Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Microsoft
wiredog writes "The suit alleges Microsoft infringed on a patent for technology that reduces the size of computer sound files that contain voice recordings. The story, from Reuters, at the Washington Post." Well, I'm posting this because apparently everyone and their brother has decided to submit it. But, well, yeah. It's a compression codec. That crap shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Of course, in the US you can patent math.
Do you think that there is a net economic benefit from allowing IBM to patent this algorithm? Would compression codecs not be developed if patents were not available? Do the increased incentives outweigh the effects on competition and the risks for smaller developers?
I'm not saying there isn't a case to be made, but you have to balance both sides. The patent system is there solely 'to promote progress in science and the useful arts' (as the US Constitution puts it), so any granting of patents on algorithms must pass this test.
And since patent offices are unable to distinguish between 'difficult' things like codecs and trivial things like one-click (the criterion of 'obviousness' is not something a patent examiner understands very well), you have to ask whether we wouldn't be better off without patents on any field of software. Sure, in some cases there might be an economic loss because codecs might not be developed - although projects like Ogg Vorbis show that patents are not necessary to finance such research. But on balance I think it's clear that swpats do more harm than good.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
This is a fine point, in practice, but a significant one at the end of the day. Notwithstanding the Federal Circuit's results in State Street Bank and AT&T v. Excel, it remains well-settled that you cannot patent a formula, mathematical algorithm or a law of nature. Each of these cases reaffirms this general principal of law.
That being said, it is likewise well-settled that the mere appearance or recitation of a formula, mathematical algorithm or law of nature in a patent claim does not invalidate the claim. What you can patent is a concrete application of these abstract ideas.
A patent directed to a novel catapult (assuming there were none in the prior art for the purpose of this example) can be described as a method for projecting massive objects through space with a parabolic trajectory. However, to be patentable, the claims must be directed to both the structure of the solution (the steps) and the context in which they are applied. A mere recitation of a method of using an inverse square law of physics would fail.
This is a fine point, of course -- good coverage can be obtained in practice going to the essence of the commercial benefit of a formula or law of physics. But the fact of the matter is that you can't patent math, even here in the United States of America.
After all, would PNG exist if Unisys hadn't tried to kill GIF? Would the zlib compress algorithm be developed if it weren't for software patents on other alogrithms? (From RFC #1951, "The format can be implemented readily in a manner not covered by patents," and, later, in the purpose section "The purpose of this specification is to define a lossless compressed data format that ... [c]an be implemented readily in a manner not covered by patents, and hence can be practiced freely[.]" And Ogg Vorbis is an attempt to create a audio codec not covered by the ... um, Fraven.. Frahuen... uh, the F whatever Institute's patents.
So it would seem that these patents do encourage innovation... to get around them!
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Research grants to universities, be they government grants or private grants, are not provided to purchase intellectual property. They are provided to advance the state of human knowledge.
It's interesting that you cite the web, for instance. Was the web developed in the course of establishing a patent? Hell no! How about the web browsers? NO again. How about other internet applications: email, netnews, file transfer, file sharing protocols like NFS or AFS. Are these patented? No. no, non, nyet. And yet they were developed anyway. Curious, isn't it?
It is not at all clear that even a perfectimplementation of the patent model would generate innovation in software more fairly and rapidly than would be the case if there were no software patents at all. When you consider that the patent office is so badly broken as it is, well, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is justified if I can't get rid of this fetid bathwater any other way.
N.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
If you have problems with that just go to http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and search on American Telephone and Speech Coding for 1988.
Think about all the CPU time IBM had to devote, and all the research on the part of scientists to come up with the perceptual encoding and other technologies involved in creating that codec. That wasn't free CPU time and those salaries didn't magically appear. IBM owns that codec, and should be protected by patent law.
No it's not
Lawsuits cost money. They get their money from selling their products. If everyone keeps on suing each other, only the public will pay the price.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.