Trend: More Software Patents 212
The number of software patents issued this year increased to 22500,
while a new type of hardware predator has arisen: companies that increase their revenue by patent royalties. Indeed some companies focus on making patents on products they will never make, just to get IP-revenue. Neither is extortion out of the question ("Come here laddy, prove to me your not violating any of my 100 patents !"). Software engineers don't like it, and in one company had to be threatened to play the lawyers' game. Even though few companies currently use software patents offensively, at a $20,000 cost per patent, they could hurt Free Software badly, should they follow the hardware trend and do so.
Most large companies do this (Score:1)
Pure IP-revenue (Score:1)
The validity or morality of software patents aside, I don't see what's wrong with patenting inventions that you'll never make. In fact, for independent inventors or even small companies, the sensible way to go about making money off your invention would be to license the patent to a larger company with the manufacturing capabilities -- it's called specialization or making the most of your comparative advantage. Furthermore, I don't see why a large company willing to devote the time and resources to research, but chooses not to manufacture the product itself shouldn't be able to license out its patents -- unless you're against the whole idea of patents.
Cite Your Source Please (Score:1)
Re:Has the time come for Open Source Patents? (Score:1)
Did you mean 'hacker' or 'cracker'?
Do you know the diffrence? I don't think you do.
Re:Patents scare me (Score:1)
You'll see the pattern if you look at drugs where the patent has expired, for example Beta2 antagonists. The company which first created them has the largest marketshare with Salbutamol (sold as Ventalin), while other B2 antagonists and generic Salbutamol trail behind.
Re:Clueless Patent Stories on Slashdot (Score:2)
The industrial revolution started in about 1730 with the invention of the cotton mill in England. One of the most famous US inventions, the cotton gin was invented by Eli Whitney around 1790.
Re:overworked patent office (Score:1)
If increased Patent Office funding increases the GNP, then a lower tax rate might end up having a net increase in government revenue. no irony there. A secondary effect might also be that by spending a dollar at the Patent Office, they save two in court costs (judges salaries court room time etc.) A more efficient government doesn't need as many taxes.
Re:this is nothing like the last 200 years (Score:2)
Life forms in the form of plant patents have been around far longer than genetic engineeering. I don't know when the first plant patent was issued, but I bet it was in the 19th century to somebody like George Washington Carver.
As far as setting license fees at levels just short of the costs of litigation, this is nothing remarkably new. It was certainly common practice 25 years ago when I entered private industry.
And I think you overestimate the importance of patents in the technology business in the US. All of the current big software companies grew up in an environment where software patents didn't exist for practical purposes.
I think that is patently nonsense. The software industry was able to do without because opportunities were so huge and nothing was established at the start. Other industries live and die on patents. Biotech startups don't get funding without a patent review. Large consortia like Unipol are formed for the sole purpose of exploiting patent positions. Huge companies like UOP exist based on one thing - selling patented technology that they develop.
It isn't even anything like the patent system that we have had until the 90's.
It only appears that way to people who haven't studied the history of technology.
Re:Defensive patents (Score:2)
Re:avoiding software patents (Score:2)
It surprises me that you could this. A patent must list all the inventors to be valid.
Re:this is nothing like the last 200 years (Score:2)
So? The fact that patents support large consortia and oligopolies is not intrinsically an argument in their favor.
In fact, many people would argue that patents lead to a concentration of power in large companies and consortia, and that that is, in fact, an overall undesirable outcome; to many it appears that a vibrant, innovative free market economy depends on the existence a large number of nimble, small players, not a few lumbering giants locked up in huge consortia.
It's pretty obvious that in the presence of patents, rational economic agents will take advantage of them (and, hence, investors will require them). That says nothing about the economic or social desirability of patent protection.
Life forms in the form of plant patents have been around far longer than genetic engineeering. I don't know when the first plant patent was issued, but I bet it was in the 19th century to somebody like George Washington Carver.
The US Plant Patent Act was established in 1930 and had very limited scope (only asexual reproduction, among others); if you know of references to any earlier plant patent protection in the US, please let us know.
It only appears that way to people who haven't studied the history of technology.
If you are implying that you have, why don't you start to apply some of that knowledge and experience to this discussion?
Re:What exactly is getting patented? (Score:1)
About algorithms - in which countries you can patent algorithms? Or worse, can you patent protocols and fileformats in US?
I don't know about other countries, but in Finland you can't patent these... Go and check yourself, all finnish laws and more [edita.fi]. You can even do searches there, patent is 'patentti' in finnish ;)
Patent hit us (Score:1)
nooo!!! (Score:1)
Re:Interesting implications for closed-source, tho (Score:1)
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece
Patents have nothing to do with actual production (Score:1)
This reminds me of Feynman's memoirs where he's describing how he pulled ideas out of his butt (like a nuclear powered airplane) and having them patented. He didn't have to get out a wrench and a pile of unranium to get the patent... just a fairly detailed idea is good enough. You think the guys who patented the centrifical birth assisting device that the Ig Noble awards folks recently gave an award actually built the damned thing? I hope not...
This, of course, is what's causing the problem. The patent system is equating any old idea with ideas that are reached after years of painstaking research. The latter, I think, do at least deserve some sort of protection, to encourage spending on R&D. The former are the ones causing problems.
Re:Change the rules (Score:2)
The other problem with this is I can still grab up stupid patents, as long as it's cheaper for companies to pay me a pitance rather than try to challenge it in court.
Essentially what you're asking is for companies to take gambles that their huge court bills will be reimbursed when they win. This is a risky business at the very least. Who knows what a judge will think is logical and what isn't. Remember, most judges are not technologically savvy (my father is a Judge in Maricopa County, AZ (USA), and has little to no clue about computers/other technology).
The problem with opening the patent process up to the public is that you are exposing your idea. It behooves everyone else out there to shout down your patent idea, then try to beat you to market.
As to limiting the life of a patent, that's an interesting idea. It gives a company a chance to grab the market, while still allowing for competition down the road.
drudd
One Possible Solution (Score:5)
It should be pretty easy to at least partially automate this process -- IBM is generously supplying the patents in electronic form and it should be possible to build a program that cross references the patent for relevant web pages. Just have your debunker check out a patent to work on and he gets a nice page of info already researched by the computer. Hopefully a group like this would also encourage the PTO to improve their own process of granting patents.
Just a thought...
Count the figures (Score:1)
What exactly is getting patented? (Score:2)
It can't be[1], which is covered by copyright law. It can't be [2] or [3] because they are unpredictable in detail depending on the design of the compiler and its optimizers, the linker, etc. In fact, it seems to me that the top-level design is almost always impossible to deduce from the resultant binaries, particularly with OO languages. It can't be [4] because, as the department tag on the topic points out, algorithms are usually mathematical construct and as such is an inherent property of whatever mathematical system it falls out of, and is thus (I would think) unpatentable. It can't be [5] because that's just the purpose of the "invention," not the invention itself.
Have I missed something?
I get the feeling that what is needed here is a patent lawyer, with enough of a software background to understand what this is all about, challenging one or two of the more prominent software patents. If done with care, it could bring this whole evil legal edifice down on top of the corporations who built it.
Patent hit us (Score:1)
Software patents should be for things that are truely revolutionary or very different. Software patents also should be subject to a different time limit, i.e. 5 years, since an Internet year is so much shorter.
Alternative ways to fight.. (Score:2)
What can we do to prevent this? There have been a few ideas about making lots of prior art, but I believe there are more direct way to fight this possibility. The bigest one being internationalization of open source projects. It gets a LOT more expenciive to sue people if there are people in multiple countries working on a project. Plus, Joe GNU who gets a cease and desist letter can always continue the project.. just giving the credit to someone else.
Perhaps the EFF or some other somewhat international orginisation could host CVS servers in diffent countries. If a company harasses Joe then he just talks to the operator of a CVS server in a country which will make life difficult for the company and gets a numbered account with no ties to himself. We could also add a transport mechinism for CVS to allow you to connect to the CVS server WITHOUT it knowing where you were comming from. Now, the company needs a searh warent to see if the account login information is on his sytem and Joe can use a plausable deniability encryption System to make search warents useless (like SegFS). Hell, the patent ass wholes may stir up intrest in any project they attack, so there is NO WAY to prove that just because some anonymous person is contributing to the project means that Joe is.
I think Slashdot should adopt a policy of posting mirroring and contribution information whenever OSS project is (specifically) attacked with software patents. They know they are not going to make any money off of the guy, but the though that hundreds of geeks would suddenly take an interest in the guys project is probable enough to kep the layers at bay. I would be curious to know how many people have contributed to the Console Game Simulators because there interest was pirked by Nintendo's legal mess. (This is probable one of the best solutions)
Jeff
Another reason for companies to avoid open source? (Score:1)
PUBLISH or perish. (Score:1)
The responce to this is PUBLISH. If you know you can't affort to get the patent, PUBLISH your idea immediatly. Once you publish, any patent applied for after the publishing date is invalid.
We need a OSS paper documention campaign to publish all the OSS ideas into a legal archival format.
Patents scare me (Score:1)
Re:FIRST OF THE POSTS (Score:1)
Counterattack is "Defensive" (Score:1)
apples and oranges (Score:1)
Patents. Woo. (Score:1)
Second, everything in that graph past 1994 is an estimate. It might be accurate, and it looks like an upward trend, but I'm surprised it isn't worse, considering the hype.
Finally, anyone who thinks they have something worth patenting, feel free. If you believe in free software, maybe you can GPL your patent.
A story... (Score:1)
The ancillary arguments, though, were very revealing. First, there was "everyone else is doing it". They gave the example of M$, which had 5 patents as of 1992 and now has hundreds. "And that's happening all over" they continued, citing some more alarming growth figures. Of course, this is all an argument against the new philosophy of "patent everything that moves" - it casts it not as an established way of doing business but as an alarming new trend.
Another argument they made is even more scary. The main body of my company is number 2 in its industry and slowly falling further and further behind number 1 (although my own division, soon to be spun off, is number 1 and pulling ahead.) The patent lawyer dropped a few asides about how patents were an asset "of growing importance", especially to our stock price. It definitely sounded to me as if the lawyer realized that, if all the rest of our business went south, well at least we could start suing people. In other words, DON'T BELIEVE THE BULL ABOUT PATENTS BEING DEFENSIVE. A growing company can afford to have such scruples; but when that large company starts to stagnate, and all the employees with imagination gradually leave, those scruples will fall by the wayside. Every last penny will be wrung out of patent "assets".
I have a patent on 1 bits (Score:2)
Re:Another reason for companies to avoid open sour (Score:1)
I'm guessing that you are not.
You make it sound as though no business is safe from patents and then further claim, based on your faulty premise, that open-source software is doomed.
Why would you assume that you could implement research presented at a technical conference for your own monetary gain without checking?
Sounds like your company made a big mistake. That does not lead one to conclude OSS is doomed. Rather it leads one to question your merits.
Re:Just a sanity check... (Score:2)
Provide source, if I can find a case that runs in fewer steps for my algorithm than yours then we have no infringement.
But I guess in the Free Market I should have to cut your lazy butt a check if I want to send an
Twisted (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Change the rules (Score:4)
as vaguely as the USPTO defines valid software patents. This will put
the breaks on most companies (if, for example 1/3 of Microsoft's software
patents were found to be invalid, that would probably be enough to
cancel out profit from Office for a year!)
The other way to go, that a lot of people cite is just limiting the life
of a software patent to 3 years. I'd sign on to this, IF there were
a reasonable way to speed up the approval process.
One way to speed it up might be to open it up. Let everyone see every
submitted patent that has been past the first "does it fit the
required format, and did they pay up" pass. Do it over the Web, and
allow a Slashdot-like feedback. Only patents that don't get a bozo-alert
from the masses get sent on to the next stage (internal USPTO technical
review). Thus the next 200 people to submit "talking online" and
"window-shopping online" will be bounced in less time than it takes
to Slashdot a personal web-server into the ground.
required reading (Score:1)
http://www.theonion.com/oni on3311/microsoftpatents.html [theonion.com]
Once again, for those that don't already know, proof that The Onion is the font of all wisdom.
The fine isn't too cool for broke individuals (Score:2)
Big companies can always manage to pay the fines, it's individuals and small groups who would find a 10K fine devistating. And there is no gaurentee that your patent application, no matter how well intended, won't get fined. And it's not like the patent process needs any help being totally inaccessable to the average individual.
Re:Change the rules (Score:2)
submitted patent that has been past the first "does it fit the
required format, and did they pay up" pass.
That won't work, because pending patent applications should be, and are kept secret by the PTO (unless the applicant chooses to reveal his invention to the public of course). There's a good reason for this, because even if the patent application fails, the applicant now has the option of keeping the product a trade secret i.e. it's a secret as long as you can keep it secret.
Do it over the Web, and
allow a Slashdot-like feedback. Only patents that don't get a bozo-alert
from the masses get sent on to the next stage (internal USPTO technical
review).
I wouldn't trust the
Re:Well... (Score:1)
A: A hooker stops screwing you after you're dead.
--The Rainmaker
--
Clueless Patent Stories on Slashdot (Score:2)
Dammit, For many years companies like Texas Instruments and UOP have gotten more of their profits by developing technologies and licensing them to other companies. Giant conglomerates like Unipol exist primarily to take advantage of patents developed in large consortia.
The idea that anything has changed in the hardware area over the past 20 years is ludicrous. The only thing that is different is that we have a new set of PHB's fresh out of Stanford Business School that need to be educated, and a bunch of impressionable journalists that have no education in this area.
Software patents are another ballgame altogether. The patent office is being far to lenient when it grants these things.
Re:I don't know... (Score:1)
a) people submit ideas, not designs
b) people are trying to patent things that have been around for a long time
Unfortunately, I really do think that there are legit software patents though. I think that having a shorter time, like you suggest, for the patent length would really help.
Has the time come for Open Source Patents? (Score:2)
Fight back (Score:5)
Staccato [airwindows.com] is a reminder program, which might have some ideas relating to intelligent input parsing somebody is trying to patent. It sets things up so entries in the info file are very easily done, with the 'API' extremely easy to master. I'm sure someone would try to patent that.
Sitebot [airwindows.com] is a particular method of keeping data files as plain text with a couple of easily added headers, and 'compiling' that into a website which can then be uploaded. If anybody means to patent a narrowly defined method for writing plaintext and having it read and turned into a web site with the same structure as the plaintext files and folders, Sitebot is prior art.
ROTSOS [airwindows.com] (Return of the Son of Spacewar) is the best yet, being a radically different approach to game engine design. It offers literally the ability to produce game 'maps' equivalent to data files billions of gigs in size, in fact the ability to have billions of worlds each with 'maps' (not all of which will be distinct, but for all practical purposes...). It requires that game map creation be an exploratory process rather than a creative process, a major innovation in map design IMHO as the person who came up with it after reading lots of stuff on AI and artificial life. Took some years to work out, and naturally I've had to produce flashy demos (mostly movies, others to come) to illustrate what's being done here.
What do all these software products have in common, from the trivial to the actually innovative?
They are _all_ Free Software under the GNU GPL. That is including ROTSOS, and I have every expectation that somebody else with ship a GPLed game before I can get one together. I understand that and approve of it. I also understand that I'm going to stay poor and won't get diddly from all this.
Then why on earth am I doing it?
Because I'm just another soldier in a different sort of war. This patent stuff is deadly serious, but it's not fought with guns (unless they are patentable
So.... STEAL MY SOFTWARE!!!! That's right- go grovel through its ugly depths for any ideas that might make your open source project take off! Grab anything you want! Be grateful or not, say nice things about what neat ideas I have or not- the only requirement is that it stay GPL. Take all the credit for stuff that I came up with, while releasing it as GPL! Because as long as somebody gets publicity for a GPLed idea or algorithm or program, as long as that idea is obviously prior art and not ripe for a patent, that means I get to keep using it. And if the ideas languish in obscurity, it's all the more likely that some clown will patent some broad notion, hire better lawyers and enjoin me from ever using the idea that was mine in the first place. I'm not kidding. Wittingly or not, this is war now.
Write GPLed software (that being the most hardcore of the licenses)! Get glaring publicity! Anybody who can, _please_ make sure as many ideas (broad or specific) are within the camp of 'free software, prior art' as possible. Because it's a real problem, a serious danger, and these people trying to fight it by staking out defensive patents are only compounding the problem.
Time to choose sides!
patent pollution (Score:2)
The pollution analogy suggests that one effective way of curbing patents may be to let vendors know that you are on to them and prefer to buy from the least serious offender.
For example, I consider Amazon's patent on one-click ordering a blatant attempt to increase the cost of doing business for other web merchants through a frivolous patent. I canceled my account, let them know about it, and will order elsewhere now.
You probably prefer buying from companies that try to keep your environment clean. Try to apply the same standard to your intellectual environment and avoid companies that pollute the patent space as much as possible.
Re:One Possible Solution (Score:1)
IBM has had a long policy of publishing everything (outside of what it patented) to screw the competition. After all, published information is not patentable. Better yet, if someone gets a patent, and doesn't do their "due dlligence" in searching for prior art (which IBM made easily available) tehn they are liable for triple damages. This sort of "openness" philosophy would be good to emulate.
BTW, before anyone gets to set against patents, remember that teh alternative is copyright protection. That lasts 50 years, and no one gets to see what is copyrighted. That was Oracle's solutions, which everyone on this list thought was a great alternative view. IT IS NOT. It would be much worse for everyone if all software was completely proprietary for 50 years, and you didn't get to see it until that period was up. If someone patents something, you can see the patent and improve on it. Some food for thought
Well what is better (Score:1)
Re:Patents scare me (Score:1)
Just think what M$ could do if it would donate its money to medical research.
On second thought, that's not a very good idea.
Re:Patents and (Score:1)
This is very, very wrong. The US system is FIRST TO INVENT. So if you file here second, but invented earlier, you win. Let me repeat, the first inventor gets the patent.
In Europe, the system is FIRST TO FILE, so if I invent something in the US, but someone files before me in europe, then I am screwed, and my patent gets NO protection.
Get your facts straight.
Re:Twisted (Score:1)
Software patents are ridiculuous. I know that in the 1980's software patents were not allowed. When did this change and why? Anybody know?
Re:Change the rules (Score:1)
For a while, I've been saying that the only way to return the patent process to functionality is to open it to peer review. It would work in this way:
Any truly novel idea will survive this review process, and it will eliminate the vast number of frivolous and redundant patents submitted every day. The appearance in the "Pending Gazette" will be enough to provide a legal basis to defend against theft and a firm rejection will establish that the idea was not original.
The day is long past when a patent examiner could be an expert in every area. Let's allow real experts a crack at it.
Re:PUBLISH or perish. (Score:1)
The Gore Awards - The Dummest Patents of the Year (Score:1)
Seriously though, I'm sure that such a competition would draw a fair bit of attention to the problem of obvious ideas being patented. If something like this already exists (the 'idea' is actually a 'memory') please post saying where it is. Otherwise how about some preliminary nominations?
int independance;
Re:Opensource Anti-proprietary Patents (Score:1)
Suppose open source licenses contained some additional language to make life more difficult for the patent parasites out there:
(1) Prohibit analysis or reverse-engineering for the purpose of determining the applicability of a software patent, and
(2) Prohibit use by any party who has, say, in the past two years demanded software patent royalties.
A cause of action for infringement would automatically transfer to any company required to pay software parent royalties to a patent holder.
Example: A year from now MonsterSoft demands patent royalties from LittleWare for the use of an "OK" button in a dialog box. LittleWare finds out that MonsterSoft uses open source software in some of its servers. LittleWare counterclaims for infringement of the revised open source license. MonsterSoft, suddenly seeing its own deep pockets put at risk, retreats.
software patents are often too obvious (Score:2)
So, without entering [yet] into the discussion of whether patents are a good idea (the system in general seems to mostly be working... I don't hear a lot of screaming about it in other industries, except drugs), in the case of a lot of software patents, it seems that the obviousness clause ought to be invoked.
People get patents for things like "storing digitized voice in a file system" or "conducting e-commerce with cookies and aitch-tee-tee-pee". It's insane! This stuff is obvious to any programmer, but apparently mystifying to the rest of the world. I mean, if you are going to give a patent on voicemail, give it to the guy who invented A/D or filesystems, but not the idea of using both: it's obvious.
In terms of some software patents, I don't know how to define it accurately, but public key encryption was a pretty good, non-obvious idea: seems as worthy of patent as anything. I think we need to keep going back to the basic question: does allowing the patent holder a temporary monopoly encourage more good in the world by stimulating more R/D? People often cite this as a reason, but citing it is not the same as showing that it's true.
Ya know, patent intellectual property rights were not invented to stimulate R&D, in particular. Think back to manufacturing days: patenting was created to stimulate people sharing ideas. You, then and now, had the choice: invent a process and keep it a secret but have no protection against me-toos, or share the idea and be granted a temporary monopoly. The community as a whole wanted to stimulate more sharing because after the patent expired, then you'd see some extra innovation taking place. So, R&D stimulation was indirect, and not all for the reason of the monopoly rents (that's a fancy word for "real profit").
Software does not have this "I can keep it a secret" nature like manufacturing does (unless it runs on your server...) so that sort of creates a bigger incentive to patent in this arena, and probably calls for a different set of rules.
Re:Another reason for companies to avoid open sour (Score:2)
After we were approached by the University of Utah, though about a patent we had violated on free-form deformations, we decided to not do that anymore. It was a tough decision to make, because these videos were quite popular. Still, we couldn't risk our company's existence any longer, as we had no idea what patents we might be violating.
This FFD patent was a complete and utter surprise. We had attended a technical conference (Siggraph) where Sederberg presented the research, and had assumed that we could just implement the ideas in the paper. There was no notice given (or necessary) that there was a patent application in the works.
The worst thing is that there is absolutely no way to not get sandbagged by this. There is no way of knowing what patents are in process; and if you base your companies in-house development on things for which patents are later granted, you can be completely hosed.
The situation for open-source software, is, of course, immensely worse; as you have no way of keeping how you did things secret.
thad
Re:Twisted (Score:1)
Re:I don't know... (Score:1)
What about the situation where you've spent a huge amount of money doing R&D, then discover that some other company thinks your spiffy new product violates an obscure claim of one of their patents? Personally, I think that if you can prove that you did all the R&D, you should be able to reap the benefits of that work regardless of whether some other bozo beat you to the patent office first.
Actually, the controversial patents don't seem to be the ones costing billions of dollars in R&D - the ones that people get pissed off about are the ones where a dozen people with limited imaginations get together, brainstorm some totally obvious variations on existing technology, play "footsie" with the patent office to get them in the records, then try and make money by intimidating people into paying w/o any real intent to develop the idea themselves.
Hmmm...there's an interesting idea. Maybe the viability of the patent could somehow be tied to the amount of documented resources that it took to put the patent together? On second thought, I'm sure that some companies would be able to figure out how to waste millions of dollars pursuing really obvious ideas.
Re:Well... (Score:1)
A: At least we believe one exists.
Re:Interesting implications for closed-source, tho (Score:2)
Ok. How? How can you be sure that you are not violating patents? How can you even be 1% sure? How can you even pretend to be sure that you're not violating patents that are currently being processed?
I suppose the only way would be to base all of your algorithms on old (> 20 years) papers and to contribute nothing original on your own. This would be the only way to be certain.
Well, I suppose you could also go into space and nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure
thad
Is this legal? (Score:1)
It's been almost 6 years since I followed an introductory course in business law. Now the syllabus is burried under a whole stack of paper in my father's basement, so I can't look it up easily.
I vaguely remember one thing about patents: if you register one, you have to exploit it, or licence it to someone else to use/sell it for you. Otherwise, you lose the patent rights.
This is one of the reasons why some ideas never get to the patent office: companies consider it more beneficial to guard the know-how as a trade secret. (And of course, trade secrets don't expire, while patents do.)
Re:One Possible Solution (Score:1)
Also copyright only protects the actual representation. So even though every program is copyrighted, the copyright, unlike patents, does not prevent anyone else from using the same method (only that they must not copy your code, image or words etc.)
Re:The jug with two handles (Score:1)
Re:Alternative ways to fight.. (Score:1)
Why patents suck (Score:2)
The patent office as it stands right now is so heavily biased towards large corporations that the only solution I can see is to rebuild it from scratch. Origionally, the inventor would write up a patent, (with free help from a patent examiner!) and submit it. It would be evaluated and either rejected or accepted. It cost about a hundred bucks.
Now, don't even THINK about trying to get a patent without a lawyer. Most likely, you'll get rejected, and if you manage to get accepted, you'll end up with a mostly worthless patent. If you're serious, and have a good, patentable idea, expect to pay about 3000 dollars for a decent patent.
However, if you're a large company, and have a staff of good lawyers, you can get just about anything patented, no matter how ridiculous. And companies usually try to price their licenses so that its cheaper to just submit to extortion than to fight their patent (which is so expensive that an individual shouldn't even consider it).
Large companies have their own patent portfolio, and if they need someone else's patent, they arrange a cross-licensing agreement, instead of paying fees, since they can most likely extort the other patent holders as well.
The current system has been manipulated to stratify the status quo, and protect slow moving large companys from small innovators. Write your congresscritter, not that'll it'll do any good.
Re:Has the time come for Open Source Patents? (Score:1)
Because it's expensive?
because it's a slimy lawyerly thing to do?
because playing lawyer isn't fun?
because it goes against the principles of openness which is the heart of what the GPL is trying to accomplish?
because once an algorithm appears in an OSS package, it becomes published, meaning that one year later the algorithm will become truly free, according to the principles of our movement?
The problem with software patents (Score:1)
Re:Patents scare me (Score:1)
Re:Twisted(Way Way Way off topic) (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Here's a practical question... (Score:1)
good.
--
grappler
Re:The jug with two handles (Score:2)
I really don't agree with this line of thinking, but it's a reality that someone's going to face eventually.
Time to Act (Score:1)
Time for the Patent Office to Look a Little Deeper (Score:1)
Re:Clueless Patent Stories on Slashdot (Score:2)
The patent office's role has never been all that significant. You can squeeze just about anything through the office, making it stand up in court is an entirely different issue. This is by no means unique to software. Its a complex issue, I don't think there are any perfect answers. But certainly the patent office could use more competent reviewers to lower the number of bogus lawsuits.
Exactly (Score:3)
If I have an idea, I have three choices:
- Sit on it until a big corp matches it and enjoins me from using it ever again
- Use it and risk being taken to court when the big corp figures out it can win purely because it can challenge my right to the idea, and I can't pay to fight it
- GPL the bugger, whereupon it's very unlikely that I personally can profit from the idea in the usual sense, but on the other hand it's very likely that the idea can't be taken away from me, ever, and _that_ might be worth something to me, independent of my desire to not let the corp own it.
I go for option 3, unhesitatingly. How about you?Re:Another reason for companies to avoid open sour (Score:1)
Re:Exactly (Score:1)
ajs> you assume that the goal of a patent is to
ajs> inspire someone to innovate, but otherwise
ajs> would not.
That is indeed the assumption. From the Constitution of the United States:
USC> Article I.
USC> [...]
USC> Section 8. The Congress shall have power
USC> [...] To promote the progress of science and
USC> useful arts, by securing for limited times to
USC> authors and inventors the exclusive right to
USC> their respective writings and discoveries;
Re:Patents scare me--Wrong reason, but agreed (Score:2)
It's a tragedy of the contemporary imagination that it cannot concieve of any motivation other than profit - that it has actually come to believe that monetary gain is the only effective motivator.
A fairly clear debunking of this motivational claim is available here [fsf.org] on the FSF site. I also refer you to Maslow's heirarchy of needs - short version is that when one is no longer anxious about one's material well being, one persues more elevated "needs," such as the need for creativity and intellectual expression. (Those institutions which depend on our drive for material accumulation thrive by using media to artificially maintain our sense of material anxiety, by linking it to social anxiety - ie, we won't be happy and shall lack social credibility without a New Car, New Shoes, the Right Deoderant, a Bigger Car, a Bigger House, etc.)
As less money is available to academic research environments, and our media culture continues to elevate the materially successful as heroes above the scientifically, culturally and intellectually successful, this whole "only profit will motivate people" line becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, unfortunately, and it's especially tragic to see it promulgated among those of us who a. have the least to fear as far as our material well-being is concerned and b. have the most to gain by valuing intellectual achievement for its own sake. The spiritual virus, our new sickness-unto-death, is among us.
Patents and (Score:2)
The reasoning behind this was (to my knowledge) to encourage a firm to patend their inventions by giving them the right to use them for themselves for a number of years. To do this they must make the idea or process public. This means they have to share it with everyone. This is IMHO a Good Thing. When the patent expires the knowledge is given to the public for free use.
The Question here is why and when got the process of patents got twisted around and changed to something that is actually hindering progress and not helping it along.
In my opinion this has the following reasons:
1.) The whole patenting process is from a time when technical innovation was moving much slower. The timelines for patents are just to long these days and should be shortened. Or perhaps an evalution process should be used, so that patens will be given to the public domain after a firm made a decent return on investment from them. But this would perhaps lead to another insane buerocratic nightmare :-)
2.) The American patent laws do not have a clause for mandatory licensing. As far as i know this is the case for some European patent Laws. Under this Laws a license must be issued to any firm that applys for one. So a firm can make money by licensing the innovations, but cannot hoard innovations by keeping them for themselves.
3.) The American Government sees strict Patents laws as a way to ensure that dominace of American firms on the world market. There are a reported cases, when obviously stolen patents of non american firms appeared to to be patented in America just before this firms themselves applied for the international patent. As the American goverment once stated openly, it sees industrial espionage as a legimate way to ensure American dominance for key technologies. So the American legislature has a good reason (for them) not to change this laws.
I think the system itself is not completely without reason. But the implementation lends itself to misuse. I'm not sure if the system could be fixed, so big firm cannot use it to stiffle Open Software or competitors. Perhaps it is inherently flawed and should be thrown away. But this would lead to a severe cut in the exchange of ideas beetween commercial operating buissinesses. I dont like patents but i'm not sure, if we wouldn't go from bad to worse by dumping them.
At least there should be clear criteria what is allowed to patend and what not. Buying books with one click should not patentable, this only leads to misuse.
Oh, before i forget. Patents are already hampering the implementation of Free Software in a major field, audio compression. To my knowledge there was once a project under way to specify a new free audio standard that could replace mp3. The project was cancelled because most of the key technologies needed for good, lossy audio compression were already patented und could not be used.
Thomas
Re:Patents scare me--Wrong reason, but agreed (Score:2)
The company's primary focus is sequence a genome, find the function, if it's something 'commercially viable' than patent it and sell it to pharmacutical (I can't spell, i'm a programor) companies to develop cures and what not.
I was initially opposed to this, but after thinking about it for a while I figured that it's employing a lot of people, and saving a lot of people.
In most casees, ifthere is no commercial interest to do something, it will not get done (excluding Linux/OSS of course) -- that's the bottom line. If someone finds the cure for AIDS and patents it and does not grant licenses for the patent they will go under and wont afford the lawyer to enforce the patent rights anyway
Biomedical research is quite expensive and typically requires commercial support
Unfortunately as time goes on more and more patents are coming out -- instead of thinking, "hey there isn't an app that does xyz" we're being forced to think, "Hey -- is there a patent for xyz".
Limits should be placed on what you can patent -- patenting the idea for something should not be allowed, patenting the method should be. If you actually come up with something specifically unique than it's yours -- bottom line. But you should never be allowed to patent concepts and general idea's. (Like One click shopping for instance, check the
Patents are a great thing and a bad thing -- which seems to mirror the majority of things about our economy.
-= Making the world a better place =-
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
This is very much not the case. In fact, the USPTO was founded to encourage companies to share ideas that they had ALREADY come up with. The thinking was (and it was valid at the time) that companies would get a bit of a lead on the industry (17 years), but then others would be allowed to use the new information, and the original company would be forced to continue innovating.
Never was it the goal of the USPTO to encourage the kind of personal innovation that you describe. That's expected to happen as a result of individuals selling their ideas to companies, or developing their ideas by founding a company (the old, build-a-better-mousetrap scenario, for example, is supposed to end in your starting a successful mousetrap company). These are secondary (but IMPORTANT effects).
confession: i am part of this sad sad trend.. (Score:2)
* if the world wide web or linux were patented, who'd use 'em? free ideas are far more powerful.
* patents perpetuate outdated economic models, imposing artificial scarcity [transaction.net] upon abundant bits.
* the Internet is transforming human societies much faster than local laws or terrestrial governments can adapt.
* (in fact, we might experience widespread institutional failure [chaordic.org] and soon.)
* not all jurisdictions recognize the international patents, so they're difficult to enforce on the web.
* it costs a fortune to file, prosecute manage and enforce patents in multiple the jursidictions of the world.
* patent laws discriminate against the poor: those who can't pay up can't legally "protect" innovations. (this ain't a big deal today, but wait 10 years when bandwidth is 60,000 times more plentiful, tripling yearly its reach)
* patent claims set a precedent, thus inviting future patents to attempt to monopolize derivative works.
* patents perpetuate ideals of marketplace "dominance". "partnership [partnershipway.org]" may give rise much more valuable trade.
* patent impose an outdated a "zero sum" game. Learning grows more valuable as more people share it.
* trademarks are a far more "defense worthy", as they identify reputable brand (increasingly valuable as info gluts)
so.. why'd i file? believe me, i been on the fence.. (and sick to the stomach) but finally decided a patent pending might buy some time and keep some options open.. (besides, the thing took forever to write, and *damned* dull it was.. (no wonder the patent office is overwhelmed.. (have you ever read a patent?)))
Anyway, i'm 100% sure that, um.. "my" project should chaorganize [cascadepolicy.org] and go open source, and aim to host a license selection forum real soon, but here's my question now:
there's been some talk of an Open Source Patent Pool to cross-license [linuxworld.com] w/ the closed stuff.. (are there any "open" patents in this pipeline yet? (any chance at "first post"8P?)).. Anyone have more info?
[btw- IMO, open source patent pooling *might* be an effective "defensive" strategy, but remember the "enemy" has deeeep pockets. Better choose playing field wisely.. the way to outmaneuver *money* is increasingly to outsmart it..]
Re:What exactly is getting patented? (Score:2)
They are likely patenting [4] and [5] (algorithms and methods), which are inherent in [1] through [3]. Technically speaking, you aren't supposed to be able to patent an algorithm, but in practice it is done all the time (and such patents are held to be valid). Method patents ("I claims the method of performing steps X, Y and Z") have been around a long time (much longer than computers). A method patent effectively prohibits you from doing particular things.
Inventions that can be patented are not simply the mechanical dohicky's that the public generally thinks of. In my view (and yes, I am a former patent attorney), this misunderstanding on the part of the public is the only thing that permits this obviously unjust system (the patent system) to continue.
A lot of the bandwidth on discussions such as this one is dedicated to trying to differentiate the real, acceptable, patents from the spurious ones. I am convinced that no real line can be drawn between them. We accept patents on real inventions only because it has always (almost) been that way.
I'll stop ranting now.
-Steve
Don't bother. Just publish it. (Score:2)
Patents can be overturned if it can be shown that the core idea was published before the patent application was filed. If you have anything you want to share, publish it.
This may allow someone in the future to site your work in order to overturn a patent.
this is nothing like the last 200 years (Score:2)
Patent law is also being used very differently. Patent law is being used to tie up small startups in knots and patent licensing fees are calculated to be just below the cost where it would be profitable for a competitor to actually defend themselves in court. And the amount of work and the cost related to writing and applying for patents has increased enormously.
And I think you overestimate the importance of patents in the technology business in the US. All of the current big software companies grew up in an environment where software patents didn't exist for practical purposes. And even for hardware, most innovations weren't patented, and those that were often weren't enforced or enforcable (with a significant number of highly publicized exceptions, of course).
Maybe the way patents are used in the 90's is defensible from an economic and policy point of view (although I have grave doubts). But one thing is clear: even if the letter of the law hasn't changed much, from a practical point of view, this is nothing like the patent system we have had for the past 200 years. It isn't even anything like the patent system that we have had until the 90's. So, past successes and failures are not a guide to whether this system will work.
not so fast..actually I believe the EXACT opposite (Score:2)
In this case you are talking about two completely different forms of litigation:
1. patent infringement
2. liability
First of, there's rarely anyone to sue ANYWHERE if something goes wrong even in commercial software....ever read those licensing agreements (EULAs and such)? They stop nothing short of saying "if you touch the floppy and it blows up in your face, we're not responsible".
The argument companies make against OSS isn't a legal one - they themselves do everything they can not to be liable for their software. The argument is basically that "if joe newbie can't open his word processor, he can't call some 1-800 number where a friendly tech support rep. will be with him shortly"
However, that's liability - who to sue if doggy dies. In this case, we're talking about patent infringement - you steal my idea, I sue you (as long as I paid tons of money to have it patented).
AFAIK, companies are free to sue ANY entity that is believed to have infringed on their patents. I think this poses a HUGE HUGE HUGE (did I mention...HUGE?) threat to OSS.
I'll say it again:
A FUCKING HUGE ASS THREAT
Why?
Scenario 1:
Ok, say IBM sues Intel for some patent infringement. Say that Intel actually came up with the idea themselves and that they would win if the case were taken to court. Intel has the resources to face such litigation...
Scenario 2:
IBM sues Joe GNU for some patent infringement. Joe GNU came up with the whole thing himself, after many hours of work, cases of Jolt Cola and packs of camel lights. Joe GNU however, can barely afford the rent of his crappy lower east side loft. What do you think will happen? He'll piss his pants at the first cease and desist letter that he gets from the legal dept. and promptly delete all of his code (well, at least remove it from public access - the ramifications of his code already being out there at one point is a whole different issue altogether).
See what I mean? Patents cost MONEY. Money that people involved in OSS projects simply don't have to spend. So, what if some less-than-well-intentioned people with lots of money (say, around 100 billion for example
peace,
dr0ne
The jug with two handles (Score:5)
The large software companies kep Free Software down, by pointing out that there's nobody to sue if something goes wrong.
This puts them in a bit of a bind. If they sue over patent infringement, then (win or lose), they let the genie out the bottle. They show to their customers that, indeed, free software -can- be sued, and is therefore a liable source of software - something THEIR lawyers insist on.
Do that, and they lose customers to OSS alternatives. BIG time. And there's no way in hell they are going to take that chance.
On the other hand, if they don't sue, they risk wasting their cash, they risk losing their patents and they risk losing their image. Can you imagine what the press would make of it? "MegaCorp, Inc, handed their multi-trillion dollar patent file to Dweebs, Inc, a bunch of long-haired computer nerds who's only claim to fame is being any good at programming."
The computer companies would get -SLAUGHTERED- by the press, AND their shareholders, if they simply bow down.
So what can they do? Nothing. There is no answer, at least, not in the direction they're going. Whatever their response, if an OSS group infringe their patents, they are going to be cut to pieces. Their only hope is that we don't.
Lawsuit mentality (Score:2)
Take a totally implausible example: say a company patents the process by which books are ordered by employing a single click. This is doubtless handy for those of us who order books that way, but is it patentable? Obviously it is.
Patents are in place to give individuals and companies the -- pardon me -- freedom to innovate, and patenting one-click widget ordering does nothing to help anyone except Amazon's shareholders.
About seven years ago, I ordered a book with a single click (so to speak). I phoned the bookshop, got cut off and (here's the good bit) hit (or 'clicked') redial. I then ordered the book, had my credit card charged, and waited for the book to arrive. I'm willing to testify to this if Forbidden Planet want to sue Amazon.
Well... (Score:3)
Q: What's the difference between a dead snake in the middle of the road, and a dead lawyer?
A: There's skid marks in front of the snake.
--Ben
Error #134: Can not find intellegent .sig
who's going to sue OSS for patent infringement? (Score:2)
Another thing to remember is the current OSS backers. IBM has invested heavily in Linux in their battle with Microsoft and isn't about to let their new hope fall under the hand of litigation. We can hope that if some greedy organization comes along with the hope of extortion, IBM's extensive patent array could be used in OSS's defense. Something along the lines of: "Linux is violating your patent Foo? Well, your software is in violation of our patents X, Y, Z, Q and Bar."
But really, OSS doesn't have the massive money behind it to be extorted and the open nature of it helps it dodge patent problems quickly, IMHO.
Open Source Patent Review (Score:3)
Both of these problems are solvable, though, in the same sense that "with enough eyes all bugs are shallow." A distributed project to review software patents would go a short way to index and cross-reference the pests, but it could go a long way toward pointing out how silly most of them are. Most of these toads got past the Patent Office because the PO doesn't review against unpatented prior art, and until recently none of the prior art was patented.
So! The trick is to scan through the patent database for software patents. Sort them into categories. Apply an open review process which rates patents by impact (e.g., a patent on linked lists) and if possible identifies prior art.
With enough ludicrous examples we might even be able to enlist some press to shame Congress into dealing with the problem.
Just a sanity check... (Score:3)
1. $25K/patent. Patents are not cheap. It costs about $10K-$15K to disclose, draft, file, and sheppard a patent to conclusion. Add to this another $10K of time for people in your group to disclose and review the patent. Now, some would view getting ten patents at $25K each better than one engineer at $250K (loaded). Some patent firms are much better than others; mail me for some recommendations.
2. Don't patent it yourself.You can learn a lot from the Patent It Yourself [nolo.com] book, but you probably won't make a good patent. You can save money by preparing for the disclosure and by drawing your own diagrams. Never opt for the various 'individual inventor' reduced fees; the clauses bite and kill your patent. Also, there are a bunch of rip-off places that will sign any NDA and talk about 'marketting'.
3. No patents = No Silicon Valley. Silicon valley exists because of patents. Otherwise, MS or Sun would keep a group of engineers on standby just to clone every interesting piece of software. Patents provide reasonable barriers to entry for small firms. Not everything is a matter of time to market.
4. Silly Patents. There are many silly patents [ibm.com] out there, and more being filed all the time. The problem is the breakdown at the US Patent Office, mostly by the previous administrator. For a while, patent agents were being reviewed by how many patents they awarded, and so they awarded a lot of trash.
5. Defense. In software, patents are defensive for the most part. Cisco, for example, has publically promised never to sue. Patents keep others from quickly ripping you off, and from others trying to enforce patents against you. Xerox is the notable exception; the idiots keep thinking they can raise money from their portfolio. Remember, nothing a law firm does can keep you from being sued; it can only keep you from losing.
There's a lot more about patents. It's a religious issue, even among patent attorneys. Most feel that the patent office does an inconsistent job, and all patent attorneys I know of cheered when gene sequence patents were tossed.
overworked patent office (Score:2)
The process is weighted towards big comapanies (Score:2)
And it takes years to find out of you actually got the patent. And it could all be for nothing if someone else submitted the same thing a day before you did (you can't find out what patents are in the 2-3 year processing pipe, you can only find out about them after they're approved/rejected).
So big companies can afford to "invest" in an agressive patent policy (i.e. getting patents for things just to keep competitors from making them, even though the patent holder will never create the patented stuff). Meanwhile, any person or group who isn't totally rich could get nailed to the wall if they develop some cool software without heavy VC backing.
Does this mean that a future Carmack could have his Doom engine patented out from under him?
Re:Patents scare me (Score:2)
Oh, also there are some good critiques of intellectual property concepts from Linguistic/Marxist/Feminist perspectives on oppression, the the notion of intellectual property and that symbols such as TM and © are situated as oppressive constructs that are symbolically tied to oppression of women through notions of a master/slave (author/reader) dialectic.
Some thoughts and a cite: Modest-Witness@Second-Millennium.FemaleMan-Meets-O ncoMouse : feminism and technoscience by Donna Haraway. This is a fascinating read if you are interested in science, technology, and critical theory (particularly Marxism and Feminism). Sean
Re:Change the rules (Score:2)
Why would you want other businesses to do it? It should be something that DoJ could spend some time researching. Perhaps they could even use the same site that I proposed for the USPTO, in order to figure out which ones were spurious before they became actual patents.
This is, of course, a pipe-dream. I think the 2-year limit with essentially automatic approval, and much easier and cheaper elimination of patents shown to be bad would work out well. It's just in human nature to abuse this kind of group dynamic, and the only reasonable way to avoid it is to limit the overall usefulness of the system.
Sigh.
Short and Sweet. (Score:2)
I've seen 2 successful bio-tech startups first hand. They simply wouldn't happen without patent protection. And yes, they did take on the big boys. Yes, there are some serious issues with patent abuse by the bigger companies. But no, killing patents won't help socially, economically, or medically. Fixing the legal/patent system is important though.
Re:Has the time come for Open Source Patents? (Score:2)
Because it's expensive?
Part of the
because it's a slimy lawyerly thing to do?
No more slimy than a license, for example, the GPL. And a patent becomes slimy only if the process is abused. As a democratic organization answering to the open source community in general, we wouldn't abuse it, hopefully.
because playing lawyer isn't fun?
It is if you're a law student.
because it goes against the principles of openness which is the heart of what the GPL is trying to accomplish?
On the contrary, patents encourage openness. It's patents in the hands of those who would abuse them that could hurt the open source movement.
because once an algorithm appears in an OSS package, it becomes published, meaning that one year later the algorithm will become truly free, according to the principles of our movement?
In a perfect world that would be true. We do not live in a perfect world. In the world we live in, some bozo will patent the obvious extension of the idea, and next thing you know, you can't bring out version 2 without paying licence fees to said bozo, or finding yet another way to do it.
Re:Patents. Woo. (Score:3)
I don't know... (Score:4)
I think that there should be different classifications on patents, if that would be at all feasible. For instance, computer-related patents should only be allowed to be enforceable for 5-7 years (the 3 year life of any given computer, plus a couple years just to be generous)... That'd be enough, I think that a company could come up with something trully ingenious and make their money from it, but they'ed also have to work their buts off on their next product rather than going "Okay, now we've got 20 years of revenues from licensees"...
Patents on drugs are more difficult. We need drugs to live comfortably (and i'm not even talking about the recreational ones)... Should a company be allowed to patent it's discoveries? Yes. Should they be allowed to recoup their investments? Yes. If they couldn't, then they'ed all make the next diet drug, because those are a lot surer to bring back profits for the shareholders...
Perhaps the gov't should contract with the Pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs they feel they need developed. They could say, we need a new AIDS drug, start your bidding. Then the gov't would pay all associated costs for 5 or 7 years to develop the drug, and give the company 15% of the income derived from the drug.
That way, companies would still get their due, and consumers wouldn't get nearly as screwed as can be the case these days (ahem... UNISYS)
Interesting implications for closed-source, though (Score:4)
You may remember Microsoft's tiptoeing with the Caldera case (I think it was Caldera). They had to explain at length to the judge that opening their Windows code as a defense exhibit would endanger their business model. The code could only be examined after much legal wrangling and numerous NDAs had been signed. No doubt this is pretty costly - legal work doesn't come cheap.
By contrast, since the code of open-source projects is, by definition, open, we might expect fewer spurious suits of this kind levied against FSF/OSS products. Why press your luck suing somebody when you know quite plainly they have not violated your patent and that it would cost them nothing (apart from lawyer overhead) to demonstrate that fact. It's a financially losing proposition. The incentive to settle and let the patent pirate laugh its way to the bank is far smaller.
By the same token though, if you do open your source, you'd better be damn sure you really aren't violating any proprietary code.
-konstant