Open-source Overhauls Patent System

K-boy writes "The US Patent Office has announced new plans to reform the patent system - and right up there at the front is open-source software. Techworld argues that it is in fact open-source software that has been the driving force behind the reform." From the New York Times article: "At a meeting last month with companies and organizations that support open-source software (software that can be distributed and modified freely), including I.B.M., Red Hat, Novell and some universities, officials of the patent office discussed how to give patent examiners access to better information and other ways to issue higher-quality patents. Two of the initiatives would rely on recently developed Internet technologies. An open patent review program would set up a system on the patent office Web site where visitors could submit search criteria and subscribe to electronic alerts about patent applications in specific areas."

Comments

Doesn't solve major problems

[nattt]

Major issue with software patents cannot be solved by better searches for prior art - the only way to fix software patents is to do away with them in their entirety.

Fear this is anti-open-source (defense agains OS)

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA: An open patent review program would set up a system on the patent office Web site where visitors could submit search criteria and subscribe to electronic alerts about patent applications in specific areas.

So basically this means open source projects are now liable for making sure they don't infringe on corporate patents.

I fear this seems like either lawyers creating a whole new industry that'll inflict expensive patent-searches and licensing deals on more projects; or SQ industry lobyiests trying to put more burdens on open source projects.

By making a whole bunch of legal game playing a required part of an open source project, MSFT will finally make Open Source development as bureaucratic as themselves.

A Troll in TFA

[Red Flayer]

"One frequent critic of the patent system, Gregory Aharonian, publisher of The Internet Patent News Service, said it was unlikely that the new initiatives would have a significant impact, because the patent office was not able to deal efficiently with the information it already had."

Let's see, give someone organized data and better search tools, and it won't help them search faster and more accurately?

Hey! My bike chain broke because my gears are not set properly. Let's not fix the gears, it's the chain that broke!

I'm not saying that information access is the only problem the patent system has. And I also understand that the three steps proposed are not a panacaea. But not taking steps to fix part of the problem. just because the problem exists? Ridiculous.

Re:A Troll in TFA

[aztracker1]

I think they should pump up the filing fee to enough for the PTO to hire skilled people to do due research on patents. make the filing fee like $10k by itself with no guarantee, then another $1k if approved... isn't it like reverse that now? if there was more to "lose" and a greater chance of not being approved, I think that would help.

Hell, google needs some business ideas, become a gov't consulting co to implement better search systems... that's what they're good at, let them spread their wings a bit.

Simple solution?

[LightningBolt!]

If there were an official website where patent applications were scrutinized and commented on by the public, I'd bet a lot more patent applications would be thrown out due to prior art. Here on slashdot, every time some patent is mentioned at all, there's some cranky old technology guy who remembers doing the same thing back in '78 on some project at Fubartronics Inc. Further, competing companies would have the incentive to do the research to find solid prior art and comment on it.

Reform?

[amightywind]

An open patent review program would set up a system on the patent office Web site where visitors could submit search criteria and subscribe to electronic alerts about patent applications in specific areas.

This will only make anti-innovation patent enforcement more efficient. Great for patent holders (and the Patent Office I might add). Lousy for everyone else. I was hoping they would consider rescinding all software patents.

Rome wasn't built in a day . . .

[mmell]

and they didn't have to clear away the rubble of a previous city before they got started.

You might want to cut 'em a little slack - if their first effort at patent reform falls short, then it's up to us to give 'em another nudge in the right direction. Until then, it might make sense to just watch and see.

I for one...

[oscartheduck]

I for one would like to congratulate our Open Source Geek overlords. Yes, I mean you, you GNU/Linux running geeks you. This isn't the radical overhaul that the patent system needs, but it's something, and it's a clear sign that our commitment to ideas and ideals that we know make sense can have an effect if we keep with them and keep pushing the good word.

Other interesting developments in Patent Reform

[Unequivocal]

I found these interesting links about more patent reform work out there. The first one is a partnership between IBM and some university people on building some kind of peer review patent system. Looks very interesting:

http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent

Second is an article by one of the university people with more details on this (PDF warning):

http://peertopatent.jot.com/WikiHome/PeerToPatent- BethNoveck.pdf

Re:Your Sig: The 9th Amendment

[cpt kangarooski]

Have you read Roe v. Wade?

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

Generally though, no matter what source you're using for the right to privacy, the question becomes one of due process -- whether an imposition on someone's rights is allowable given some competing state interest.

Re:But it's an advance.

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument against the validity of software patents lies in the fact that they are really mathematics patents. Except for the past 2 decades, math had always been placed deliberately out of bounds for the purpose of granting patents. My understanding on why is that math is simply too foundational for all other inventions across all science and engineering disciplines. For an extreme (okay, silly (I hope) :-) example, imagine the chilling effect patents would have on, say, algebraic identities.

Of course, with the invention and refinement of mechanical computers in last 50 years, the number, size, and specifity of mathematic expressions (i.e., programs) has grown at a even faster rate than, say, Moore's Law (IMO). Given the new world of software, it is possible that the historic reasons against patenting math have become obsolete. I don't think so but that's just me and, apparently, the patent office disagrees with me.