Slashdot Mirror
Reforming Software Patents with 'Marking'
sakul writes "Came across an
article in the Stanford Law Journal that proposes
'marking' patented software to make the patents obvious to the public and to force large companies patenting software "to play by the same rules as holders of other kinds of patents." Interesting but technical read. Could this be a solution to some of the ever growing problems with software patents?" (Stephen Lindholm, the author of the paper, has provided a link to the paper itself, as well.) On the same topic, karvind writes "Gavin Hill, a film graduate, has produced and directed an interesting animated film on How Software Patents Actually Work. It's explaining the dangers of software patents and how they affect you and your business."
Mod parent up. After reading the paper I was left to scratch my head at the conclusion that "marking software is largely ineffective", yet we should "mark software to bring it more in line with physical invention patents".
The author does an excellent job shedding light on the difficulty of "process" and software patents, but his solution leaves much to be desired.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The animation is a good one to forward to any one you've been trying to explain the software patient problems too that still doesn't get it.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Because they can't. It has to be patented within one year of first public disclosure. Obviously, C, C++, and the like have been out there for more than a year.
Copyright 1984-2004 Adobe Systems Incorporated and its licensors. All rights reserved.
Protected by U.S. Patents 4,667,247; 4,837,613; 5,050,103; 5,185,818; 5,200,740; 5,233,336; 5,237,313; 5,255,357; 5,546,528; 5,625,711; 5,634,064; 5,729,637; 5,737,599; 5,754,873; 5,781,785; 5,819,301; 5,832,530; 5,832,531; 5,835,634; 5,860,074; 5,929,866; 5,930,813; 5,943,063; 5,995,086; 5,999,649; 6,028,583; 6,049,339; 6,073,148; 6,185,684; 6,205,549; 6,275,587; 6,289,364; 6,324,555; 6,385,350; 6,408,092; 6,411,730; 6,415,278; 6,421,460; 6,466,210; 6,507,848; 6,515,675; 6,563,502; 6,604,105 ; 6,639,593; 6,678,410; 6,701,023; 6,711,557; 6,720,977; 6,748,111 ; 6,754,382; 6,771,816; U.S. Patent Design 337,604; 338,907; 371,799; 454,582; Patents Pending.
Comments in the source about patent use just don't work, especially for products where you don't have the source.
I read this as being along the lines of "products should document clearly ( in manuals, marketing material, etc ) what patents they are protected by", just like say, your car, TV, VCR, DVD player, even lawn mower : pick up a manual to any of them, you'll see patents ( both pending and otherwise ) listed fairly prominently. It wouldn't need to be obtrusive, just something in the "about" box or in the user manual or license agreement would do.
But it shouldn't be hard to find. Right now, I wouldn't have any idea where to look for patents used in Microsoft Office, for example. If I were writing a text editor, I'd like to know what to avoid doing. It's a crock that I should have to think like that, but if I have to, I should at least know where to look, rather than having to spend a lot of effort doing some sort of search.
Well, the Apple IIgs was introduced in 1986, and
GS/OS didn't come out until 1988, but even so,
this is before the 1990 date on this patent.
What would happen if companies applying for
patents on things with prior art not only had
their applications rejected, but had to pay an
additional fee. Might this make the system more
self-monitoring?