Group Attacks Bad Software Patents Before They're Approved 82
Curupira writes "Ars Technica discusses how the Linux Defenders group are exercising the rights granted by the America Invents Act to identify and fight the patents that potentially threaten Linux and open source software. From the article: 'In a session at LinuxCon today, Linux Defenders director Andrea Casillas explained how the group is using rights granted by the new law to fight patent applications. A project of the Open Invention Network, Software Freedom Law Center, and Linux Foundation, Linux Defenders examines the 6,000 new patent applications published each week, attempting to identify those that are potentially threatening to Linux and open source. Then, the group looks for prior art that would invalidate at least some of the claims in the patents.'"
Re:Very interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make your own copy of an application and then block the original from your curated marketplace.
Re:Good intentions but potentially harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part of your plan is that it keeps all the patent attorneys gainfully employed. Amiright?
Re:Good intentions but potentially harmful (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of the the time, the examiner responsible for a patent application is not particularly worried about the quality of the patent being issue but is more concerned with just getting the application off his/her docket. This makes it reasonably likely that the examiner will either ignore the new prior art or accept whatever dubious amendment/argument that the patent owner submitted.
This may very well be true, and I would sadly not bat an eye in surprise.
I would suggest that a better strategy is to just record and publish lists of prior art after the patent issues.
But seriously, the fact that the patent office is so messed up that this is the advice when it comes to reducing patent garbage... this launches a huge war in my head, between the pragmatic programmer and the idealistic open-source hacker.
This is fucking disgusting.
A shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Examiners Replaced by Volunteers? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how much work these people could be contributing to open source projects if they didn't have to waste time sifting through mountains of garbage patents to do the jobs that the patent examiners should be doing. Add on to that the advantage that other countries have by not having to waste time on this nonsense and it just seems silly to justify the existence of software patents. But since these patents make big money for powerful companies who bribe legislators, I'm not holding my breath for anything to change.
Re:Good intentions but potentially harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree this effort could be harmful. And, for more reasons than you give. This is playing the patent trolls' game. These heroes are trying to work within a bad system, rather than change the system itself.
What is the best direction to take? How about, abolish software patents? How can that be accomplished? Perhaps the best way is to make patents so painful that even big companies start to think they'd be better off without them. In this respect, trolls are actually doing us all a service. The more that trolls gouge Apple, MS, Oracle, IBM, Google, and the rest of the big tech companies, cost them millions in legal fees, court costs, awards of damages, injunctions that compel them to pass up opportunities, inconvenience and lose customers, the more these politically weighty companies might decide to instruct their bought congress critters to consider eliminating software patents. I would guess RIM saw the light a few years back when NTP sued them. Hope the trolls are also working over Big Pharma, plus Monsanto. Big Pharma may be the major group that most fervently supports strong intellectual property laws, more even than Big Media.
Effective grass roots efforts are hard to pull off. Have to be very big and noisy to scare representatives into heeding them. Last one that really worked was the effort to stop SOPA and PIPA. I think it only worked because Wikipedia got in on the act, and shut down their encyclopedia for one day.
Re:Good intentions but potentially harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
more concerned with just getting the application off his/her docket.
So, stamp it 'DENIED'.
It allows the patent applicant to try to amend the claims or argue around the prior art.
What this whole game overlooks is that there needs to be a way to send worthless patents away. Permanently.
Re:Good intentions but potentially harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I would say the opposite. Only a very, very small percentage of patents are ever actually asserted. Looking at every patent application that is published and submitting prior art with descriptions of the prior art is vastly more time consuming than simply looking up previously identified prior art and killing only those patents that are later asserted. Also, it is much harder to patent owners to amend claims after the patent has issued.
What if we (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Make those who file for patents pay even if the patent is not approved.
2) Give a portion of the money paid to the first people who find prior art or make a good case for not supporting a patent.
Re:Very interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not remotely a fan of IBM, but with respect to patents, most of theirs (but not all) seem to be decent hardware patents. They do a lot of R&D on leading edge processor and storage tech. I'm not sure how MS spends that much money on R&D.