Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Researching Patent Law with New Experts
wikinerd writes "According to The Register, Microsoft seeks to hire new patent experts. In their words, patent experience itself "is helpful but not mandatory" and advance knowledge of patent law is not required. The applicants need only be Computer Science or Electrical Engineering PhD holders, without any qualification in law. They will be involved in prior art search, patentability research and technical analysis. The article outlines some of the most controversial MS patents, such as online bill payment."
One only has to look at the rampant achievements and success of Free Software and Open Source to see how much the rest of the industry is being held back by software patents and other "intellectual property" restrictions.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
As much as I like to poke fun at Microsoft, I don't see anything wrong with this job posting.
Performing a prior art search requires 95% technology knowledge and 5% patent knowledge. The little patent knowledge their employees will need I'm sure they'll learn on the job. Come on, we've all sold ourselves during job interviews as being "fast learners."
In my opinion, this is just a silly reason to ridicule Microsoft.
Wanted: PHD in physics to serve fast food through drive through window.
Litigate.
"but I'm not about to fund any massive development efforts"
Don't be silly.
Nobody funds R&D development just to find clever algorithms.
Here's how 99% of all software (by volume) is coded:
You work for a company. They say, "Bobby, we need you to write a front end to the payables system".
So you code it, and if you're a programmer with half-a-brain, you come up with a few twists that make it run better/faster/nicer. The code is never sold, or used outside of your company. It exists, and probably nobody will ever see the code again except some 1st year puke out of college. And the world goes on.
To imply that something this guy did in a day is worthy of an entirely new set of legal protections is to show a stunning ignorance of how software is developed.
So to answer your diatribe, you aren't funding a search for new patentable software, you're simply trying to solve a problem. Therefore if software cannot be patented, you'd still have to solve the problem.
Oh, and to put the final torpedo in the burning hulk you call an "argument", the bulk of innovative software was developed before software patents were allowed. Software patents have be in force for probably around 10 years, and the software world has had a stunning lack of innovation in that time.
There is nothing wrong with software copyrights because copyrights only cover that very literal piece of code and only factor in when that code has been copied. So if the code goes stale because of its short shelf life, then it doesn't matter if it cannot be copied.
Remember, with copyrights, if you write a program and I write one "just like it" that isn't _actually_ it, then there really isn't a conflict. Especially if there was no way I ever saw your code.
Also, you don't "own all code like yours" when you hold a copyright.
Software patents are bad because they grant a realm of control that extends beyond the scope of what you created (or might have thought about creatring) to give you dominion over all things kind-of like your theoretical thing. That's bad in the extreme.
Copyright is useful for software, and will remain so as long as we don't end up in the "copyrighted space" bull-pucky. (e.g. you can't take picutures in this public park without a paid permit because the sclupture is copyrighted, which is the bull actually happening of late.)
What *isn't* good is the ability to "copyright" "look and feel" (remember that old evil phrase?) because that becomes copyright of general concept, which is just erzats patenting but for longer terms.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I know a Physics PhD that took a position about 10 years ago with a large IP law firm. He did it for the money. From what he described of his job, it sounded like a paralegal position where his specialty is to look at the science of patent applications. I imagine law firms have a need for specialized paralegal services in other areas too, such as medicine, etc; evidently, software too. Lawyers can't know everything.
In the end, the lawyer moves the paper and puts on the public face. The paralegals do the grunt work and directed research behind the scenes.
As a software developer, all this stuff makes me cringe. Makes me feel like I'm blindly jogging through a land mine field every time I create a new product.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
No they don't. Software patents are an anathema to innovation. Think about the case of solo inventor who comes up with what he believes is a brilliant new concept in software. If he wants to start a new business, and take his idea to market, he has a few choices: file for a patent himself, or go to market without a patent. If he does the former, it's going to take considerable money and time, which he may not have. And even if he gets a patent on his invention, he still most likely can't win a protracted court battle with some multi-billion dollar behemoth of a corporation, if they feel threatened by his idea and decide to squash him out of business. If he goes to market without a patent, well... most of the above still applies. He can still easily be squashed out of business and sued into bankruptcy by EvilCorp.
Net-net, many people who have what could be a hugely profitable idea if developed, will choose to just sit on it, rather than take a chance on developing a business, fighting lawsuits, etc. In the best case, the solo inventor files for an receives a patent, and then sells it for a modest gain. Whooohoo, way to encourage innovation.
It works against big companies with huge research budgets as well. If I'm company A, and I am considering whether or not to invest X million dollars in research over the next Z years for something radically new... My motivation to do so is tempered by the possibility that competitor B is doing the exact same thing, without my knowledge.. and if they get their patent application in one day before mine, we're now shut out of the market for that idea, despite investing X million dollars in research. Whoohoo, way to encourage innovation. Patents make funding research an incredibly risky proposition.
Now of course we see that some innovation does occur, even though we have software patents. But my contention is that we would get a lot MORE innovation without - especially from small companies & solo inventor / researchers.
Bottom line, IMHO, we'd be better off eliminating software patents, and let companies compete on their execution, not on the basis of an artificial, government granted monopoly.
And remember, even in the absence of patents, you could still choose to keep your methods, ideas, etc. secret. Which means your competitors would have to spend money, time and effort to reverse engineer your product, giving you an advantage. And by being the innnovator, first to market, etc., you have some automatic advantages over the competition.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Patent applications must be technical, novel and non-obvious. For example, you can't patent "one-click shopping" or "progress bars".
Oh, wait...