USPTO Asks For Input On Software Patents 209
New submitter MouseTheLuckyDog writes "The patent office is reviewing its policy on software patents and is asking for feedback (PDF). Groklaw reports that the USPTO will be hosting a pair of roundtable sessions in February, during which the public will have the ability to attend and put forth their viewpoints. From the article: 'It's obvious the USPTO realizes there is serious unhappiness among software developers, and they'd like to improve things. Software developers are the folks most immediately and directly affected by the software patents the USPTO issues, and it's getting to the point that no one can code anything without potentially getting sued. I don't wish to be cynical, though, as that's a useless thing. So maybe we should look at it as an opportunity to at least be heard. It's progress that they even thought about having a dialogue with developers, if you look at it that way.' If you can make it to Silicon Valley on February 12 or New York City on February 27, go and make your voice heard."
I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to see a new law on the books: "wrongfully or negligently issuing a patent", to be applied as follows:
In the case where a patent is declared invalid, I would like to see the issuing patent office and/or examiner held responsible for damages done....
And to reimburse the patent applicant for:
1) the fees charged for granting the patent
2) legal fees incurred by the patent holder in attempting to defend the patent before it is struck down
And to reimburse any party who is financially damaged by the patent office having wrongfully issued a patent, such as
3) to any company which licensed the patent: any license fees paid out to use the patent
4) to any company which was sued for infringing on the patent: court costs and damages
Patents are applied for in good faith. If the recipient can be irreparably damaged due to negligence or other actions which wrong the recipient, shouldn't there be legal recourse?
Do you think the USPTO might hold "inventiveness" and the "obviousness" tests, and the search for prior art to a much higher standard? Do you think they might have the motivation to remedy any weaknesses in the system and keep on doing so?
Accountability anyone?
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:5, Insightful)
what i would suggest is pure software patents be BANNED (and all currently active software patents voided)
now if software is some part of an actual physical product (ie something that would go THUD is dropped) and is an intergral part of said physical product then you can have a patent on the entire setup.
also there should be a rule of "must infringe on all parts" for a patent to be violated (dropping out clauses that don't apply ie claim for water use when the infringement is land use if there is a land use clause)
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:5, Insightful)
now if software is some part of an actual physical product (ie something that would go THUD is dropped) and is an intergral part of said physical product then you can have a patent on the entire setup.
I never understood this argument. If the software is purpose-built for your hardware, then there's no use in copying it without said hardware. Here in Europe a similar precedent gets misused to push all kinds of software patents. Getting a patent on the hardware part only should be enough.
Re: (Score:3)
The hardware part doesn't matter, though. Hardware can be emulated in software, and since that software emulation wouldn't be covered by the hardware-only patent, and couldn't have its own patent, there's now a publicly-available system that runs your software. The actual hardware becomes worthless, being purchased only as a means of getting an original copy of the latest software. Remember what happened to all the separate TVs, telephones, old computers, fax machines, and typewriters we used to have? That'
Re: (Score:2)
Hardware can be emulated in software
I understand how a software keyboard can emulate a physical keyboard, but how about a webcam, or a graphics card, or a mobile phone. In all cases, you can patent the hardware device and let copyright laws handle copying of your software whilst still allowing someone else to still use the concept you came up with in your hardware+software combo.
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:4, Informative)
I understand how a software keyboard can emulate a physical keyboard, but how about a webcam, or a graphics card, or a mobile phone.
Just like we've done many times with sound cards, old graphics cards, and serial devices. A piece of hardware is emulated, and it's connected to a non-infringing piece of real hardware. If the real value is in the software (as it would be in a software patent replaced by a patent on purpose-built hardware), then any similar hardware will do, and the "protected" software isn't really protected any more.
Re: (Score:3)
So how do you use an emulated chainsaw for logging?
Re: (Score:2)
Emulate a tree.
I'm actually serious. If the software is the valuable part, emulate the whole system the software runs in, including all relevant parts. For a "chainsaw" program that may, for example, plan a cut to maximize the usable wood from a tree trunk, it may be sufficient to emulate the tree in a simulation with the custom hardware, complete with knots and flaws, and run an implementation of the chainsaw program (as disclosed in the patent or reverse-engineered from an original copy) in that simulatio
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In reality they'll have to phase them out; existing patents would need to continue to be enforceable during their lifetime. Otherwise, current patentholders will (rightfully) sue the federal government.
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:4, Informative)
How could they sue?
They had the patent until the law changed, so nothing I see new there. Lots of things are one way until the law changes then another.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, but there would likely be case for a seizure without just compensation must be paid under the 5th Amendment. The courts consider patents to be property so invalidating all of them according to the courts would be the same as taking the patent owner's property (that they paid for via application fees and put money into defending). I don't know if they'd win, but they'd at least try to litigate on it.
There are probably other things that the Government would be sued for if they blanket
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Having stuff enter the Public domain isn't a payment for copyright, it's the default state.
You put it out into the world for other people to see, they get to use it as they see fit. Except this made it hard for authors to reap any benefits from their work. Thus, the government said, for a specified number of years, we will help you protect your investment by giving you, the author, the sole right to copy and distribute your ideas. After that period is gone, we will no longer provide you that protection. Wi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They could pass new laws to make it much easier to invalidate a patent.
Most software patents weren't applied for in good faith anyway and should never have been approved. The bar for 'non-obviousness' seems to have been set at a negative height for most of the applicants.
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't the U.S. Federal Government have Sovereign Immunity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
from we the Peoples : hell yeah !
from we the Corporations : hell no !
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:4, Funny)
I'll settle for the patent office taking that "non-obvious" bit into consideration.
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:5, Interesting)
What I would suggest is the following. Currently, the USPTO gets paid for every patent which they validate. This is so obviously perverse that it actually hurts.
Now instead of letting that money flow into the hands of the USPTO, it should go somewhere else, perhaps it should go into education.
This, imho, would already be a huge improvement.
Let's take it one step further. Let the patent office PAY for each patent they validate. A second government could then pay them back based on the societal impact of the patents they approved (measured, say, 5 years after validation).
Thus, with this two-tier model, lack of societal impact means a loss for the USPTO.
This means that, under this model, the USPTO will not so easily approve simple things such as "one click shopping" because they might lose on it on account of a lack of social impact. Similarly, patent trolling will be actively barred by the patent office (no product means no social impact). However, a patent for a new medicine may be approved.
Horse has bolted (Score:5, Insightful)
they'd like to improve things...
Too late for that, the damage is done. The patents they already issued are enough to destroy the software industry for the next 15 years at least.
I fear you are right (Score:2)
So sad.
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:4, Interesting)
Accountability yes, damages no.
Think of your own job. Whatever you do, how much can it cost the company when you screw up? Do you use any expensive equipment? Does your performance affect the decisions of any large account customers? Do you handle large quantities of product or highly valuable products? Can you afford to replace them? That would be the equivalent of taking damages from the individual examiners.
Damages from the issuing office might make a little more sense but ultimately that would just be punishing the tax payers.
What we need is a change in accountability. Performance is measured mainly on how many patents the offices issue. They are constantly being flooded with applications and the idea is that the patent offices need to keep up or this will harm the economy by slowing businesses down. It's also believed by politicians that the number of patents granted to US companies is somehow a valid measure of how our technical industry is doing vs other countries. That attitude needs to go!
Instead, hold patent offices and examiners accountable for quality of patents granted or not granted. This could be measured by percentage of patents invalidated in court and percentage of rejects that succeed later. That last one might be tricky to measure but it would be important too. Otherwise, maybe keep looking for quantity but also look for quality. It should affect their job reviews, raises, promotions and such just like happens for any other kind of worker. If they are really bad... they get fired.
This will mean huge delays in getting a patent granted given the current quantity of applications. That flow needs to be controlled! One sollution might be increasing the cost to apply for a patent so that only worthy ideas are worth attempting. The problem with that is a price that keeps larger companies in check shuts out individuals and small companies entirely. Instead.. I propose an application fee that gets larger based on how many applications you have in the system. Large companies still might get around this by having their individual employees apply for the patents and then transfer them back to the company. Some rules will be needed to prevent this. Maybe something stating that any contract requiring that an employee transfer patents from the employees name to the company are not valid. The company must apply for the patent itself or the employee might use it as leverage for more money or even sell it to someone else.
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:4, Funny)
Patents are applied for in good faith.
Your optimism is refreshing.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say stop approving all of them and revoke the every valid software patent on the books.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that that proposal would make people liable for billions of dollars. But that proposal makes people liable for billions of dollars because bad patents can cause damages of billions of dollars.
If bad patents can cause billions of dollars in damages, then *someone* ought to be held responsible for that. The only question is who. Currently it's the company who "infringes" on the bad patent that faces the damages. That's no better than making someone else pay, and in some ways is worse because the
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that there is no single person whose fault the bad patent is. Consider if A (arbitrarily wealthy) and B (not) independently invent and locally produce X, but only A files for it, unaware of B. B resolves not to apply for a patent. Patent examiner C, also unaware of B, grants it. Company D hires B and begins producing Y, a variant of X that 'infringes'. After a few years, A's patent is granted and he (now a fairly large player) becomes aware of D (a very large player) and (because Y was released after he applied for the patent on X) sues. D, due to their ace-in-the-hole of B, cheerfully goes to court.
As far as A is concerned, he invented something, patented it, and is producing it.
As far as B is concerned, he invented something, but didn't bother patenting it. Doesn't matter, as his prior art should be enough to protect him against infringement claims.
As far as D is concerned, they are safe because of B's guarantee he won't patent it.
So then A sues D, after a long battle the patent gets invalidated, so who is to blame? Not A, he invented and patented the damn thing legally. Surely not B, he's taking the Benjamin Franklin (I think) approach. If B isn't to blame, I can't see a real reason that D is. Do you seriously expect C to scour the entire country himself to find B?
The correct answer would seem to be that if A and B came up with the invention, the patent should be invalid on grounds of obviousness, not prior art. But just because Newton and Liebnitz both wrote about calculus doesn't make their advances obvious. If math were patentable, and Liebnitz invalidated Newton's patent on integration, would you hold C responsible for not considering calculus obvious? Nobody in my example, I believe, "deserves" to lose a few billion. Various parties were simply unaware of each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous Coward.
Re:I Would Like To Suggest "Accountability" (Score:4, Funny)
Ban them! (Score:5, Insightful)
A program/software/instructions for a computer, whatever you call them, should be covered under copyright, not a patent. Algorithms should be treated as works for art. Functional (or imperative or whatever) art, but creative works nonetheless.
The end.
Re:Ban them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyrights and trade secrets protected the software industry just fine before the USPTO opened the flood gates on software patents in the early 90's. They should stick to the original intent of the constitution, and protect the free flow of ideas by banning patents on mathematical algorithms (which includes software, IMO). They should not overturn the patents they've granted - that would harm the companies that filed them - but going forward, patents should cover something more than what can be executed in any mainstream computer language. If I can violate your patent simply by writing C code, it should not be patentable.
Software patents have resulted in: ...
The Open Invention Network [openinventionnetwork.com]
Peer to Patent [peertopatent.org]
Oracle suing Google over Java [engadget.com]
37 Android related patent suits [fosspatents.com]
Nearly killing RIM [webpronews.com]
Linux patent suits [wikipedia.org]
I'm afraid we're at the point where the anti-software-patent people warned we'd be. Small companies live in terror of being sued over any software they write. Big companies waste billions of dollars in court. Coders like me intentionally "code dumb", to avoid accidentally using a patented software idea. It's a terrible waste, and it makes me very sad to see America throwing away it's software innovation lead in this way. Thank God software patents weren't around when we wrote so much of the software that still powers the world. If they were, we'd all still be renting time on IBM mainframes. Just imagine a world where Donald Knuth patented all his ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
If I can violate your patent simply by writing C code, it should not be patentable.
You're forgetting that all of that software can be simply written in C code. The difference is timing. Knowing today to write code that does ray tracing is quite different than writing that code 30 years ago. All code becomes "obvious" after it has been released and used, it's just before then that it's not obvious.
So no, whether or not you can write code to do the same thing should not be a criteria for whether something is patentable. Either software patents are allowed, or not, no in between.
Re:Ban them! (Score:4, Informative)
There are other problems besides the expense. EDA companies have patented lots of very obscure algorithms, rather than keep them trade secret. If you take away the patents, then their competitors will be free to use their ideas, which could be fatal to some companies.
Unfortunately, it's a moot point. I went and read the poster's links, and the USPTO has no intention of considering any broad limits on software patents. They're just seeking feedback on nonsense like whether XML can be used in a claim. These meetings wont be worth anyone's time.
Re:Ban them! (Score:5, Informative)
Computer programs are already treated as copyrightable works. So there would be no new unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, implementations of patented algorithms also get copyright, patents don't help against copyright at all.
Re:Ban them! (Score:5, Insightful)
The code and algorithms are already copyrighted. Every creative work in the US is automatically copyrighted, so that concern is moot.
Secondly, algorithms can't be patented. The law explicitly forbids the patenting of math. You can only patent an implementation of the math.
Strictly speaking, software should be unpatentable. Software is, at its most fundamental level, pure math. However, much like gene patents, the US courts have decided to conveniently ignore the law where it states that Nature can't be patented (math and genes fall under Nature) in order to allow industry to prosper. Unfortunately, by granting individuals temporary monopolies, the USPTO has insured that those industries have become legal minefields that are stagnating out of fear of litigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Secondly, algorithms can't be patented. The law explicitly forbids the patenting of math. You can only patent an implementation of the math.
Strictly speaking, software should be unpatentable. Software is, at its most fundamental level, pure math. However, much like gene patents, the US courts have decided to conveniently ignore the law where it states that Nature can't be patented (math and genes fall under Nature) in order to allow industry to prosper.
Which law is this that "explicitly forbids the patenting of math" and "states that Nature can't be patented" that courts are allegedly ignoring?
I'll save you the time searching - it's not a law at all. It's a quote in a Supreme Court decision interpreting 35 USC 101, which states that new and useful processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter are patent-eligible. And it's a bit odd that you're essentially saying that the Supreme Court is conveniently ignoring the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:3)
Is their recourse for us when the patent office patents nature?
There is recourse. You can shell out obscene amount of money to take the patentholder to court and have the patent invalidated. The patent office seems ok with this and is working on the principle of "grant patents for everything and let the courts sort them out". You can see how well that philosophy is working.
Re: (Score:2)
And go sign https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/shorten-excessive-copyright-terms/XMc72zjc [whitehouse.gov]
Re:Ban them! (Score:5, Informative)
Requiring source code wouldn't do much to discourage software patents.
I'm listed as an inventor on 22 patents so far. Several of them are software patents. I didn't file any originally, until a competitor patented a key software algorithm we'd used for years at a previous company - an algorithm we could not function without. Now I encourage that we patent all company-critical software ideas. Anyway, I've been filing them since the early '90s. My early patents all included full source code, and one has many thousands of lines from our commercial product - enough to actual run the algorithm on real designs. If you have a new logic optimization idea, have you fully disclosed how to implement it if you haven't included a netlist parser? Early software patents included full source code, which gradually was reduced until now a bit of pseudo code in the patent text is generally enough. The old requirement for source code didn't seem to slow patent applications.
Every patent lawyer knows that you can't violate a patent in your head. The same is true if you write an idea down on paper. You also can't violate a patent by writing it down in Notepad on a computer, or even if you save it, and share it with friends. However, if your idea is a sequence of steps a computer could execute, and you "run" it, chance are high that you've just violated somebody's patent. Being a software developer in America is a bit like being an illegal immigrant. You just keep quite, keep your head down, and hope that nobody bothers looking at what you're doing too closely.
My input on software patents... (Score:4, Informative)
Input -----> Process -------> Output
100000 applications for software patents -----------> USPTO ------------> All rejected.
All software is, by definition, math. And all math, by definition, is not patentable.
Re: (Score:3)
All physical inventions are, by definition, following the laws of physics. All physics is, by definition, math. And all math, by definition, is not patentable.
The whole point of patents is to protect the market incentive for creating, rather than copying, technology. That doesn't somehow become magically irrelevant when software's involved. Producing a new algorithm that's better suited to a particular purpose takes a lot of work and research, and is easily copied by others once it's in production. Patent p
Re: (Score:3)
"All software is, by definition, math. And all math, by definition, is not patentable."
The problem with this argument is that the same reasoning that defines software as mathematics also defines *all* patentable subject matter as mathematics. If you can describe it, it is literally a finite algorithm. If a software expression of an algorithm can be excluded on the basis that it is an "algorithm" then the argument can be applied to all subject matter. (see: algorithmic information theory)
What is not patentab
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot patent the idea of "sorting" but you can patent a sorting algorithm.
A sorting algorithm is still a computational idea. It does not result in any physical transformation.
A sorting algorithm could be used at a post office to sort letters. So let's say a patentee gets one on a sorting algorithm, which is very efficient.
Now say, this same algorithm is used to sort out rotten apples from a basket. Now, the patentee could sue the rotten-apples-sorter for violating his sorting algorithm patent.
The fact
Re: (Score:2)
Why is "sorting" a concept or idea, but "quick sorting" (that is "sorting by doing this then this and this") not a concept or idea?
It's just a more specific concept or idea.
You are on thin philosophical ice.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this argument is that the same reasoning that defines software as mathematics also defines *all* patentable subject matter as mathematics.
I don't think this is true at all.
Suppose two inventors decide to solve the problem of lifting heavy objects. The first devises a system of a ramp and cart with wheels to roll the object up to the desired height. The second uses a set of pulleys to achieve the same goal. These two inventors wouldn't infringe on the others' patent even though they are mathematically identical concepts (i.e. applying mechanical advantage).
Re: (Score:3)
All software is, by definition, math. And all math, by definition, is not patentable.
Which definition? I've not seen one. Can you show me a precisely worded definition of software that justifies your claim?
Re: (Score:2)
Input -----> Process -------> Output
100000 applications for software patents -----------> USPTO ------------> All rejected.
All software is, by definition, math. And all math, by definition, is not patentable.
But all "software patents" are not necessarily just patenting software. In this case, the title is not the definition, so the fact that software is by definition unpatentable is irrelevant. What we call "software patents" are actually "software-executed-on-hardware patents" and hardware is not, by definition, not patentable.
Re: (Score:3)
All inventions can be defined by a processing using math
Eh? Salicylaldehyde is prepared from phenol and chloroform by heating with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. Can this process be defined using ONLY math?
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, a software patent can cover the idea of creating Salicylaldehyde, without anyone ever needing to have done so.
Re:My input on software patents... (Score:4, Interesting)
Try rephrasing that, is what I'm saying.
I feel it will not work with the nutcases in the USPTO; so absent summary rejection of ALL software patent applications, and voiding of past software patents granted, nothing will happen. Instead of focusing on the USPTO which is a gone-case, I suggest a different approach when patents are used in litigation, to solve the problem. This is what I posted in Groklaw, on a related discussion:
--------------------
The PTO has a limited amount of time to inspect each patent (I believe it's around a day per patent).
This is the exact problem, and in the rest of your post, you have detailed how to DEAL with the problem. What I am advocating is, how to solve the problem? The fact that the PTO has just 1 day to inspect a patent, implies that innovation is happening at a rapid pace these days. So a roughly 2-decade monopoly on a patent in these modern days; is totally not justified, since entire businesses and ecosystems are impacted by such long term monopolies.
Consider that there are about 2 billion Windows devices worldwide, in about 2 decades. In just 2 more years, it is projected that there could be more than 2.5 billion Android devices, surpassing Windows devices.
So a patent that cripples Android for 2 decades means ENORMOUS incalculable harm to the progress of science and arts, which is the raisson d'etre of patents.
So the cure to the PTO having just 1 day to inspect a patent application, is to drastically reduce the number of applications, rather than hastily issuing dubious patents, re-examining and rejecting them, and further re-examining and validating a limited number of claims.
To reduce the number of patents filed, a severe penalty has to be levied on a patent found to be invalid on re-examination; when such a patent is asserted in a case. If a company faces the prospect of a $10bn penalty, compared to a $1 bn damages compensation; it will think a 100 times before using the patent in a court. Additionally, it will also reduce the need and motivation to apply for a patent in the first place, thus allowing the PTO a lot of time for review and examination of a vastly reduced number of applications, which are bound to be genuine, rather than frivolous.
Keep It Simple Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
No software or algorithm patents.
If you really want to keep something exclusive, keep it hidden, call it a trade secret, and sue anyone who leaks it.
Unless you are Einstein, someone else will think of it fairly soon anyway, because it's obvious to those at the leading edge of whateever specialty, so keeping it a secret may be bad social form but is not really harmful.
Re: (Score:3)
This, "Let's patent a crazy idea about a brain interface that reads your every thought", without even a plan to build a prototype is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Not anymore. Last year US patent law was changed from "first to invent" to "first to file", meaning if you can write a patent application, you can get a patent for something you haven't invented yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, he was making a suggestion, not lamenting about the current state of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is it isn't as simple. If we roll back 50 years, it was relatively simple - written works were copyrighted (typically), hardware things were patented.
Software changed all that. All of a sudden you have written works doing hardware things. So do you copyright them, or patent them? Or both?
Let's ignore pure software first, and let's go with say a photocopier. In the past, they were hugely mechanical contraptions where a drum was charged, then a scanning head sent l
Re: (Score:2)
Then it wouldn't be possible to patent that. I wouldn't mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I think these questions are wide of the mark. So much that used to require mechanical devices of considerable complexity can now be done entirely with software. A good example is a clock. A grandfather clock is a ridiculously archaic, hugely space wasting mechanical device of limited portability prone to frequent breakdowns and in need of regular attention. One of the big problems of navigation up to the 18th century was how to keep accurate time on ship, so you could figure out what longitude you were
A Process for generating Patent Violations (Score:2)
What is claimed is:
A computer with a pixel-rendering output screen programmed with a master program (as described in the following pseudocode):
1. A bitstring length counter variable keeps track of the length of the longest bitstring generated so far.
2. The master program generates and stores in memory (or persistent-storage mappable to memory) a length 1 bitstring containing
the bit value "0".
3.The master program feeds this data to a low-level virtual machine as a program to be executed.
The virtual machine h
More charades. (Score:3)
NYC Feb 27 - I'll try to make it - Slashdot meet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps Slashdotters in the areas around these meetings would like to get together to plan, practice, and eventually travel to these meetings? Beers/Sodas after the meetings are suggested.
show us one good software patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim is baseless. "It revolutionized digital music distribution", on what do you base this? I put it to you that it was the ability to transmit data digitally and world wide that revolutionized digital music distribution. Any form of Fast Fourier Transform based compression would have served the same, it was not MP3 itself that drove this revolution. In fact, I'll put it to you that the MP3 format's ridiculous exclusion of any lossless data encoding is designed to ensure that anyone who uses the f
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying I agree with how the mp3 format was licensed, but it is indeed a technology worthy of mention in a discussion about software patents.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "the MP3 audio encoding format" patent. MP3 is (was) covered by several patents. At least one of its base patents is however ridiculously broad [slashdot.org]. I haven't looked at the others, but it would surprise me if they would be that much more specific or better.
Questionable summary (Score:2)
Software developers are the folks most immediately and directly affected by the software patents the USPTO issues, and it's getting to the point that no one can code anything without potentially getting sued.
Really? How many software developers (not companies, individual developers) have been sued for patent infringement? How often do software developers make the independent decision to design around a software patent, as opposed to being told by management to do so? The fact is that individual developers are actually some of the folks least immediately or directly affected by software patents. They don't get sued, and software patents largely don't affect their day to day work.
Bear in mind that there are p
Re: (Score:3)
Really? How many software developers (not companies, individual developers) have been sued for patent infringement?
Why make this distinction? Independent software devs, like "Notch" of Mojang, have their companies sued as soon as they achieve any success; And this is for a bullshit game. In business software it's even worse. Here: When Patents Attack - This American Life [thisamericanlife.org]. The fucking apocalypse is NOW you fool.
. It may even be true (although essentially impossible to prove) that software patents are a net drain on the industry. But it is clearly not the case that software patents are crippling developers or causing everyone to get sued.
So, wait, what you're saying is that it's "essentially impossible to prove that software patents" are beneficial to the software industry. So, PROVE to me why we should have these damn laws if we can't prov
Re:Questionable summary (Score:4)
software patents are illegal, since software is mathematics.
Good thing "software patents" don't actually claim software per se but rather methods of programming or using physical computing devices.
Consider this highly simplified claim: "A method for displaying a line on a computer screen, comprising using Bresenham's line algorithm [wikipedia.org] to draw the line on the computer screen." Suppose that the patent applicant was Bresenham himself and the method was new.
This claim does not claim mathematics. The algorithm itself can, of course, be reduced to a proof, per the Curry-Howard correspondence [wikipedia.org]. But "a computer screen" is neither software nor mathematics. No amount of thinking about mathematics well ever result in a line appearing on a computer screen. You need hardware to do that. And since the computer screen is an essential element of the claim, mathematics alone (such as the aforementioned proof) will never infringe it.
If Congress wants them to be legal, they have to write a statute to do so.
What in the patent statute prohibits software patents? How is new, useful, and nonobvious software not an improvement of a machine (namely a computer), per 101? How is new, useful, and nonobvious software not a a new use of a known machine, per 100 and 101? It seems to me that the plain language of the patent statute clearly encompasses software, and that it is the judicially-invented "abstract idea" exception that potentially prohibits them.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing "software patents" don't actually claim software per se but rather methods of programming or using physical computing devices.
Yes, because that makes all the difference. After all, almost nobody would ever think of running software on a computer. Instead, they generally prefer to interpret it in their head, or execute it using a pen and paper.
There is no practical limitation by claiming software as executed by a computer vs software per se, other than possibly in terms of direct vs contributory infringement (and even that has been covered by claiming software stored on a carrier). Hence, for all practical intents and purposes, the
Re:Questionable summary (Score:4, Interesting)
If the computer screen is an essential element, then I don't need a patent license for my free software that draws lines using Bresenham's algorithm, because I'm not using Bresenham's patented computer screen!
The patent doesn't claim that the screen is itself new or patented. The patent claims the method of displaying a line on any computer screen. It's no different than a patent on, say, a method of catching mice using a bucket of water, a ramp, and a piece of bait dangled above the bucket. It doesn't matter where you get the bucket, the ramp, or the bait. The patent covers the method of using these pre-existing objects together to catch mice.
You can't have it both ways. If a physical object that I'm not selling or giving away is essential to the patent, then my free software is not covered by the patent.
I'm not trying to have it both ways. This is a long-settled area of the law, codified in the statute. The end users would be directly infringing the patent, and you would likely be liable for indirect infringement [ladas.com]. Imagine a patented mechanical device that is held together with screws. If someone sells all of the parts, minus the screws, plus instructions on how to put it together and where to buy the screws, that's indirect infringement. In this hypothetical you're distributing the software knowing that end users will use it in an infringing manner with their computer screens (which, again, could be any kind of computer screen).
Um, how about No? (Score:2)
http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-about-no.jpg [imgace.com]
Software is not of patent-able matter (Score:2)
Of the things universally accepted as not being patentable are:
Physical Phenomenon
Natural Law
Abstract Ideas
and of these three comes Mathematical Algorithms
So what is software? Its all of these!
http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php [abstractionphysics.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Of the things universally accepted as not being patentable are: Physical Phenomenon Natural Law Abstract Ideas and of these three comes Mathematical Algorithms
So what is software? Its all of these!
And software is not actually patentable, contrary to Slashdot belief and complaint. Instead, software that's implemented in a machine is patentable, because a machine is neither a physical phenomenon, natural law, or an abstract idea.
Software: Patents or Copyright (Score:3)
Not both. If you get a patent you have to release the source in the public domain.
From Wikipedia: ... to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time, in exchange for the public disclosure of the invention.
A patent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are incorrect, sir. You do not need to release the source code. This was true back in like the 1980s (or common practice then, anyway). Nobody release code for their software patents these days b/c it is simply not required. You must describe the general algorithm in sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation.... this is a far cry from source code.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't take that as a description of fact. I thought it was a suggestion: that people should be granted a patent only if the source code to any software related claims is released. This idea that the UPTO has, that UML or pseudo-code is sufficient, it's garbage in every direction. Useful non-obvious inventions are not produced from a general algorithm. If that's where your secrets are at, then you haven't done anything that should be patentable yet. You've just manipulated some bits, same as moving
USPTO is not a law-making body (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has said software patents are legal.
[citation needed]. When I read "Software or computer programs are not explicitly mentioned in United States patent law [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia itself, I can't figure out just what you're claiming here. If software was clearly protected or not we wouldn't have Bliski [wikipedia.org] bouncing around in both directions in the courts.
Copyright OR Patent but just one (Score:2)
A lot of problems could be solved by simply declaring that if a work can be copyrighted then it is not eligible for patent protection as well. Software is basically a written work and it is automatically protected under copyright law. Works should only be eligible to be covered under one or the other but not both. An important details is that if a work CAN be covered under copyright law then it MUST be covered under copyright law. As such, most software would be ineligible for patent protection under su
Back to basics (Score:3)
The biggest problem with software patents, it seems to me, is that the USPTO has strayed from its roots in applying patents to software. For example:
- A working model is required for an application for a "traditional" patent. Why not software patents? Requiring a working model alone would eliminate a large portion of software patents.
- Instructions for replicating the patented item are required for traditional patents, thus making it useful in the public domain when the patent expires. Why is software exempted?
- Traditional patents exclude patenting of an idea. Why is software excluded from this restriction?
Maybe not ALL software patents are bad. But if we went back to the roots of the patent concept, most of the frivolous patents would go away.
Realistic demands (Score:2)
I think the anti-software patents movement has been hurt by their "complete rejection of software patents" position. Look, if you design a truly novel Ethernet conflict resolution algorithm that gives you improved performance over anything else known before you surely deserve a patent. However it should be narrowly defined and have a shortened life span, for reasons opposite to the extended lifespan for long development path currently available to drug developers.
The problem is that currently the USPTO woul
Why I'm sure the USPTO is not sincere (Score:2)
Another vote for banning them outright (Score:2)
I had a software ethics class last semester and the patent wars created by ambiguous patents are far worse that the situation before hand. Plus, the only people winning are the trolls. Even the megacorporations like Apple and Microsoft with massive patent portfolios are sinking tons of capital into their offensive and defensive campaigns.
Non-Obviousness is #1 problem (Score:2)
I'd like to see a better test of "non-obviousness". Obviousness is part of the test, but appears to be given short attention by evaluators.
Maybe a panel of practitioners can vote on or rank obviousness, or the like. A "technical jury", if you will.
I'd like to see true innovation be rewarded, instead of mostly obvious ideas or obvious combo's of existing ideas, which stifles new products and small co's.
Appointment (Score:2)
How About.... (Score:2)
1. The Patent Office actually does searches on prior software & methods before granting/rubber-stamping that application, and expecting the courts to do the searching for them.
2. Only Software Experts/Engineers, on more than just Microsoft Development Programming minimally, should be doing the patent examinations/patent searches/patent approvals.
3. USPO should have the power to reject an approved patent at any time, for a minimum of 'patent application in bad faith.
These points would be a start for m
You Paint Yourself with the "Arrogance" Brush (Score:3)
"I haven't heard a single valid argument for why software is any different than any other discipline."
Then you haven't been listening.
Re: (Score:2)
For example: you know that awesome startup you wanna create someday by coding some amazing app in your mom's basement? Good luck being successful with that without software patents.
Good luck coding that amazing app with software patents, because the patent trolls will take any money you make.
Hardware patents are moderately justifiable since building a new jet engine costs many millions of dollars and I can't violate your patents in my basement for $500. Software patents are simply retarded, since anyone who downloads a free compiler can violate them, probably without even realising.
Re:Arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Oh.
Here are a whole bunch of them, each one carefully reasoned out and commented on:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=Patents2 [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Oh. Here are a whole bunch of them, each one carefully reasoned out and commented on: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=Patents2 [groklaw.net]
But those papers fail to address the actual patents at issue. Contrary to Slashdot and Groklaw belief, "software patents" are not patents on software. Software is unpatentable. However, you can patent a software-executed-by-hardware, or a machine that executes software, neither of which are reducible to mathematics via Curry-Howard, or at least, no more so than a car or an aeroplane.
Re: (Score:2)
The latest paper [groklaw.net] uses anti-lock braking as an example. You can't get much more car analogy than that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you suddenly want to ban practical implementations of otherwise unpatentable theories and concepts, then where do we draw the line?
At the point it crossed into software. The test is simple. If it is possible to code it, that is math, and therefore not patentable. Release the source code to any software you're claiming as part of the patent. If the patent isn't interesting anymore when that's done...you have failed the obviousness test and shouldn't get a patent anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"No other industry whines quite like computer programmers."
So Dashiell Hammett's estate should have been allowed a patent for the crime novel?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the ending was non-obvious.
USPTO should data-mine slashdot (Score:2)
to get the software geek perspective on software patents, if they really want it. Enough feedback has already been given, believe me.
They could search for all slashdot articles with "patent" in the title, and throw it into Wordle http://www.wordle.net/ [wordle.net] for starters.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the comments here echo a prevailing view of most software developers: just ban software patents. A lot of rhetoric, not much in the way of thoughtful analysis.
Consider this: In a few milliseconds, you can search just about every web page that exists in the world, while driving your 55 mpg vehicle to get a magnetic imaging scan @ the hospital, and while waiting there you can use your iPhone to call any other person having a cell phone, in the whole world. All brought to you by innovative software...
But those on these boards don't seem to recognize this -- I think it's a case of a few bad patents spoiling the bunch, frankly. It would be nice to at least have the haters concede some of the good points of software patents. If one can think of none, then the intellectual blinders are on, because without question it is a mixed bag -- there is good, and there is bad that comes w/ time-limited monopolies. A better discussion would focus on the pros and cons and the balance.
Also: is it merely coincidence that the most innovative software companies set up shop in countries where there is the most protection available for software innovations? How many tier 1 software companies exist where there's no protection? (I'm sure there are a few, but the VAST majority of tier 1 software companies are in the USA -- think Google, Apple, MS, Adobe, etc. etc. etc.).
As one person [slashdot.org] said - show us a good software patent.
Honestly, we're prohibited by our employers from even looking at patents because of the risk of treble damages, and it's not simply the "one rotten apple spoils the bushel". We're simply trying to find the one good apple in the bushel to start with, and as folks who know the technology and how it functions we don't see a usefulness.
Fact of the matter is no software company - not even Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Adobe, or Google - relies on a software p
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you mean by a "good" software patent. There's obviously been a number of software patents that have been upheld by the Federal Circuit as being valid and infringed. There are others that are close calls. The claim below was just ruled valid and infringed at a lower court... (Carnegie Mellon v. Marvel). Why should the underlying invention there not be subject to protection if it if novel and unobvious?
How does novel and non-obvious get beyond abstract ideas, or merely recitation of mathematical formula? It's already been ruled that merely implementing a mathematical formula - e.g. adding 1+1 to get 2 - does not quality for a patent. Something novel and non-obvious must be done with that formula that in and of itself is also not recitation of another mathematical formula - e.g. f(x) = x+x, g(x) = f(x) * f(x+1). E=mc^2 does not qualify for patent protection, nor does calculating using a computer.
(from PatentlyO.com):
The asserted patent claims are basically signal processing logic algorithms for determining the value of items coming from a computer memory signal. This is necessary because the "0" and "1" that we normally talk about for binary digital signals is not actually accurate. In particular, the invention indicates that you should apply a "signal dependent" function to calculate the value as a way to overcome noise in the signal. Apparently a key distinguishing factor from the prior art is that the decoding functions used are "selected from a set of signal-dependent functions." The asserted claims do not identify the particular functions used, only that functions are used.
The two infringing claims are as follows:
Claim 4 of US Patent 6,201,839:
A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Viterbi-like detector, comprising:
selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions; and applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant.
Which cour