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."
One might object to the arguments presented in the second section of this paper as empirically unsupported--after all, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The rejoinder is that a half-billion dollar verdict is more than a mere anecdote,204 and the plural of these "anecdotes" is a shameful abomination. The burden is on the proponents of the current software-patenting regime to point out where the billions of economic gains can be found.
Iran captures three CIA agents
I figure if dogs can use this method to demarcate their territory, why can't people? So now the question is, will Bill Gates mark each package himself, or will Balmer get to do it too? It seems like this job would be way more than any single person can handle.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Why don't the inventors of early languages ,computer and IT technology just patent everything and sue everyone. Then the courts will take on the matter.
Kind of like 'burn everything down' idea from Vietnam.
If the system is bad and allows abuse then this one way to kickstart something new.
The greatest problem are submarine patents which do not even exist as widespread software products, so how could marking help?
The other problem are patents that lock proprietary file formats and communication protocols; marking these software products doesn't help to make software interoperable, the opposite is true.
From the article :
This paper starts from the proposition that software patents are, practically speaking, hidden away in the recesses of the patent office and practically impossible to find. It proceeds under the first economic principles of the patent system to argue that there can be no justification for patenting software when the public has no knowledge of the patents' scope or technical disclosure. It concludes by observing that patent law already provides a mechanism for disclosing patents to the public, the marking requirement, and proposes putting teeth into it so that holders of software patents would be required to play by the same rules as holders of other kinds of patents.
I think that the problem many have with software patents is not that they are hard to find, but rather that it is so easy to patent almost anything, regardless of how trivial/obvious and many times without regard to prior art. Marking may help you from getting tripped up by an existing patent, but if the basic premise is that the majority of software patents are evil, then marking just makes the evil easier to find.
"Marking" software patents would be a start to solving the major issue of us not knowing what is patented or not, but it doesn't help those of us who aren't planning to buy the software to see those markings... Also it doesn't solve the issue of the incredible number of software patents covering nearly anything you can do in software - and considering the fact that technology changes so quickly, if a patent on software were to exist that didn't stifle innovation it would have to be of such short duration that the patent owner wouldn't benefit from it anyway -- developers would just wait out the expiration date. On the other hand, we could at least limit software patents to those things that really aren't all that obvious, but the patent office wouldn't know recognize what is innovative anyway, would they?
"This paper starts from the proposition that software patents are, practically speaking, hidden away in the recesses of the patent office and practically impossible to find.
I don't see the problem. They're clearly marked in the basement, right by the sign that says "Beware of the Leopard."
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
...and it's not killing off patents either, software or otherwise. Patent holders should be required to demonstrate their patent, especially if it's software, AND the patent holder must utilize the patent in one or more of their software applications or services built on software applications. Amazon is welcome to patent the one-click web shopping cart but they must utilize this on their website, for instance. However, companies like Eolas which exist solely to collect patents cannot enforce them because they offer no software or service which utilizes the plug-in patent. Only when you do this will marking be a useful tool to identify what is patented. if submarine patents are allowed to exist, and companies are allowed to exist solely to collect patents, marking is going to be of no use to anyone.
There is only one way to reform Software Patents.
That is to abolish them.
Software patents have never worked, and can never work. There is no way they can be made to work.
Marks do nothing to solve the absurd problem of scale. No one can ever assimilate the patent database, or even keep up with new additions, no matter what reforms were enacted. Anyone who tells you their code is "legal" with respect to patents is a bold-faced liar. Every line of code is a ticking patent timebomb.
The very term is just a code word for "Barratry."
They are a legal anomaly and a practical absurdity. They "function" only in that they are almost entirely ignored by those they are intended to govern. In short, they are a very expensive, very destructive farce.
In theory they were meant to be a tool for rich people to shake down poor people, but they even backfire at that, since small "IP" companies can shake down giants with impugnity without being counterattacked, as long as they have no products of their own.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
There are many, many problems associated with software patents.
I never see much mention of the fact that a software patent extends for 17 years makes it equivalent to 100 years in another industry. I think this will become more of a problem as other industries accelerate in production.
Think about the state of computers 17 years ago (1988), who's patents are only now expiring. We're talking pre-Internet.
In general, patents are supposed to encourage innovation. But that was never needed in the software industry. Patents are now used as corporate weapons and nothing more.
The big guys have thousands of patents in their arsenal and you're likely infringing on one of them unless you can PROVE you're not. the result -- the little guys (the innovators) are the losers and ultimately, the entire industry becomes the loser as innovation slows down.
By contrast, my Dell Latitude laptop computer, a tangible, physical device, the outgrowth of many years of research & developement in microchip and printed-circuit technologies, churned out by some mass-producing factory has, four, count 'em, four patent numbers listed on the bottom. Sure, there's probably a bunch more inside, but when a piece of software that lets you read a document has 30+ patent numbers and the computer that runs it has 4, something's a little bit off...
How does one get a job at the USTPO?
It's tricky, from what I've heard. You need to demonstrate basic competence at oxidative phosphorylation.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
An analogy with the real world:
The result: the "aeroplane," a new patentable invention that the glider builders, bicyclists, automobile companies, ship builders and birds cannot charge you royalties for.
OK, so do the same with software:
Whatever procedure they use to "mark" the code can be used to unmark it, because it's all just modifiable information.
A sufficiently hybridized program will succeed in defeating any scheme for marking it, and if they attempt to do this through almost impenetrable obfuscation then no one will want to use their hopelessly unmaintainable code anyway.
Hmmm... maybe this explains something about the apparent insecurability of some M$ code?
Have you ever written any code?
How many patents did you violate in order to write it?
How do you know?
How can ANYONE possibly EVER know?
And even if by some miracle you did know today, how will you know tomorrow, when another 1,000 patents have been granted?
You have no answer to these questions. I know that in advance, because these questions are impossible to answer.
It amazes me that anyone is still confused about this.
Software patents are a ridiculous, unworkable farce. The only reason they "work" today is that they are almost universally ignored, even (or especially) by their supposed proponents.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
and finally
The paper mentionsthe IBM progress bar patent from 1990: Patent on progress bar
Here's a screen shot from the Apple2GS (Actually its running on a GUS emulator becauses it way too old). AppleIIgs screen shot
Notice the progress bar it displayed as it was starting up. Thats from 1983?
That's a European patent.
A lot of our laws especially concerning things that businesses have historically provided for the population are not geared towards how individuals behave but rather large business entities. So there is a sort of 'impedence mismatch' between certain sets of laws and how society is evolving. Intellectual property laws being one of those 'sets'.
Historically large businesses produce goods which ordinary people then consumed.
Now ordinary people are starting to produce goods for orther ordinary people (blogs/podcasts/software/web services/etc...). Thanks to modern technological advances you no longer need huge investments of capital to create, market, and sell things. I can market and sell all by myself thanks to the web. If my product is information-related odds are I can create it cheaply either by myself or with a small group as well.
So while laws regarding copyright, patents, and trademarks work well for businesses that have access to large amounts of capital (what is 50k for filing a patent when it costs us millions to create/market our product) they work against the individual or less capital-intensive businesses.
While personally I think all IP related laws need to be abolished (with the possible exception of trademark but even there I'm not 100% convinced) they definitely need to be made easier to deal with for smaller business entities that don't have ready access to lots of capital(aka money).