Slashdot Mirror
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."
From a quick scan of the article, it appears the changes will affect searches for prior art only (which is a good improvement), but will not address the deeper problem of patents being issued for things like business processes. (One-click, anyone?)
awww IBM's finaly growing up, it got its first three periods.
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.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
"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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Please!
before the overhaul takes place will some do-no-evil company please patent the following:
- flash advertisements which use sound
- flash advertisements which take over your browser and shove themselves over the content you're trying to read
- annoying flashing siezure-inducing animated GIF advertisements
and then sue every advertiser which uses that style ad for patent licensing fees, and commit to not use those style ads on any web site, EVER?
Thanks. This would be an appropriate use for patenting prior art. If you do this you will have my eternal appreciation.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I mean, since when has there been an "Open submission" for prior art in any of the USPTOs area of authority, or to have a searchable database for newly published applications that allows you, me, and everybody else to offer feedback directly to the examiners who need the information most [Note: I am including the patent quality index" under the heading of feedback by the way.]
From the Techworld article:The USPTO will host a public meeting to discuss the projects at its offices on 16 February.
I hope that RSM, ESR, etc. Lawrense Lessig et. all are there to defend this proposed change.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
If it's not a step backward, it's a step forward!
Later we can worry about elliminating software patents entirely.
Besides, take a look at this:
Not only can prior art be searched more effectively, the PEOPLE (this is, us!) can submit their comments about the patents in question. In other words, if an obvious software patent goes to slashdot, we, the slashdotters, can complain about it DIRECTLY!
And that's a good thing
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.
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
I think all the patents should be put in a queue that is visible to the public and that we can moderate. Also, maybe there should be a limit on how many patent submissions you can make in a day, or a week, or something. And I don't think Roland Piquepaille or Beatles Beatles should be able to patent anything.
Wait... didn't we already have this discussion today?
Yeah, the Courts pretend that the 9th amendment doesn't exist, or the debate over the "right to privacy" in the Roe vs. Wade case in the Supreme Court would not have happened. I wonder what would have happened if somebody sat them down and said, "Of course the right to privacy exists, read the 9th Amendment!" Yeah, I thought as much.
This is nice, but the real problem with patents today is not novelty, it is obviousness. The article implies that the obviousness problem is not being addressed. The worst patents in recent memory have been bad because they were obvious, not because they had been done before. One-click was novel (as proven when the prior art challenge failed). One-click was not non-obvious. Obviousness cannot be tested by patent examiners; they are not skilled in the art.
I recently read what seems like a good solution; when a patent is submitted it must be tested for obviousness. Submit the problem that the patent solves to a panel of experts. If they come up with a sufficiently similar solution, the patent is void. Funding? Submitters who get their patents voided for obviousness pay the expense of the panel - calculate the cost at the end of the year and divvy it among the applicants. That has the added bonus of penalizing patent flooders, and since there will still be rivers of patents coming from IBM and MS, the individual patent submitter will only risk a tiny fraction of the cost of the board.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance