IBM Breaks Patent Record, Wants Reform

An anonymous reader writes "IBM set the record for most patents granted in a year for 2006. At the same time, IBM points out that small companies earn more patents per capita than larger enterprises and pushes for reform to address shortcomings in the process of patenting business methods: 'The prevalence of patent applications that are of low quality or poorly written have led to backlogs of historic proportions, and the granting of patents protecting ideas that are not new, are overly broad, or obvious.' And the company has been committing itself to a new patent policy: 'Key tenets of the policy are that patent quality is the responsibility of the applicant; that patent applications should be open to public examination and that patent ownership should be transparent; and that business methods without technical content should not be patentable.'"

Ability to revoke patents?

How about changes to make it easier or even possible to revoke bad patents?

Re:Ability to revoke patents?

It is possible to revoke patents. It happens regularly, along with re-examinations prompted by either patent holder or a third party.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1300_1308_01.htm#sect1308.01 [uspto.gov]

The whole system is fairly transparent and the new proposed peer review system would be a great opportunity for you to provide all this prior art that you claim exsists so the the examiners can have access to it. They get a limited amount of time to try to find something and if they can't find anything there are limits as to the legal definition of obviousness that can be applied to reject an application.

How about "automatic revocation"?

I don't think it should be TOO easy to revoke patents, however as it stands it is much too difficult to do so. More importantly, I think that the patent systems in pretty much all juristictions are missing an important thing: RESPONSIBILITIES.

Patents essentially grant monopoly rights to inventors for their creations for an extended time (say 20 years). This is to encourage innovation by giving the inventor time to fully develop and market inventions before competitors can rip them off. This is all based on the assertion that there is always a bigger, richer, "more evil" entity out there who could develop and market an inventor's creation more quickly than a resource-strapped inventor could. Without the originally intended patent protection many inventions would've been commandeered by big, established corporations and the end result would be that innovation would die away and the only entities capable of innovation would be those with vast resources (very large corporations and governments)--and such entities by nature are anti-innovation.

The problem is that patent enforcement is only one-way--it grants protection TO the inventor but asks little to nothing FROM the inventor in terms of responsibility. I think patent reform should include a set of RESPONSIBILITIES as well as rights, and if the patent holder does not live up to those responsibilities the patent should be automatically revoked. The responsibilities I see would be something like the following:

* The inventor must plan to develop and market this invention (make it available to the public in some way) within 'x' years or the patent will expire. The 'x' year period would be much shorter than the 20 year lifespan of a typical patent, and would depend on the "class" of a patent--complex physical devices would be granted several years where simple physical objects and non-physical inventions (technical processes, etc) would be allowed only one year from the granting of a patent. The inventor may develop and market the invention himself or license it to another entity, but the patent-holder CANNOT sit on a patent without actively trying to make the invention happen. If the patent expires after this time frame it becomes public domain.

* The inventor must consistently enforce the patent--if someone willfully violates the patent and it is evident that the patent holder knows of this violation they must pursue royalties or other legal action against the violator within a reasonable time frame. There should be protection from "submarine patents" wielded by patent trolls, such as those used against RIM for example. If RIM made improper use of patented technology there was AMPLE time for the patent holder to take issue with it. It seems that the patent holders in this case deliberately waited until RIM had sufficiently deep and full pockets before reaching into those pockets for a settlement. The patent holder should have a cooperative relationship with developers and manufacturers, not a parasitic one. In such a situation the accused patent violator should have the means to have a patent revoked if it is wilfully abused this way.

* If an invention DOES get developed and is marketed publicly, within the specified time frame and is properly enforced by patent holders, then the patent can be held for the full time frame. However, it must be CONTINUOUSLY marketed/licensed during that time. If the patented item ceases to be publicly marketed/used, and/or there are no current licensees to the technology, then the patent should expire early. Although the intention of the patent system was to encourage innovation, they have become a means of SLOWING innovation because so many good ideas sit in patent files gathering dust on shelves. It is perverse that corporations out there apply for patents (or purchase the patent rights) so they can DELIBERATELY shelve them, and sue out of existence any competition that tries to use the ideas covered in them.

Patent law is just another case of what happens when rights are not bal

IBM is smart.

They see the coming collapse of the entire patent system and would rather have some capability of holding monopolies than lose any chance of it.

Re:IBM is smart.

They see the coming collapse of the entire patent system and would rather have some capability of holding monopolies than lose any chance of it.

Should the patent system collapse? Would that really be a good thing?

Patents work like land title.

Would it be possible to build a house without title? Sure, the same way it's possible to build a tech business without patents.

Would there be benefits to abolishing title? Sure, you couldn't "hold" land you didn't use, as someone would build on it and you would be out of luck. Much like you wouldn't be able to "hold" an idea and get license fees as a patent troll.

Will I be first in line at the county office to tear up my title deed and usher in this utopian future? OF COURSE NOT! Why? Because there's a serious risk that someone would bulldozer my house while I'm on vacation and build something else. The title system takes the risk out of land development, much like the patent system takes the risk out of technological development.

Re:IBM is smart.

There's the "intellectual property" meme again. Virtual property is unlike real property. If I steal someone's apple, that's a resource he will have to do without. If I copy someone's design, he still has it and can still utilize it. It's thought that treating "intellectual property" as if it were real property, outlawing theft, providing registration, etc. is a good thing, but it's still debateable.

The Open Source Community can't trust IBM.

Oh, with all due respect, I think you are seriously understating the problem. IBM explicitly demonstrated this only too well last month.

What isn't getting reported (at least not on Slashdot, for whatever reason) is that IBM's current actions are schizophrenic, if you view them in the best possible light. In the worst possible light, these actions can be viewed as an attempt to by-pass the Patent Office. To make absolutely certain that the big guys retain control over the process, and aren't pestered again by the little guys.

A superb example of this is the fact that IBM is ACTIVELY fully supportive of Software Patents, and has even used what appear to be rather bogus ones (against a company which is using Linux, no less), in order to stifle the competition.

I'm speaking about IBM's lawsuit last month against Platform Solutions. Here's one quote and link from a press article:

"IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove." [informationweek.com]

There are other links if you do a Google search; but it's pretty clear that IBM wants to keep this as quiet as possible.

The point remains though, that IBM is being extremely agressive with Software Patents, against what appear to be Linux-based products. And anything IBM says about "improving the quality" is utter BS. Their priority is to improve the bottom line.

Sorry if that pops some people's bubbles about IBM. There is no question that IBM has been helpful to the Open Source community. But it's quite clear that this only goes so far. And as long as they are actively working as a Patent Troll to stifle competition, IBM cannot be trusted.

Let us hope that it doesn't go so far as submarine patents. But honestly, I've never seen a big company play nice out of the goodness of their heart yet, when it comes to their competition.

IBM might have struck me as leaning that way before last month. But not any more.

Too bad - I already patented patent reform

Poor IBM.

I have an idea though: everyone will drop all their "bad" patents at the same time. On the count of 3. Ready? 1...2...

Patent system broken

From my very limited understanding of the situation, it seems like there is serious problem with the patent system because small companies patent everything to protect themselves from larger companies, larger companies patent everything to protect themselves from patent trolls, and patent trolls use the massive overworked system to get patents filed which will never be found by small or large coporations in order to sue for profit.

How about?

How about only allowing people to patent inventions that have cost money (resources) to bring into the world (i.e. prototypes, experiments, ect), and not inventions that anyone can "discover" simply by sitting down and thinking hard. (algorithems, formulas, ect)?

Re:How about?

I agree with you in principle, but I think it's overly specific, and could be used to squish out the little guy (think: home inventor) from being able to come up with a patentable invention, since he may possibly use materials that are on-hand, and not have any real expenses.

Patents are both good and bad

The patent system needs to be updated to reflect the world we live in now, not the world hundreds of years ago. There are many examples of patents holding back progress.

Retina scanning is a typical example of this. One group/person holds most of the patents on this tech, how many times have you had your retina scanned? There is an only a few obvious methods to get the job done and the patent holder controls all of them. I guarantee that when those patents expire, we will have mainstream retina scanners everywhere.

For a start:
1. tech patents should have a shorter lifespan.
2. Getting a software patent should be damn nigh impossible.

It's easy when you're on top

Sure, now that IBM has all the software patents they could ever need, they show others how to do the same thing. Of course, what this means is that IBM is pandering to an ever larger field of patentable technology through the normal process of cross-licensing (you license your patentable idea to me, and I won't charge you for X, which we already have a patent for).

I'm glad they're being reasonable about the advice they're giving, especially about "not patenting a business process with no technical content", but they're already so far ahead that they can afford to be reasonable. I don't see patent reform on the horizon as a result; IBM has too much invested in the current system to take a really progressive stance on "Intellectual Property" ownership.

mandelbr0t

Re:It's easy when you're on top

Or perhaps IBM is doing it out of need, not because they consider it the ideal situation.

For example, you can at the same time spend a lot on home security and lobby the government to solve the crime problem. Security solves the problem now, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't prefer not to need it at all.

So perhaps they patent so much because in the current situation it's what makes the most sense, but would prefer not to have to.

Oh, I get it

IBM wants to make it harder for smaller companies to patent business processes (or anything at all?) so that they don't get in the way of big companies patenting everything under the sun....

Re:Oh, I get it

This has nothing to do with it. IBM actually patents technology they research and develop. They are not patent trolls. IBM spends more money on R&D then almost any other company out there. They earned those patents. They just want to reduce the amount of patents awarded to people when they already have a patent on that technology. Then IBM has to waste money in court showing that the later patent should have never been awarded. It just makes sense both from a business and an ethical perspective. The Patent office needs to wake up and start scrutinizing applications more.

Yeah, right.

I've worked on the peripheral of their patents applications. Most of the ones I've seen are just solutions to specific problems. Meaning that anybody would come up with the same idea given the problem. So while they might not be considered obvious with a blank slate, given a need, the solution *is* obvious. The did a whole bunch of patents on remote distributed media and given the requirements of security and content management, nothing I saw wasn't an obvious solution, they all got accepted anyway.

Write your congressman ...

If you want a change in the law, write your congressman.

I think IBM is just trying to preserve its commercial freedom (to sign contracts with clients and to deliver solutions in accordance with those contracts).

If you allow stuff to be patented, IBM has got to have lots of them.

If you don't allow stuff to be patented, the cost of business will go down.

small companies

Although small companies might be awarded the most patents per employee, I doubt they can actually defend their patents in court—they'll get their ass kicked immediately by larger corporations.

The real reason for the backlog

More and more people realize that patent clercs don't have the foggiest clue when it comes to the IT biz and start filing for ridiculous patents. Simply because it's been proven time and again that this is your way to big money for essentially no research. Just manage to get one of those trivial patents granted and you're set for life.

Is there really anyone wondering why there's a backlog from here to Albuquerque? Hell, it's more profitable than frivulous lawsuits for spilled coffee or being a general moron but there was no warning label for it.

If you want to solve this insane situation, reform the patent system. Now.

Patent Quality Index

The final initiative is the Patent Quality Index which seeks to define a quantitative metric for the quality of patents.

The article failed to mention that the metric will be a web-based distributed evaluation system, in which nerds in basements will view each patent and score them either "hot or not".

IBM tries to pursue only quality patents

As an IBM employee who has been through the internal patent vetting process, I can tell you that IBM isn't just spouting off about the importance of patent quality, IBM actually does try to ensure that it only seeks patent protection for really worthy ideas.

A colleague and I (mostly him) came up with an interesting approach for quickly and accurately finding the subject's face in an photo taken for an ID card. The idea is that rather than having to carefully adjust the camera before taking the photo, or having to carefully crop the photo afterwards, it's much more efficient to have a fixed camera that covers a sufficiently large field of view that all subjects, no matter what size, will be in the image and then have software automatically identify their head within the image and crop and rescale to get an image of just the head, with the right size and aspect ratio.

I'll admit that it's not any sort of blinding insight, but there were some very clever bits in the way my colleague made it work and made it fast. Not just algorithmic details, either, but some fundamentally good ideas. Further, after we'd implemented it we discovered that there doesn't seem to be another ID photo solution on the planet that works remotely as well. Most of them don't even try to automatically zoom and crop, and those that do suck at it. To the point the 80% of the time the user has to manually adjust the crop.

So, since IBM offers bonuses for patents, we figured that it had enough novelty in it to be patentable, particularly given the crap that gets patented. We filled out the paperwork and got ready for the review board to rubberstamp our application, or maybe point out a few legal niceties that had to be corrected.

They shut us down cold. "Not novel enough". "The usage may have some originality, but the basic ideas are all commonplace". "It's too obvious".

They told us we could work on it and re-present if we wanted, but they were pretty clear that unless we found some more, better, newer ideas, IBM would not pursue acquisition of a patent on our invention. That impressed me, actually, even though I was disappointed to be missing out on the bonus.

I can't say that *all* of IBM's patents are high quality. In fact I'd be surprised if a few dogs don't slip through. But IBM really does try ensure that it only patents real, novel, non-obvious inventions. Probably mostly to avoid paying any more employee bonuses than they have to, but the industry would clearly be a better place if more companies held themselves to the same standards.

The cynic in me

Thinks that the IBM formal Patent program has become too cumbersome. Patent authors pass through a series of committees that either reject them or pass them on before they are ever considered for filing. If they were awarded 3700 patents then probably 20x that amount of submissions were made at the beginning of the process. Employees are awarded for patent submssions not patents. So this new rule will thin the submissions down greatly and will force most patent submissions to come out of the research areas. With fewer higher quality patents they'll have to do far less work to process them and will award far less in bounty money.

And why not

That's a good idea.

BULLSHIT.

WTF.. IBM is complaining about frivelous/obvious patents?

IBM has a friggin' patent on the wheel!

THE WHEEL!

Look it up if you don't believe me! "Vehicle Wheel", bitches.

One answer to help with the mess of patents

Basicly require anyone who wants to patent something to demonstrate their patent. This could mean a working model. A prototype. A mockup. A set of blueprints as to how one would build a device incorporating the patented technology.

In the case of a drug patent, you would be required to demonstrate plans on how the drug (or the active ingredients) could be produced.
In the case of a gene sequence patent (such as a GM crop) you would be required to demonstrate either a working (i.e. growing in a lab) implementation of the gene sequence OR steps to create such an organisim. For a software patent you would be required to demonstrate the patent (pseudocode, real code in some language, a flowchart, whatever).

One big problem with the patent system is people who think things up and get patents on them without actually using those patents.

Another thing that I would like to see is "enforce it or loose it" for patents in the same way as for trademarks. That way, patent trolls cant follow the usual "lets go after the little fish and after we get some legal backing for our patent, we can go after the big guys" problem.

File patents or lose your job

Companies like IBM normally require employees to file patents to keep their jobs, no matter how trivial they are. Now they're going to war against their own employees for filing trivial patents. What did they think was going to happen? Going to war against your own employees sounds like something an American company would do.

Having the public review applications

Why would the public approve a single patent? Patents are never in the interest of the general public. Patents take away something from the public and give it to the inventor in hope that the inventor will publish more of his ideas.

What a travesty.

I blame theoretical physics for sapping the patent office of its brightest.

Of course they want reform

These patents are more valuable than money, and with the treasure trove they have, they can't afford to have such a broken system that people might finally see the light and demand complete abolishment. It's not about reform. It's about protecting an investment.

More proof

IBM set the record for most patents granted in a year for 2006.

More proof that global warming exists, and is caused by man!