Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents Android Google Microsoft Software

Google's Patent Lawyer On Why the Patent System Is Broken 260

The San Francisco Chronicle features an interview with Google's patent counsel, Tim Porter, who argues that "... what many people can agree on is the current system is broken and there are a large number of software patents out there fueling litigation that resulted from a 10- or 15-year period when the issuance of software patents was too lax. Things that seemed obvious made it through the office until 2007, when the Supreme Court finally said that the patent examiners could use common sense. Patents were written in a way that was vague and overly broad. (Companies are) trying to claim something that's really an idea (which isn't patentable). There are only so many ways to describe a piston, but software patents are written by lawyers in a language that software engineers don't even understand. They're being used to hinder innovation or skim revenue off the top of a successful product." Porter is speaking in particular about the snarls that have faced (and still face) Android, based on Microsoft patents; he blames some of the mess on a patent regime where "you don't know what patents cover until courts declare that in litigation. What that means is people have to make decisions about whether to fight or whether to reach agreements."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Patent Lawyer On Why the Patent System Is Broken

Comments Filter:
  • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Sunday November 06, 2011 @11:08PM (#37970170)

    The best example of overbroad patenting is the fact that Apple got a patent for Mag-safe (the breakaway connector on their laptops). Magnetic breakaways had been invented in the 90s and were used on deep fryers. They took the existing work and added the words "computer or electronic device". And guess what now they have a 20year monopoly on magnetic connectors for laptops.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, 2011 @11:21PM (#37970234)

    I've never heard that title applied to Elizabeth Barrett Browning [wikipedia.org] before.

  • by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Sunday November 06, 2011 @11:22PM (#37970244) Homepage

    First off congress is on this issue. And it is bipartisan. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) are the two leading the charge. As for Obama, he was a big supporter of the 2009 Patent reform act Patent Reform Act of 2009 (S. 515), whose modified version went into law in September. While nowhere near enough this is progress.

  • by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Sunday November 06, 2011 @11:28PM (#37970276) Homepage

    Horacio Gutiérrez, the deputy general counsel in charge of Microsoft’s intellectual property group is a major proponent of patent reform including the bill passed in September. For example

    I think we’ve come a long way, but there remain some areas where the practices in the context of litigation as well as in some administrative proceedings could be adapted to really try to curb the abuses of the system by nonpracticing entities [polite term for patent trolls]..There is currently debate emerging over whether nonpracticing entities should be entitled to obtain an injunction either in court or in the International Trade Commission.

    Microsoft is on our side on this one.

    As for Apple they are one of the founding companies in the Coalition for Patent Fairness [patentfairness.org].

    So I'm not sure where you are getting this idea they support the current system from.

  • by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Monday November 07, 2011 @12:09AM (#37970486) Homepage Journal
    First to file affects only conflicts between one patent application and another patent application. It does not affect the novelty requirement, which is patent application vs. prior art.
  • Re:Still is bad (Score:4, Informative)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Monday November 07, 2011 @07:26AM (#37971724) Homepage Journal

    Lawyers sometimes seem to be in ivory tower when it comes to the technology around them. IT moves so fast, that even as a professional in the field it is hard to keep up. I would be surprised that someone who has a legal background can do as much.

    I remember one story about a computer science student doing her masters thought she had come up with something new. She passed her course, but the problem is that people working outside of acedemia saw her work as something that had already been done in industry. Just because something seems new, it doesn't mean it is. Unlike scientific fields, anyone has easy access to IT, so this means that there is so much room for new ideas, but also people thinking they have a new idea. For most professionals solving problems and coming solutions is often more important than understanding everything that went before, especially when there is so much innovation coming at you like a speeding locomotive.

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Working...