Slashdot Mirror

This question regarding the patent-eligibility of software has come up often enough that some future limitation on software patents seems inevitable. Maybe the solution is to simply allow them a shorter term, rather than eliminating them altogether?

I have long argued in favor of reducing the term for software patents. Although a 20-year term makes sense when applied to, for instance, pharmaceutical patents (which need at least a couple of decades in order to recoup R&D expenses), it makes very little sense for software patents. The patent system needs more flexibility so that such a multi-tiered arrangement could be pun in place; the one-size-fits-all approach is no longer the most effective model.

As in so many other areas, Apple is way ahead of most of the pack when it comes to pursuing design patents. The design patent is part of the IP vanguard, and yet many companies still ignore the additional protection and leverage that it can provide. It's a tribute to Apple that it hasn't made that mistake.

Will Posner singlehandedly force an end to the endlessly-escalating mobile patent wars? Let's hope so. At the very least, his opinion seems to indicate that he realizes the ridiculous (and, often, baseless) nature of all of this never-ending patent litigation.

Certainly, it seems like this and similar patent cases are just begging to be shot down; while it doesn't appear that any of us really knows what an "abstract idea" is exactly, it's increasingly clear to numerous observers that tying a process to the internet should not necessarily transform an abstract process into a patentable invention.

Kudos to Microsoft if it's awarded this patent. However, I anticipate that, if a marketable product results from this, controversy will almost certainlly ensue from the part about adapting search results to a user's "comprehension level," "sophistication and education level."

Wasn't the Supreme Court's recent Bilski ruling supposed to liberate us from ridiculous patent litigation like this? If someone slaps you with this kind of lawsuit, you should definitely hit back. Good on Mr. Curtis!

Ever since Intellectual Ventures entered wholeheartedly into the patent litigation wars, I completely disbelieve any company claiming that it is acquiring patents "for defensive purposes only." Although it's refreshing to see that Twitter -- unlike its social media counterpart Facebook -- has so far avoided getting bogged down in wasteful patent litigation, you have to wonder how long it will last.

The U.S. can -- and should -- learn from India's example in this case. Too often, the patent system gives the appearance of favoring private profit over the public interest. Certainly, innovators have a right to benefit financially from their intellectual property; but in some life-and-death cases it seems to me that basic human rights should trump considerations of revenue maximization.

Indeed, the area of software patents looks to be the next frontier of extensive intellectual property legal battles. While I'm not against the idea of patenting software, I wouldn't be surprised if these coming fights eventually led either to new limitations on software patents, or even to their elimination altogether.

Good news that the court in the "interactive web" case made such a sensible ruling. It's patent enforcement actions like this one that bring software patents into disrepute. While I'm not against the idea of patenting software, this particular patent litigation makes me think that maybe the ability to do so should be limited.

The case of Kodak shows the increasing importance of patent enforcement. Though some in the anti-IP crowd seem to feel as if any form of patent litigation is evil, it's worth noting that a major institution like Kodak splintered due in part to its failure to timely and effectively enforce its IP rights.

Though of course it's completely legal for companies to enforce their IP against their competition, I am ambivalent; is it ethical for corporations to use patent litigation merely as an anti-competitive tactic, or should these disputes be settled in the marketplace, where they belong?

Not only does Monsanto create toxic products that have been proven to harm humans and animals, but it egregiously abuses the patent system. It's great news that a number of countries have started to ban the company's products; I hope the US and all other nations will eventually follow suit.

It's patent enforcement actions like this one that bring software patents into disrepute. While I'm not against the idea of patenting software, this particular patent litigation makes me think that maybe the ability to do so should be limited.

It's probably true that the executive branch wouldn't have that much jurisdiction over he software patent issue. Not only that, but I'd guess the White House wouldn't have much political will to fight or the issue, particularly since it just helped muscle the new patent reform bill through Congress. Unfortunately, the legislature is so easily influenced by lobbyists and special interests that I'm not sure it's too likely to side with software developers on this issue. Maybe developers need to start their own lobbying campaign?

Elimination of the one-year "grace period" has always been one of my main points of contention with the new patent reform legislation. I hope that, as time passes and courts start to review these issues, they will equate disclosure and sale, at least under some circumstances. A grace period is vital to an inventor's evaluation of his or her product's potential performance in the marketplace.

Senator Maria Cantwell may have said it best: "This is not a patent reform bill. This is a big corporation patent give away that tramples on the rights of small inventors." It's certainly a shame that Sen. Coburn's amendment (ending fee diversion by Congress) didn't stand a chance. But considering the current political climate, I suppose it's not surprising.

I can't be the only voter who finds it completely ridiculous that the House has stripped the least controversial provision from this bill (ending fee diversion) and passed the most contentious provisions. Without an end to fee diversion, "patent reform" is a waste, or worse.

I can't be the only voter who finds it completely ridiculous that the House has stripped the least controversial provision from this bill (ending fee diversion) and passed the most contentious provisions. Without an end to fee diversion, "patent reform" is a waste, or worse.

Who would have believed it -- patent reform has finally passed in one chamber. Given the momentum this issue has right now, I'd expect that some version of the bill will likely pass in the House soon, too. As usual, however, the devil will be in the details; though I can't imagine much opposition to the fee diversion and fee-setting authority provisions, the first-to-file and post-grant issues may prove somewhat thorny.