Here’s a comment made a few months ago that explains the problem with software patents:
Once upon a time, the U.S. patent system served a useful purpose. It was meant to encourage inventors and innovation. Ha! Boy, was that a long time ago. Now patents, especially software patents, serve only as bludgeons for patent trolls — companies that do nothing but own patents and then threaten to sue companies that actually do something with ideas — or they’re used by big companies to beat up on smaller ones. I had hoped that the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) would do the right thing in the Bilski case and slap both business process and software patents down once and for all. SCOTUS didn’t. While SCOTUS ruled against Bilski, the Court left the door open for IP (intellectual property) patents (PDF Link) to be granted. […It] seems pretty darn clear to me that SCOTUS punted on IP patents.
Open Source software developers are having issues from companies like Oracle. Even Microsoft, no stranger to the courts on software patents, has been having it’s own software patent issues.
And then there’s the latest where Paul Allen is suing practically everyone except, oddly enough, Microsoft:
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has filed far-reaching patent lawsuits against Google, Apple, Yahoo, Netflix, Facebook, AOL and eBay, among others, alleging the companies violated patents owned by his now-defunct idea lab Interval Research.
The four patents at issue allegedly cover basics of online commerce, including recommending products to a user based on what they are currently looking at, and allowing readers of a news story to see other stories based on the current one. Two other patents relate to showing other information on a web page, such as news updates or stock quotes.
[…]
Interval Licensing owns most of the 300 patents from Allen’s Interval Research, and the suit comes just a week after Oracle decided to sue Google for patent violations over the open source Java programming language in relation to Google’s mobile phone operating system Android.
Yep, pro’s and con’s to every thing we do. The balance will always gore someone’s ox. Should the balance fall to private property rights or competition based on actually bringing products to market?
Pro’s and Con’s. I had a patent product once and after research decided that if I published it would be immediately “modified” and taken away from me. So, I never published and to this day, I’ve never seen a similar product. Still would be useful today.
Its in the manner of a plastic toy and if you patent search “gerbil trails” you can see the original patent with snapping connectors. Then the same idea gets another patent that uses a bayonet connector, or a screw connector, or a twist connector and they go to town. Patent “protection” only makes sense if you have the money/time/means/interest in protecting the patent after you get it.
I’ve heard that money rules the world.
As someone who has programmed in the past I have always been of the opinion that software should not be patentable. Copyrighted, yes, and even then limited. But all this “a method to do…” and “a way to…” should be eliminated, its gotten beyond crazy.
Patent and copyright laws seriously need reform.
Big corporations have lobbied so the laws are absurdly in their favor.
But, it’s not a “sexy” issue that the media will ever alert people to (and, of course, the media caused the problem).
(By the way, I own the copyright on “LOL” and “;-)” and you people owe me a lot of money.)
I think the problem is not so much software patents. It’s that they now for some unknown reason allow you to patent vague ideas and concepts.
I was actually thinking of trying to patent “a system for filing patents used to solely generate money from patent lawsuits.” Therefore patenting the idea of suing over a patent. Since it’s an actual business model now I don’t see why I can’t patent it.
I think a major problem with these patents is that people don’t even have to have a working implementation, they just file a few flow charts and some descriptions about how their “invention” might work.
As far as software patents go in general though. I don’t see the difference between inventing a more efficient kind of drill bit, which is indisputably patentable, and coming up with a better way of, let’s say, performing video compression.
Sea Lawyer–good point. Early in the process, a “working model” had to be submitted with the patent and I have seen mention of several “Patent Museums” where these models are on display. Haven’t tracked down if that is true, or where they might be. I have a faint memory of trying to find the Patent Museum in Wash DC and not finding it. Bummer. Fun to see those early machines.
>> Rider said, on August 28th, 2010 at 7:37 am
>> I think the problem is not so much software patents
I support copyright laws and firmly believe that companies and people should profit off of their intellectual property. (this includes software)
I’m a media person have published a lot of copyrighted material.
However, the current laws strike no balance with the public good — it’s all in favor of the corporations and private profit.
The point of limiting copyrights is to release the information into the public domain before it is lost or totally useless.
Think about what a tremendous good Project Guttenburg is doing with public domain literature. But their public service dead stops when modern copyright laws kick in.
If the original 35 year limit where reinstated, think of all the fantastic music, films and books that would become free for enjoying or building upon.
Project Guttenburg and public libraries would be digitizing all those obscure Rock and Roll singles from the ’50s and 60s and be preserving them for history. It would be fantastic!
Yes, some already very rich estates might not be getting a few royalties but they had 35 years of profit and that’s enough. Now let the public have it. It’s good for America.
The founding fathers understood this — our current corporation-owned leaders do not.
bobbo,
If the universe is a meaningless place to you, why do you even care about this? Or anything?
If those patents are worth so much money how come a billionaire like Paul Allen couldn’t turn them into money making products?
Greg Allen–why would accepting the meaninglessness of the universe call the issue of “caring” into question?
“We were never more free than during the Nazi Occupation” wrote Jean Paul Sarte. When decisions had consequences. A branch of existentialism.
Its a default position: If the universe means anything, then what is it? If the universe meant anything, we would all see it and agree on that meaning. Since there is no meaning, we are all free to make up our own fairy tales about what such a meaning is/should be and that is why we all disagree. Very tautological, very self evident.
We are born. We live. We die. Find your meaning and your pleasure where you may.
Hmmm. Is it too early/morose to delve into how I “selected” the meaning my life would have? Actually an “EXPRESSED/OBJECTIVE” process at quite an early age. And I turned out to be wrong. Knowing it was my own decisions and that actually the universe is meaningless is the only thing that tethered me. I wonder how many good folks are so self directed at such an early age, and so totally abused as a result?
Time to listen to Desiderata: You are a Fluke of the Universe. Always cheers me up.
Thanks for asking. And shame on you for the same reasons.
#8 says: “If the original 35 year limit where reinstated, think of all the fantastic music, films and books that would become free for enjoying or building upon.”
I think the original limit was 14 years, with an ability to extend it for another 14. Here’s the irony: Since its original inception, there has been a HUGE reduction in the cost to manufacture and distribute copyrighted works, and the time to market is MUCH shorter. All of these conditions allow creators to reap much more benefit than they ever could in the past. So why is the copyright term being *extended*? It should be *shortened* to maintain a reasonable balance with the benefits that come with technological advancements we’ve seen over the years.
Hard to stay on subject isn’t it?
Patent law has nothing to do with copyright law. Copyrights basically establish a dead end and the interest in having access to “free” IP is minimal.
Not so with Patents that are basically getting a death grip on IDEAS! Very different.
Software patents are pretty egregious. Even worse: dna/life.
Current law is more or less written and rewritten for the highest bidder. That’s the sorry truth.
Copyright on software computes. Patents on software do not compute. Most of them break rule one which is the idea is obvious but it will take very deep pockets to break the bleeping thing.
The mouse, track ball, touch pad, or touch screen are worth a patent. Using a mouse or track ball to do _anything_ is not worth a patent because it was obvious that the device could be used to initiate an action. That is what the item is for.
Amazon recommends shit that I’ve already bought, what fucking moron patented that?
solution: all software goes to open source/GPL model and donation-merits based.
-That should send a few thousand patent lawyers to the bottom of the sea (always a GOODTHING™) and slowly reverse the crap code/bloatware trend.
Knowledge, Information and the tools to gather and quantify it should always be free to all peoples.
-maybe in the next iteration of Earth.
(we got sucker-punched big time in the current iteration)
-s
Funny that paul allen helped fund Spaceship One and then he starts this petty BULL****.
this Allen perhaps, is a cheap clone.
-s
This is a good time to enforce my patent on the method of registering patents.
If you don’t like software patents, move to New Zealand.
If it’s a really good invention, or work of art, it’ll be too hard to copy, and have no need for protection. If not, f*** em’!
Someone please give Paul Allen a big warm hug.
Parasite!
But what did you expect from a founder of Microsoft?
Mr Dvorak should patent the shape of a tomato and then sue every restaurant in America!
It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to decide what is the most beneficial way to use patent law. That is the legislature’s job. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the laws that have been passed are being followed appropriately.
Software patents are generally ridiculous.
One of the important original ideas behind patents was that it was expensive to do the R&D, so the government gave you a time limited monopoly so that it was worth while investing in expensive R&D.
Thats not what goes on with software patents in a few ways
1) The development is generally not expensive at all (ie it doesn’t need special treatment)
2) It’s not R&D it’s just a side effect of basic development
3) Partly because of 2 – its rarely truly novel, it’s generally just one of the ways you’d do it
The original motivation was for the public good – it provided a mechanism for the government to encourage very expensive R&D.
That’s as good a metric as any for patents current failure – as generally and more specifically with software patents they do not serve public.
My patent is described as a complex hydro carbonic mass, with 70 – 85% water, that is able to multiply. The structures communicate by sound waves, can move from one location to another location, planned or at random, slow and fast. Furthermore are designed with 4 extremities of which two enable horizontal movement, while all four can be used for lateral movement. The extremities can assemble carbon, mineral and mixed chemical matters to among other but not limited to, generate energy, as well as enable it to design, compile and construct a space in which it will provide protection from environmental challenges, such as but not limited to, heat, moisture, cold and other objects that will influence, challenge and alter the complex hydro carbonic mass’ expected life tim.
Stupid? Oh yes it is – but you’d be surprised to discover how patents are written, and approved.
Any truth to the rumor that Paul Allen was wearing a T-shirt that said “The Internet, yeah, that was my idea”?
Well, perhaps the answer is to add a third mechanism for ideas that are not physical (software) or that are processes.
I think that’s probably the overall problem, the patent system isn’t the answer and using the copyright system would mean that excellent code snippets could be held effectively forever.
The simplest answer is to break non-physical idea/concepts into their own categor(ies), give the authors/designers six to ten years use of them (in our current world, if you haven’t implemented within 5 years you are not GOING to), and then they go to public ownership.
I think these patent disputes are the computer industry equivalent of structured finance products to banks. They get to a point where all the smart mass market products are developed, but one must expand to be seen as successful.
How do you expand? You start doing things that antithetical to what makes your business useful.
Software was a great growth opportunity because it unleashed creativity. Once you get many layers of management on the coders creativity takes a crap. The answer is to stifle creativity of others.
In the banking world, domestically, people stopped saving and reliable people decided they had enough debt. To keep expansion going you’d need to find unreliable people to take debt. Once investors decided the debt being sold was taken by unreliable people, the banks themselves became the consumers for their own debt products. The carnival barker became the mark.
The central idea is that things shouldn’t always grow. Partnerships. and other types of privately held companies. have understood this forever.
Where is the next engineer in a garage developing the next killer app? In a garage developing that app. Where will he be in 5 years? In court getting his pants sued off!
Here’s the problem for Paul Allen. When BT in the UK tried to pull patent on Hyperlinks they were reminded that as patent holders ANY issue regarding their “invention” would be held under EU laws of being “fit for purpose”. In other words, if the hyperlink failed, BT would be held responsible.
So Mr Allen, I’ve been recommended ALL SORTS OF CRAP on the internet. Where I do sent my invoice?
They should never have allowed software patents. Toss ’em all in the bitbucket.