Is the Tide Turning On Patents? 172
Glyn Moody writes "The FSF has funded a new video, 'Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system,' freely available (of course) in Ogg Theora format (what else?). It comes at a time when a lot is happening in the world of patents. Recent work from leading academics has called into question their basis: 'The work in this paper, and that of many others, suggests that this traditionally-struck "devil's bargain" may not be beneficial.' We recently discussed how a judge struck down Myriad Genetics's patents on two genes because they involved a law of Nature, and were thus 'improperly granted.' Meanwhile, the imminent Supreme Court ruling In re Bilski is widely expected to have negative knock-on effects for business method and software patents. Is the tide beginning to turn?"
When I applied for my patents... (Score:3, Informative)
My attorney encouraged me to focus not on the software aspects, but how the software interacted with the surrounding system (sensors, hardware, users, etc). It's been suspected for a while now that the vise was going to tighten up against patents on algorithms.
And good, IMHO.
bilksi due soon; I'm optimistic (Score:3, Informative)
I'm very optimistic about Bilski. Not because I predict a big win, but because I think the worst of the reasonably likely scenarios amounts only to no change. A somewhat win is likely, and that would be great because it would leave the door open for us to make our arguments again in a future case. This is how the SC handled patentable subject matter in the 70s, they did a trilogy of cases: Benson [swpat.org], Flook [swpat.org], Diehr [swpat.org]. And that last one isn't as bad as the USPTO and the CAFC would have you think.
Re:Theora or VP8 (Score:3, Informative)
It's still a rumor that hasn't been confirmed by Google.
SC has plenty of ground to stand on (Score:5, Informative)
The US Supreme Court has never upheld a software or business method patent. All they said in Diehr [swpat.org] is that things that are patentable can be managed/controlled by a person or a robot/computer. The CAFC and the USPTO ran with this and approved all kinds of programs for such a robot/computer, but they're not the authority here. The Supreme Court is now taking over again for the first time in 30 years, and all they have to do in order to abolish software patents is to clarify and repeat their previous rulings.
The Supremes have always said that math isn't patentable, it's a fundamental truth that can't be "invented", and they've said that putting instructions, including math onto a computer is an obvious step.
Re:No (Score:2, Informative)
Patents protect small businesses and innovation from competition, including big companies that will do anything in their power to stomp little companies with disruptive technologies.
Nonsense. You want to know why? Because lawyers charge $500 an hour, and that includes the time they spend dreaming about the case while asleep. A small business does not have the money to litigate a tricky case against a large incumbent, unless the lawyers decide to take the case pro-bono. And even that's not a given, because even lawyers have to eat at some point, and can't run a pro-bono case forever. In other words: lawyers and customers protect a small business against a larger one. Patents are only marginally tied into that system.
Patents are part of capitalism, so no, there's no tide turning.
Patents are a government-granted monopoly. To be exact, they are actually the complete anti-thesis of capitalism.
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:3, Informative)
The main difference is that this isn't a constitutional case.
Except for the fact that patents are laid down in the US Constitution, sure. Of course, that shouldn't make it a constitutional issue, should it?
The Supreme Court certainly can and should decide whether or not restrictions placed on patents are constitutional. All laws are based on the constitution, and must not violate it. The SCOTUS's primary purpose is to ensure that this is the case.
Now, the portion of the Constitution that allows for Patents and Copyright is small, and it's the US Patent and Copyright codes that determine how we use it, which are both external to the constitution, so I couldn't tell you how the SCOTUS would go on this. The usually seem to err on the side of caution, so don't be surprised if they maintain the status quo.
the tide changed before and will change again (Score:4, Informative)
Fed-Soc.org - Patents: Legitimate Rights or Grubstakes that Obstruct Progress? - Winter 2000 [archive.org]
As I said before [slashdot.org] The 2000-2010 "Intellectual Property" boom is about to go the way of the "Subprime" Mortgage, Dot-Com vapor startup, Junk bond and Dutch Tulip futures. The Patent Troll Business Model is inherently flawed, and just like the aforementioned others, add nothing to a nations REAL economy.
Re:I'm not as optimistic about Bilski (Score:3, Informative)
Except that neither party in the Bilski case is presenting a constitutional argument.
Re:No (Score:3, Informative)
The question is, if you were starting a business that provides a software solution, would you want to be able to protect your solution from the competition?
How about you ask Microsoft, Oracle, or Adobe that question? Since they all managed to become very successful software companies well before software patents became common, they probably have an answer.
patents (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree on your economic analysis with software patents. Patents on software are a type of "broken windows fallacy" argument, and as such, are a hindrance to the economy, not any sort of positive asset.
This is *precisely* the time we should be abandoning outdated (**AA type numbers and agenda, the entertainment distribution "industry") /harmful(software and living things patenting) /useless(casino gambling banks and created out of thin air financial "products") /parasitic(governmental make-work mc jobs) "businesses".
Yes, there would be an adjustment period if we eliminated the bulk of those "jobs" up above, but after a short time, you would find people would be concentrating on real wealth production work, which in turn contributes to real wealth creation, an economy that doesn't need sham official figures to try and sugar coat reality, or one that relies on ..shoot..bingo cards as somehow all that valuable. This "IP" stuff is all well and good in some extreme moderation levels, but you can't run a huge nation the size of the US on services, patenting everything possible, every little tiny nuance of anything, even abstract concepts, and then high stakes financial gambling. The rest of the planet is starting to route around those bottlenecks now, that is why we are having a financial crisis, because we have been doing things "that way". So it is "that way" that needs to change, not just do more of it.
As a small developer, I want software patents!!! (Score:3, Informative)
It is well known that small businesses are innovators. Software patents are necessary to allow small businesses to compete with the large corporations which might otherwise copy, repackage, and sell the innovations of small businesses. There are definitely problems in the patent system, it is all too frequently abused. The negative attitude here on slashdot is, I'm afraid, a result of a successful campaign by the Free Software Foundation. I love open source software, both as a user and as a contributor, and it is unfortunate that patents do negatively affect, in many ways, the work of the free software movement. That does not, however, make patents evil, they are a necessity for the continued growth of technology and of a capitalistic economy.
In regard, again, to free software, it does seem more and more like the comparison of communism versus capitalism. Surely, there is some innovation in free software, but much of that originates from commercial entities looking to upsell other products. It is reminiscent of how the only innovation in (classic) communist countries originated from a national agenda, such as the Russian space program. However, even in the commercially supported open source software realm, many of the "good parts" are often kept under a lock and key, such as with Zimbra or SugarCRM. My point is, that without a capitalistic agenda, innovation does not happen. Innovation does not happen without a strong patent system, as inventors are motivated by money. It is not that companies and people won't invent without money, but that money stimulates and motivates in a way that pure interest, desire, and passion do not -- keeping in mind that the financial stimulation is in addition to, not in lieu of passion-based innovations!
The point? Do you work for free? What if you built a better mousetrap and began marketing it, but before you had the time to take it off the ground, a large national manufacturer began selling copies of your design? This wouldn't be protected under copyright, but would be covered under patents. This same scenario can happen with software too and small independent developers need protection, or they'll stop innovating completely, sell their businesses, and get themselves hired by large firms. Without competition, the large firms will stop innovating as well, and we'll all just twiddle our thumbs as we wait for the rest of the world to eclipse our rotting corpse of an economy.