Open-source Overhauls Patent System 186
K-boy writes "The US Patent Office has announced new plans to reform the patent system - and right up there at the front is open-source software. Techworld argues that it is in fact open-source software that has been the driving force behind the reform." From the New York Times article: "At a meeting last month with companies and organizations that support open-source software (software that can be distributed and modified freely), including I.B.M., Red Hat, Novell and some universities, officials of the patent office discussed how to give patent examiners access to better information and other ways to issue higher-quality patents. Two of the initiatives would rely on recently developed Internet technologies. An open patent review program would set up a system on the patent office Web site where visitors could submit search criteria and subscribe to electronic alerts about patent applications in specific areas."
Re: Surface changes only (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow! Temporarily, a victory for OSS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, since when has there been an "Open submission" for prior art in any of the USPTOs area of authority, or to have a searchable database for newly published applications that allows you, me, and everybody else to offer feedback directly to the examiners who need the information most [Note: I am including the patent quality index" under the heading of feedback by the way.]
From the Techworld article:The USPTO will host a public meeting to discuss the projects at its offices on 16 February.
I hope that RSM, ESR, etc. Lawrense Lessig et. all are there to defend this proposed change.
But it's an advance. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's not a step backward, it's a step forward!
Later we can worry about elliminating software patents entirely.
Besides, take a look at this:
Not only can prior art be searched more effectively, the PEOPLE (this is, us!) can submit their comments about the patents in question. In other words, if an obvious software patent goes to slashdot, we, the slashdotters, can complain about it DIRECTLY!
And that's a good thing
Worse than surface changes (Score:2, Insightful)
What would be pro-F/OSS would be if the patent office provided a way that F/OSS projects could point out prior art on the large numbers of obvious&non-innovative pending patents more easily. But with industry lobbyests running the show, there's 0 chance that this will happen.
At Last (Score:2, Insightful)
It's an excellent beginning.
Your Sig: The 9th Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice, but what about obviousness? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently read what seems like a good solution; when a patent is submitted it must be tested for obviousness. Submit the problem that the patent solves to a panel of experts. If they come up with a sufficiently similar solution, the patent is void. Funding? Submitters who get their patents voided for obviousness pay the expense of the panel - calculate the cost at the end of the year and divvy it among the applicants. That has the added bonus of penalizing patent flooders, and since there will still be rivers of patents coming from IBM and MS, the individual patent submitter will only risk a tiny fraction of the cost of the board.
I thought they did this years ago (Score:1, Insightful)
Wasn't the "reform" to take any mundane activity, and add "over the Internet" to it and you get a patent?
Software is not patentable.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Physical Phenomenon
Natural Law
Abstract Ideas.
Mathmatical algorythims are a subtopic of the above three primary facets of what is not patentable.
Haven't the time at the moment to read the article but I don't need to. I know software is provably not patentable.
How software got patent status in teh US is not by approval of the people, but by the abstract rethoric of abstract arguement.
Software creation is all about abstraction creation and manipulation.
This alone make its a a human right and duty to apply. For we as creatures able to go beyond other creatures have only this as our advantage enabling us to go beyond the limits other creatures have.
Software is not patentable and there are more details as to why this is and provable, then I have time to go into ATM.
We only advance by building upon the works of those before us. Why falsely limit that process and increasing rate of? Ity is not consistant with what we are.
Reform???? What we need is correction in accord with what is not patentable.
Some of you are missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
"All these incremental fixes to Firefox are just annoying. I wish they'd just get over it and release version 5.1 *right now*. Anything else is a waste of time and effort."
Change at this level of society doesn't come in an avalanche, it's an incremental, patch-like process. This is done to minimize harm to the basic structure of society, which after all has fed and educated some of us, despite its flaws. I don't know how many others like me are out there, but I know I've been hoping for exactly this kind of open review for patents for a long time. Now hobbyists and competing commercial interests will have the ability and incentive to help crush some of the utterly stupid patents that get granted.
Re:But it's an advance. (Score:3, Insightful)
I can think of a few reasons. First, the three problems you note dominate all of the software patents that are issued, so eliminating software patents altogether would accomplish much more good than harm (and would be far easier to do too.) Second, software is essentially a number, and while we like to think that we have invented or created a piece of software, that number has always existed and will always exist, and numbers are not inventions. Third, software is essentially a sequence of instructions, and a recipe is not an invention. Fourth, the unique properties of software allow its development to be very rapid (compared to the development of physical products), and patents inhibit this rapid development, which has negative economic consequences. Remember that patents don't exist in a state of nature: they are an artificial creation designed to create economic benefit for society, and since software patents' economic harm exceeds their economic benefit, they're counterproductive.
Nonsense. I can think of plenty of reasons to innovate and to create new products other than their potential patentability.
Re:Your Sig: The 9th Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.
Keep in mind that the US Constitution is the longest standing constitution in the world, and US is not a very old country. "Good" laws are more on the non-specific side, and bad ones add too specific information that will only be trumped when something similar comes up but not specific enough (most any new law regarding computers is basically redundant. fraud is a very inclusive law that is not used enough, etc).
The Constitution mentions "Certain Inaliable Rights", which is fairly and intentionally vague. Its in the Bill of Rights somewhere. I'm a little (lot) on the liberal side of people's rights, and I believe that privacy is one of them. I believe that the privacy is implied by the forgotten warrant and illegal search and seizure, not forcing US citizens to house troops, etc.
If I don't have the right to privacy,
Unless I am a harm to someone or myself as defined by a law and the law is followed by due process, then privacy is implied. (YAIMNAL).
To test the opposite, where is it explained that the government allowed to invade privacy? Baring due process and reasonable limits to protect others.
Re:Recently developed? (Score:3, Insightful)