Reforming Software Patents with 'Marking' 175
sakul writes "Came across an
article in the Stanford Law Journal that proposes
'marking' patented software to make the patents obvious to the public and to force large companies patenting software "to play by the same rules as holders of other kinds of patents." Interesting but technical read. Could this be a solution to some of the ever growing problems with software patents?" (Stephen Lindholm, the author of the paper, has provided a link to the paper itself, as well.) On the same topic, karvind writes "Gavin Hill, a film graduate, has produced and directed an interesting animated film on How Software Patents Actually Work. It's explaining the dangers of software patents and how they affect you and your business."
The Conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
One might object to the arguments presented in the second section of this paper as empirically unsupported--after all, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The rejoinder is that a half-billion dollar verdict is more than a mere anecdote,204 and the plural of these "anecdotes" is a shameful abomination. The burden is on the proponents of the current software-patenting regime to point out where the billions of economic gains can be found.
Re:The Conclusion (Score:3, Informative)
The author does an excellent job shedding light on the difficulty of "process" and software patents, but his solution leaves much to be desired.
Re:The Conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Compuserve was dying as an ISP and was trying to prop itself up. Nobody
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2)
Bottom line is this: has anyone ever heard of the Sperry corporation? From what I can find on the subject, they owned this patent, merged with Borroughs, and became Unisys. If you've never heard of Sperry, you wouldn't have heard about this patent. More to the point, they failed to disclose the patent pendin
Re:The Conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you think of a company that would try such an underhanded tactic as dropping out of the software market only to then sue those who lead that market...?
Re:The Conclusion (Score:2, Funny)
I am going to patent the idea that everything can be done in software. There is no prior art since no one can show that their software does everything. But I can sue everybody because if their software does something then it does something my patent does. I'll be rich if only I can beat you all to the patent office!
This has worked for thousands of years (Score:5, Funny)
I figure if dogs can use this method to demarcate their territory, why can't people? So now the question is, will Bill Gates mark each package himself, or will Balmer get to do it too? It seems like this job would be way more than any single person can handle.
Re:This has worked for thousands of years (Score:2)
Better switch to 3.2 beer.
Re:This has worked for thousands of years (Score:2)
Soko
Re:This has worked for thousands of years (Score:2)
In all seriousness though at least dogs only mark very limited territory whereas humans make stupid laws that allow other humans to mark way more territory than anyone could possibly need or use. If the rich people of the world were limited to what they could "mark" there'd be more for everyone else.
Lets do it! And lets call it the "all you can mark" policy. How long before someone marks the former markers!
Here's an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Kind of like 'burn everything down' idea from Vietnam.
If the system is bad and allows abuse then this one way to kickstart something new.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:2)
That's just a fact of the U.S. legal system--if the Supreme Court thinks it is legal-->it is lega.
If they are amercians (Score:2)
If they are European, then they cannot patent software - yet. (Or do some countries allow software patents already?) Even then, in Europe a patent must be filed before public disclosure. The US is one of the few (only?) countries that allows patenting after disclosure.
Though your point still stands, those old things are not patentable.
good animation. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:good animation. (Score:2)
Re:good animation. (Score:2)
so solution at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem are patents that lock proprietary file formats and communication protocols; marking these software products doesn't help to make software interoperable, the opposite is true.
Re:so solution at all (Score:3, Funny)
I often sit around drinking bottles of water while working on my submarine and think quietly to myself: "I wonder what patents would I be infringing upon if I made this a consumer product? This submarine patent problem is the greatest problem in the world today."
Re:so solution at all (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the problem is that companies don't have any incentive to support software interoperability. In fact, they perceive disincentive as interoperability appears to have the potential to lower their software sales. We could mess with the free-market system however and legislate interoperability. Theoretically,
Re:so solution at all (Score:2)
> interoperability.
Nope, there is a much simpler solution. All we need do is pressure our congresscritters to pass a law saying TAX dollars can't be expended on software that writes a closed format. But it wouldn't even have to be the government, any dozen of the Fortune 500 could mandate it in their purchasing manuals and the practice would end overnight.
Bottom line: users don't care because they have yet to understand the problem a
Re:so solution at all (Score:2)
Fortune 500 companies deciding that would just be the free-market system working its wonders. However, they don't have any incentive to do that since they still see the closed system as having the best available products.
Re:so solution at all (Score:2)
> is nearly the same as legislating interoperability
Not at all. Not any more than the old requirement for POSIX was legistlating interoperability. It just means the government would be saying interoperability IS important enough to put in a bid spec, same as requiring bibbers be bonded, supply a warrenty, or any other purchasing requirement. Does a bid request requiring the ability to read/write DVD+R mean a government mandated f
Why mark more? (Score:2, Interesting)
patent != copyright != license (Score:3, Informative)
Comments in the source about patent use just don't work, especially for products where you don't have the source.
I read this as being along the lines of "products should document clearly ( in manuals, marketing material, etc ) what patents they are protected by", just like say, your car, TV, VCR, DVD player, even lawn mower : pick up a manual to any of them, you'll see patents ( both pending and otherwise ) listed fairly prominently. I
I disagree (sorta) (Score:4, Insightful)
This paper starts from the proposition that software patents are, practically speaking, hidden away in the recesses of the patent office and practically impossible to find. It proceeds under the first economic principles of the patent system to argue that there can be no justification for patenting software when the public has no knowledge of the patents' scope or technical disclosure. It concludes by observing that patent law already provides a mechanism for disclosing patents to the public, the marking requirement, and proposes putting teeth into it so that holders of software patents would be required to play by the same rules as holders of other kinds of patents.
I think that the problem many have with software patents is not that they are hard to find, but rather that it is so easy to patent almost anything, regardless of how trivial/obvious and many times without regard to prior art. Marking may help you from getting tripped up by an existing patent, but if the basic premise is that the majority of software patents are evil, then marking just makes the evil easier to find.
Re:I disagree (sorta) (Score:2)
The entire civil judicial system in this country needs to be changed to loser-pays-all format so that defendants vindicated in the courtroom don't still lose in reality. Lawsuits are used way too
Interesting Enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Obligatory.... (Score:5, Funny)
"This paper starts from the proposition that software patents are, practically speaking, hidden away in the recesses of the patent office and practically impossible to find.
I don't see the problem. They're clearly marked in the basement, right by the sign that says "Beware of the Leopard."
Re:Obligatory.... (Score:3, Funny)
Acrobat (Score:2, Insightful)
Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think most of our issues would be solved with patent reform and a wide-scale review. The people granting the patents just need to be better at discerning what is patentable and what is not, or perhaps the court system/legislature should make it more obvious to them.
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you say "Xerox PARC" as an example of an R&D place. Uhh, they built a machine with a mouse. They built an Ethernet card. They had working networking. They are an example of everything that is right about R&D. They did good stuff. It's really too bad Xerox didn't think outside of the realm of copiers. They pretty much owned the computer market 5-10 years before it existed.
I think the parent to your post had it conceptually wrong in terms of "product". I think he should modify that to be "once they have a working proof of concept", they should be allowed to patent it to protect themselves while they turn the concept into a product (I think this is the one legitimate use of patents, to protect smaller companies from larger ones while they are turning their concept into a product).
The problem with software patents are that some of them are just stupid. Anything that is "I'm automating something done by hand with a computer", shouldn't be patentable. It is no longer "novel" to automate any kind of process thru software. So everyone who patents essentially a business model thru software (my software does X, and I re-sell X as a service so I'm given a government granted monopoly on the concept of automating service X). I know there were a couple of guys who did this for automating importing and exporting. It automatically filled in some gov't forms. Got a patent, essentially tried to run every one of his competitors out of business because they used computers for some form of automation.
The other problem with software patents, is that 17 years (or 20 years from application date), is just assinely long in terms of computers. Just think if someone had patented the "mouse" when the Mac came out. That would mean you'd have had bought their mouse up until Jan of 2001 (using the 17 years from application rule).
Conceptually no one will get to implement "one click" purchasing until what, 2017 (I think they applied for the patent in 1997)? Geez, that sounds like a fair amount of time. Lets see, how much has the computing world advanced since 1997? How much since 1987?
Just think if HTML, or a Web Browser were patented so that we would have to nicely ask permission to use such concepts? It'd badly stifle innovation. If they we're talking about letting you have a patent that could protect you for up 20 years, but you only got a gov't granted monopoly once you've productized it for say 2-4 years. I'd say that's a bit more sane the then current system. It could probably still be "gamed" to gain an unfair advantage, but it sure would be nice to see fast moving markets be relatively patent free.
Kirby
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
I'd say Xerox Parc was the textbook example of how *not* to do R&D! Technical excellence with 0 market followthrough. If the same greta minds had been working at companies with a clue, we might have had those same technologies in the market a decade earlier.
This is just one more reason why 17 years is too long for software/process patents. Imaging if Xerox had patented everything invented at Parc, then sat on those patents. Ugggh.
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
Xerox couldn't see past the end of their domination in copiers. My Dad worked for Xerox (not for PARC). It was just a culture thing there. If it wasn't a copier they just didn't have
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
As far as the length of patents, I don't see any reason why software should be any different t
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
Personally, I think patents should be shorter period. However, I think for software that's doubly true. The role of patents and copyright are to "to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts" (quoted from the US Constitution). I'm fairly confident that more patents are currently stifling innovation then promoting it in the area of so
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
Software is nothing but a calculation. Not only can ALL software be run by hand, but any software can be run (slowly) in pure thought.
if I find a novel/better way of finding approximate solutions in polynomial time to NP complete problems, I ought to be able to protect it
So you want to be able to patent math. And if I use your new patent and I carry it out inside my head and get that soluti
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
Agreed - but I'm not talking about the software here - I'm talking about the process. Some processes are patentable and probably ought to be.
So you want to be able to patent math. And if I use your new patent and I carry it out inside my head and get that solution, have I violated your patent? Were those thoughts prohibited by law? Thought crime?
I'm not sure where
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
New and nonobvious physical processes. Not mental steps and logic and math.
I want to patent some parts of math. It's possible right now in the patenting of chemical processes.
No, that's not a "patent on some parts of math". You get a patent on discovering and teaching a physical process and harnessing the forces of nature to acheive a physical result. Refining ore or manufacturing a drug or whatever.
Any math you come up with while you're at it or
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
Can you provide some examples? Mental steps are indeed patentable - chemical processes start as mental steps and equations on paper. And that is patentable.
A patent on LZW compression is a software patent. You can carry out the 'invention' mentally. I am saying it is absurd to sugest that someone can break the law while suitting motionless and just thinking and actually preforming the patented compression.
Ok, so we agree that
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
Sure it's patentable, but refining ore into metal or manufacturing a drug is *not* a mental process. Not matter how much you *think* about it you can never refine a single ounce of ore into metal nor produce a single molecule of drug. They are physical processes. (Potentially) patentable physical processes.
A patent on LZW compression is a software patent...
Ok, so we agree that it's absurd. I didn't say i
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
That's definitely true. But, just the same, no matter how much you think about it, you're not moving a single electron through a switch, or printer head or anything of that sort either - it's the softw
P.S. (Score:2)
Mathematics is indeed turing complete. Any software can be directly translated into an identical pure mathematical function with any input to the sofware as parameters/values to that function. The final value(s) of that pure math mathematical statement will be identicial to the output of that sofware.
In fact some mathemtitians have been doing exactly that, converting (*small*) software programs into the identical math statements and running that math statement thro
How on earth do patents work at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
How many patents did you violate in order to write it?
How do you know?
How can ANYONE possibly EVER know?
And even if by some miracle you did know today, how will you know tomorrow, when another 1,000 patents have been granted?
You have no answer to these questions. I know that in advance, because these questions are impossible to answer.
It amazes me that anyone is still confused about this.
Software patents are a ridiculous, unworkable farce. The only reason they "work" today is that they are almost universally ignored, even (or especially) by their supposed proponents.
Re:How on earth do patents work at all? (Score:2)
Re:How on earth do patents work at all? (Score:2)
Instead, you basically said, "hey there may be problems with other kinds of patents too."
Patenting software is distinct from patenting other kinds of inventions, and we can get into why that is if you like. The exercise is rhetorical, however I will be happy to indulge you.
If you cannot make the system work, it frankly doesn't matter whether you should try.
You only said, "you do the research."
How do you do the research, stubear?
Do you really belie
Re:How on earth do patents work at all? (Score:2)
Really? Software patents are extremely hard to read. To properly read a software patent you have to know both software and patent law, and you also have to know the special obscure language the software patents are written in.
TFA states that the cost of an informed opinion on possible infringement on a patent costs 20-100,000 US$. And there are at least 100,000 software patents.
Let's do some really simple math. For example let us assume that you have a
Re:Yes it does (Score:2)
The problem with software patents is that there are far too many methodologies that either draw on, or depend on far too many other methodologies. Before software patents, you could take an idea and make it better. This was good for the consumer, because it accomplised two things- it makes it more difficult to stagnate, locking customers into an implementation that is substandard.
Let's say that someone develops a lightweight app that does something specific, but does it very well. Too bad...the customer ca
Re:Only one thing will solve the patent dilema... (Score:2)
Yeah, that'll make society a better place.
How about limiting patents and copyright to the right to derive profit from the use of an idea or work instead of the right to also restrict its use? And how about being more creative about how we make sure that this is implemented in a way where the producer doesn't pay so many IP rights holders that profit
Adobe Patents listed in about box. (Score:2, Informative)
Protected by U.S. Patents 4,667,247; 4,837,613; 5,050,103; 5,185,818; 5,200,740; 5,233,336; 5,237,313; 5,255,357; 5,546,528; 5,625,711; 5,634,064; 5,729,637; 5,737,599; 5,754,873; 5,781,785; 5,819,301; 5,832,530; 5,832,531; 5,835,634; 5,860,074; 5,929,866; 5,930,813; 5,943,063; 5,995,086; 5,999,649; 6,028,583; 6,049,339; 6,073,148; 6,185,684; 6,205,549; 6,275,587; 6,289,364; 6,324,555; 6,385,350; 6,408,092; 6,411,730; 6,
Re:Adobe Patents listed in about box. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Adobe Patents listed in about box. (Score:5, Funny)
and finally
MS Office (Score:2)
Is this really a solution? (Score:2)
In fact, until the flawed underlying process of patenting software is fixed in a more permanent way this could actually make things worse. Right now it is very easy for programmers to simply ignore patents that they find ridiculous on the basis that the owner wou
Feeble, absurd compromise that makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
That is to abolish them.
Software patents have never worked, and can never work. There is no way they can be made to work.
Marks do nothing to solve the absurd problem of scale. No one can ever assimilate the patent database, or even keep up with new additions, no matter what reforms were enacted. Anyone who tells you their code is "legal" with respect to patents is a bold-faced liar. Every line of code is a ticking patent timebomb.
The very term is just a code word for "Barratry."
They are a legal anomaly and a practical absurdity. They "function" only in that they are almost entirely ignored by those they are intended to govern. In short, they are a very expensive, very destructive farce.
In theory they were meant to be a tool for rich people to shake down poor people, but they even backfire at that, since small "IP" companies can shake down giants with impugnity without being counterattacked, as long as they have no products of their own.
Another way (Score:2)
PROPERTY TAX.
Yep, let the company assess a value to each patent and charge the holder 1% PER YEAR, however the max damages for violating this patent can only be its value. I can just feel the national dept melting away.
not sure wether this was sarcastic
This does not solve the major problem (Score:2, Insightful)
The major one is not seeing a good feature in a product and violate a patent in trying to reproduce it. The big problem is trying to implement some [often trivial] feature and accidentally break a patent in a software which we don't even know exists!
For example if I had an ecommerce site, I would probably have implemented a one-click buy option even if I haven't seen amazon before.
Re:This does not solve the major problem (Score:2)
And if we put a sign on every car that says,
"This is a car.", I'm sure car accidents will go way down too.
You're not solving a problem, you're just hastening the inevitable collapse of the software industry that software patents, as they exist today will cause.
Re:This does not solve the major problem (Score:2)
Supposedly, this makes no difference when patents are involved, which makes the distinction between copyright and patent that much more absurd. I thought you couldn't patent vague general ideas, only implementations of those ideas?
How many times have you watched a Fark photoshop contest in which people submit the same concept at nearly the same time? Who is it that gets to apologize and retract? The person wh
Sure... I can just see it now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking at my menubar and instead of seeing
File/Edit/View/Go/Bookmarks/Tools/Help
I see
Apparatus Claims of US Patents Nos. 4,454,344,344 3,786,655,445 & 8,234,234,371,754 for limited uses only File/Apparatus Claims of US Patents Nos. 4,454,344,344 3,786,655,445 & 8,234,234,371,754 for limited uses only Edit/Apparatus Claims of US Patents Nos. 4,454,344,344 3,786,655,445 & 8,234,234,371,754 for limited uses only View/Apparatus Claims of US Patents Nos. 4,454,344,344 3,786,655,445 & 8,234,234,371,754 for limited uses only Go/Apparatus Claims of US Patents Nos. 4,454,344,344 3,786,655,445 & 8,234,234,371,754 for limited uses only Bookmarks/Apparatus Claims of US Patents Nos. 4,454,344,344 3,786,655,445 & 8,234,234,371,754 for limited uses only Tools/Apparatus Claims of US Patents Nos. 4,454,344,344 3,786,655,445 & 8,234,234,371,754 for limited uses only Help
Lets really bloat our systems...
Re:Help...About... (Score:2)
100-year patent issue (Score:3, Insightful)
I never see much mention of the fact that a software patent extends for 17 years makes it equivalent to 100 years in another industry. I think this will become more of a problem as other industries accelerate in production.
Think about the state of computers 17 years ago (1988), who's patents are only now expiring. We're talking pre-Internet.
In general, patents are supposed to encourage innovation. But that was never needed in the software industry. Patents are now used as corporate weapons and nothing more.
The big guys have thousands of patents in their arsenal and you're likely infringing on one of them unless you can PROVE you're not. the result -- the little guys (the innovators) are the losers and ultimately, the entire industry becomes the loser as innovation slows down.
Problems with software patents (Score:2)
I came up with a neat idea the other day for a bit of software, and then I thought how on Earth
Re:Problems with software patents (Score:2)
But why bother building it if I'm not going to get paid?
Why do you think no patent equals no pay? That's a piece of illogic that the patent lawyers like to push without evidence.
Say I have the idea of opening a new hardware store in a town previously without a hardware store. Somebody else sees I'm making money, thinks it's a good idea and so opens a competing hardware store.
I had the idea first and the store required a big investment, do you think they should be legally blocked from competing with
Quick (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't laugh - you know MS saw this article and has somebody working on a proprietary format for storing this information.
Is "patent" pronounced differently in England? (Score:2)
Re:Is "patent" pronounced differently in England? (Score:2)
I had no idea... (Score:2)
Hybridize to unmark (Score:3, Interesting)
An analogy with the real world:
The result: the "aeroplane," a new patentable invention that the glider builders, bicyclists, automobile companies, ship builders and birds cannot charge you royalties for.
OK, so do the same with software:
Whatever procedure they use to "mark" the code can be used to unmark it, because it's all just modifiable information.
A sufficiently hybridized program will succeed in defeating any scheme for marking it, and if they attempt to do this through almost impenetrable obfuscation then no one will want to use their hopelessly unmaintainable code anyway.
Hmmm... maybe this explains something about the apparent insecurability of some M$ code?
Section 4, Solution to Arrows Information Paradox (Score:3, Insightful)
He could implement it and show its advantages and sell it on its advantages.
Recall Fox softwares 'Rushmore' database technology. They showed the benefit without revealing the technique.
Of course he, the inventor, must be able to implement it, or how else could anyone else?! Also he must be able to show advantages or it has no worth.
I wanted to add (Score:2)
So there is no paradox for software, he can both show it and not reveal how the black box works inside.
2 cent opinion.
Marking patents? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure this will really mess up nanotech patents and business method patents.
I think we should chemically etch the appropriate patent numbers into the legal staff first.
Footnotes (Score:2)
Animated Films (Score:2, Funny)
1) The Schoolkids genre - our hero is a high school boy with mystical powers. He is periodically posessed by the spirit of a patent examiner who can defeat software patent applications by pointing out prior art.
2) The Mecha genre - to get a patent accepted, corporations must defeat their opponents in a fight with giant robots. The hero belongs to an elite Anti-Software-Patent team that uses superior technology t
Re:Animated Films (Score:2)
Nah, the hero is a young open source developer who gets sued for patent violations, and then learns martial arts to fight off the evil agents of the patent mafia, using his hacking sk
Anything that makes software patents harder to use (Score:3, Interesting)
Currently when the big guys cross-license their patent libraries, usually no money changes hands and they don't change how they do business - it's a CYA formality used to make life difficult for businesses without big libraries. If marking were required, licensees would either have to:
read the libraries and pick the patents that they actually used
mark every product with "May contain technology based on ... 10,000 patent numbers"
risk invalidating patents licensed to them, and getting sued into oblivion by the owners
Keeping a licensed patent in force would cost something if marking were required. Keeping a lot of patents in force would cost a lot. What's not to like?
harder for who? (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the main objections to the current patent system is that it has a large barrier to entry. This makes it difficult for the "small guy" (which includes most F/OSS projects) to play with the big-boys. The small guy has to pay all kinds of court fees, do extensive patent searches, and jump through all sorts of hoops, even if he ultimately wants to giv
Re:harder for who? (Score:2)
If correct, explicit marking becomes a requirement, big libraries of software patents become less useful:
If you license them you have to watch your licensees
If you don't license them, and don't use
test before granting patents! (Score:2, Interesting)
Get the IEEE or ACM to appoint 50 computer engineers. One, two, or three engineers are assigned to each (non-obvious) software patent candidate that comes in. They receive only a desciption of the problem the invention addresses, but no details of the invention itself. They have 24 hours to propose as many solutions to the problem as they can. I
Re:test before granting patents! (Score:2)
WTF does that have to do with patentability? Before you reply using the word "obvious", read MPEP 2143-2144. Here's a start:
MPEP 2143 [uspto.gov]
Continue with the links at the bottom to read through the MPEP 2144. If you have not read and at least attempted to understand this text, you are not qualified to debate the topic of obviousness in the US patent
Re:test before granting patents! (Score:2)
you are not qualified to debate the topic of obviousness in the US patent system.
There is a fundamental disconnect here.
We know the patent office is using a self-serving, legal definition of obviousness. We are saying that definition is garbage, as even a cursory examination of recent software patents [uspto.gov] will show.
Patent lawyers claiming that software creators are not qualified to talk about it are missing the point. We are a helluva lot more qualified to talk about true obviousness in software than a
The paper's author doesn't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is much closer to a chemical plant and its products. Sure, there may be a single patent on a product like a drain cleaner, but there can be hundreds of patents on the machines used to produce this chemical product.
Most software patents that are really troublesome are not the products on the products themselves but patents on tools and techniques used to make the products. These are hidden away and no amount of "marking" is going have any benefit whatsoever on this sort of usage.
Yes, I am listed as the inventor on at least two software patents. I think they are all silly, but today that is the price one has to pay - cross-licensing. You violate someone's patent and the defense is they are violating your's. So you cross-license and everyone is happy again. It is closely tied in with both the VC and legal communities, and until they go away software patents aren't likely to either.
IBM Progress bar patent (Score:4, Interesting)
The paper mentionsthe IBM progress bar patent from 1990: Patent on progress bar [rolandstigge.de]
Here's a screen shot from the Apple2GS (Actually its running on a GUS emulator becauses it way too old). AppleIIgs screen shot [apple2history.org]
Notice the progress bar it displayed as it was starting up. Thats from 1983?
That's a European patent.
Keywords for Software Patents (Score:2)
How do patents work: (Score:2)
People are not businesses (Score:4, Insightful)
Historically large businesses produce goods which ordinary people then consumed.
Now ordinary people are starting to produce goods for orther ordinary people (blogs/podcasts/software/web services/etc...). Thanks to modern technological advances you no longer need huge investments of capital to create, market, and sell things. I can market and sell all by myself thanks to the web. If my product is information-related odds are I can create it cheaply either by myself or with a small group as well.
So while laws regarding copyright, patents, and trademarks work well for businesses that have access to large amounts of capital (what is 50k for filing a patent when it costs us millions to create/market our product) they work against the individual or less capital-intensive businesses.
While personally I think all IP related laws need to be abolished (with the possible exception of trademark but even there I'm not 100% convinced) they definitely need to be made easier to deal with for smaller business entities that don't have ready access to lots of capital(aka money).
Obvious solution to the SW patent problem: (Score:2, Insightful)
Political Patents (Score:2)
"A system for soliciting money and applying monetary incentives to induce political dialog on selected social-economic issues through elected officials".
Then start the lawsuits flying against Lobbiests and Politicians. That will get their attention and prove our point.
No, You're The One Who Does'nt "Get It" (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that by simply insisting that current patent holders obey the rules that other holders have to obey ("marking"), coupled with restoring the responsibility to defend your claim, or lose it, you make it impossible for the current sad state of software patents to continue.
You don't have to chuck out the system, you just have to get it back on its original track. The rest will take ca
software patents. (Score:2)
Re:SP (Score:2)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1788062,00.a
Re:SP (Score:3, Interesting)
because it does nothing to stop the patent play companies who never make a product to be marked.
It does nothing to help disclose prior art outside of patented products, since only patented things need to be marked.
It does nothing for tarball products. Imagine receiving a Windows XP with a readme listing 70000 patent numbers.
There is no real penalty for overspecifying, its just bytes in a file. So companies will simply claim their software utilises all their patents. Without the code who can prov
Re:USTPO (Score:4, Funny)
It's tricky, from what I've heard. You need to demonstrate basic competence at oxidative phosphorylation.
Re:USTPO (Score:2)
No, no, no -- you have it backwards. You need to prove that you are not a user of Adenosine Triphosphate in your uppermost extremity.
--Paul