Slashdot Mirror
Perens on Patents
lewiz writes "An interesting interview with Bruce Perens over at the BBC. He's up discussing the role of HP, IBM, et al and the move towards Linux. However, his main point is about software patents and how they are much more of a problem than SCO: 'We're looking at a future where only the very largest companies will be able to implement software, and it will technically be illegal for other people to do so.'"
These companies will be the only ones developing software if they actually choose to enforce the patents. IBM has more patents every year than any other company(like the last 5 years running i think), but I haven't seen a high-profile case where IBM went after Joe's Software Shack for IP infringement(doesn't mean it hasn't happened).
Yes, patents are evil, but mostly only when they are enforced, otherwise it's more of a "Hey, look what we thought of".
I believe it is up to other inventors to bring up their prior art when disputing a patent.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Many people seem to fall into this conceptual trap. Infringing on a patent (knowingly or unknowingly) is not illegal, but infringing on a patent without the consent of the patent-holder makes you liable. A patent isn't a law, but it provides the owner certain legal standing. There's a difference. If the patent holder doesn't tell you to stop using their method, then you're perfectly free to do so, and have no liability in doing so.
If using methods patented by others were illegal, then every company would have to stop, or be punished by the government. Microsoft couldn't develop something with a method published by IBM, and IBM likewise couldn't develop something "pioneered" by Microsoft. The interlocking illegality would seize up the development in big companies just as much as anyone else.
Many big companies hold huge patent portfolios for defensive purposes. They never complain about others using the methods they've patented, but they have a bargaining chip (or weapon) to use if someone else tries to collect on another method.
Many other companies like to hold patents without developing them, and to submit as many patent applications as possible, so they can try to collect when some rich but not threatening company stumbles across the same obvious methods. It's this phenomenon which creates the danger against which Bruce Perens is warning.
It's possible to keep patents, and to use them as the early founders of Patent Law intended: to promote the sciences by protecting their discoveries for a limited time.
[
afaik, the patent office does not look for prior art, they look for prior patents. It would be nearly impossible for them to scour the world for general prior art in each patent they grant, but they can easily look over other patents.
Well, that is the big catch-22. Most of the stuff is (seemingly) so common or simple that nobody bothers to patent it. Thus, once somebody does come along with a patent that is butt simple, there is nothing in the existing patent records for it.
The second problem is the newly allowed "business processes". These also have no patent record because they are new. Congress should get off its ass and disallow biz process patents. The patent office says that the courts have allowed them and there are no laws disallowing them. Thus, they will continue to accept them until a law says otherwise.
Table-ized A.I.
We need to be asking our friends like IBM what they will do to help us. Our customers and users need to ask, as well. Many of them are IBM (and HP, etc.) customers too.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Lots of software companies have lots of patents. Sometimes they're silly, but it sets up sort of a Mutually Assured Destruction. Microsoft isn't going to try to bludgeon IBM with a patent suit, because they know IBM has just as many silly patents to bludgeon them back with.
It's because of this setup that we normally only see big IP cases come from companies that don't actually produce anything (and thus have little to fear from a counter-attack) - like SCO.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
In theory, the patent office does look for all prior art. In reality, they primarily look at prior patents.
Most original ideas that corporations stumble onto are never published. They are essentially trade secrets as far as the company is concerned. Besides if they publish them, others may sue them for patent or copyright infringement. Thus, they often keep quiet. However, now they are starting to patent everything in the book to at least protect themselves. It is snowballing.
I did some work for a large telecommunications company that successfully patented some automatic auditing algorithms, something that I thought was not that special, just some IF statements over statistical measurements to detect suspicious trends. It is the sort of thing that would remain internal before all this patent and counter-patent mess.
Table-ized A.I.
Before a patent is accepted, it's put up for public display, for anyone to dispute. What we really need is a user-powered web site (Another OSDN partner?) that watches patents as they are put up for review, and looks for prior art.
:) I'm sure there are a lot of out-of-work software developers who would also be interested in being hired for a job like that. Show that telecommuting can work. :)
Software patents would preferably be monitored (I can't imagine a user-based organization large enough to monitor all the different patents), but I guess other topical patents would be acceptable too.
If OSDN is interested in making that a job, they can email me.
Keep in mind that "prior art" does not include stuff written as soon as the patent is seen. It has to be prior to when the patent was filed. (IANAL, but that's what seems likely to me.)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)