetical and a guy who designs a new engine on paper, proposes a new synthesis on paper, or sketches a new circuit on paper, and posts it on the web, whereupon some third party company picks it up and mass produces it, and the guy is threatened for inducing patent infringement (yes, there is such a thing)?
There is not much difference. I have heard the arguments that say software is special for various reasons, but you have to have already drunk the koolaid to buy them.
Remember, if you want to take the position that patents in general are bad, that's a very legitimate position.
But there is very little that is special about software patents. All inventions are mere conceptions, and it's all done on paper (except for drugs, which have their own ethics/cost/benefit problems).
Just FYI, in the U.S., there is a special "personal use" escape clause for "business methods" (which would be most algorithm/data structure type things). It is insanely worded and also limited. 35 U.S.C. 273. You probably want to know how that works. The same kind of "prior user" defense exists in more rational form in many countries.
I'm sorry. I can accept that patents in general may harm the penniless dreamer. But software is not special, and there is no credible reason to exclude it. The (unproven) net benefit is the same as it is with all other technologies(a disclosure for exclusivity bargain).
Freedom of expression - a red herring. Free speech is a very good reason to restrict copyright, especially for artistic works. However, software was treated as "expression" as a convenient legal fiction to shoehorn it into the existing copyright laws. But really, that makes no sense. You can't argue simultaneously that an algorithm is both a discovered law of nature and unique personal expression.
In summary, patents *are* a threat, but a 200-year old one that every other kind of technology has had to deal with. The reason to change is that the disclosure isn't doing anyone any good, so we (society) are giving something (a patent) for nothing (a worthless disclosure). That is not unique to software.
Patents turn Google Evil? (Score:3, Interesting)
The filing looks like they had an on-line brainstorming session about all of the historical data that could be discovered about a Web document. Someone then wrote this up with some waffly tech language and came up with a few formula and then filed as a huge patent that appears more to be staking out a massive claim on the search engine algorithm space. I guess that this patent is about having bargaining chips with MSN Search and Yahoo! when the great search engine shakeout comes. I don't blaim Google for using the system as it stands; now they have shareholders they have fidicual duty to be evil
There are some interesting ideas in the Google Patent and a much narrower filing with some specifics might merit a patent but talk like: a link has a creation and eventual destruction date, the rate of link creation to a document may be an indicator of the document's freshness, doesn't strike me as an invention more handwaving.
Given that the patent office is not up to the task at least restrict the lifetime of software patents to around 4 years.
How about non-transferability? (Score:2, Interesting)
If the original inventor can't be bothered to enforce his own invention, it should become public domain.
Plus, this would kill off those companies whose sole business plan is to buy patents and sue people; nobody would miss those companies.
Re:What I like about IBM ... (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM was granted 3,248 patents in 2004 alone and made US$1.2 billion from associated royalties. According to the Stallings, IBM have over 10,000 applications for new patents in the United States awaiting processing and many thousands more around the world.
Pot & Kettle (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What I like about IBM ... (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM can only force a company to determine if it is infringing one of their patents by bringing suit against them. To bring a lawsuit, they must list the patents they think are being infringed in the filing. If the company being sued ends up paying anything to IBM that implies that they _were_ infringing at least some of the patents in the lawsuit.
IBM would be breaking the law if they failed to use a patent which they knew could be profitably used -- publicly traded companies are obliged to do the best they can for their shareholders.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but IBM generally does what it _has to_ under the rules in place today; and I think it took a fair amount of corporate and personal courage to come out and say "we don't like the way things are". However, even if they don't like the rules, they still have to play the game.