Microsoft Calls For Patent Law Change

Elektroschock writes "According to an article of IDG/Infoworld Microsoft calls for a reform of the US patent system . Last month Microsoft Denmark started a backfiring PR campaign to influence the European debate in favour of software patents. Critics of Microsoft often claim that MS was behind the EU lobbying and wanted software patents to kill open source. While it is true that lobbying took place, persons deeply involved in the debate are more cautious to affirm real business interests of Microsoft. In a CeBIT debate today it was concluded that the MS monopoly would not exist with today's software patenting in place back in 1985. Some highly influential stakeholders with real business interests are often forgotten: patent professionals and the patent offices. What if there was no evil MS conspiracy behind all those patent plans? Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith is very concerned of submarine patents and patent trolls for Microsoft's business. He said patent reform should begin at home."

Comments

Don't trust the source

[bigtallmofo]

Microsoft executives on Thursday stepped up their calls for reform of the U.S. patent process, saying the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) too often focuses on quantity instead of quality.

What they're saying here seems to make perfect sense, but I really have a hard time trusting anything that Microsoft says about software patenting considering their history.

European Anti-Software Patent Bribe Pledge Drive

[topla]

http://mjr.iki.fi/texts/patentfund

Thank you, Microsoft.

[k98sven]

Straight from the horse's mouth:
"The system has to work for everybody," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."

I'm sure this quote will come in handy.

Prior Art?

[GFunk83]

How about reform in which USPTO case workers (or whatever they may be called) are educated as to how to go about searching for prior art (particularly, but not limited to, in the tech space)? Also, whatever happened to patents only being licensed when the product is clearly demonstrated (that is, instead of patenting an *idea* for a product)?

Two-faced

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting then that patents4innovation.org (probably the larget pro-software lobby organization in Europe) lists Microsoft as one of its members (look under About Us).

Ironically, the site is built using FLOSS (PHP)...

I disagree with their proposal

[cpt kangarooski]

Patent application fees serve some critical purposes:

1. They weed out non-serious applicants.

If anyone can apply for a patent for free, the PTO will be flooded in a wave of applications that have no real basis. They'll be time consuming and costly to dispose of. By requiring fees, only serious applicants will pursue the process of applying, and they will likely have made sure that they have a decent chance of getting their patent since they will not want to waste money in futile attempts.

Additionally, even where an applicant has a good invention that is patentable, a patent is a significant burden on the public and should not be granted lightly. Applicants should be thinking seriously about using their patent commercially rather than just sitting on it. If it is an investment to them, then they'll be thinking of it in a business mindset, and will likely try to use it or license it to others for use. If they can get it for free, there's less likelihood that the patent will be used productively. It's better for inventions to enter the public domain than to be patented in such situations.

2. They can fund the PTO

Patent examination -- when it's done right -- is fairly time consuming and somewhat expensive. This doesn't just include prior art searches, but making sure that the government can hire examiners that are familiar with their fields, and competent in the law so that applications can be checked for legal requirements as to structure, contents, etc. Plus of course there are numerous administrative costs to just keep the PTO running; applications will likely get copied, marked on, published, etc. and these things aren't free.

problem is...

[SQLz]

The patent office doesn't think it needs to reform. I'm from Arlington, I know two lawyers who work at the patent office and both of them specialize in software patents.

First, they believe they are doing our country a service by protecting the 'inventors' of the software. You can't tell them otherwise. Bringing up things like prior art just pisses them off. According to them, prior art is not their responsibility, its the responsibility of the person filing the patent to show any prior art. They don't have 'time' to be hunting around the for this so called 'prior art'. If they grant an invalid patent, let the courts sort it out. Its the courts job to validate and rule on prior art.

Second, they don't need to have software development experience to approve software patents because all they do is look through an internal database see if key things are already patented. If it is not, boom, granted.

So, I don't think we're going to see patent reform any time soon, especially when they don't want to be reformed.