Slashdot Mirror
Patent Law Ruling Threatens FOSS
savio13 writes "The EFF has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a patent law ruling that could pose a serious threat to Free and Open Source Software projects. A recent Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision required that even the most obvious incremental advances can be patented unless it can be proved that someone else suggested it prior to the patent being filed. As such, many 'bad patents' are being used as roadblocks for legitimate innovators, especially those working for FOSS projects (who have better things to do then search through thousands of technical papers for some mention of the obvious). The full brief is available online in PDF format."
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Imagine someone patents a software idea. Some OS group of guys pick up that idea and make an OS project. That OS project is free, but becomes popular. Companies begin using the OS project. The patent troll then comes a long and sues the companies. The companies in turn sue the developers, who being average OS developers do not have an LLC set up and wind up losing their houses, savings, and half their wages for the rest of their lives.
Two important points here: 1) patent trolls are evil leeches on society and 2) set up an LLC to protect your personal assets from lawsuits based on your professional works.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
as Greed drives yet more brilliance out of the USA
IMHO, They deliberately try to make it sound like the EFF is at the forefront of this case, appealing it to the Supreme Court.
What really has happened is that KSR has gone to the Supreme Court asking for review, and the Supreme Court granted review.
This happened a few months back, actually.
The EFF has filed a brief in support of KSR.
About 10 other briefs in support of KSR have been filed in support of KSR, besides the EFF one, including some more important ones, like the Solicitor General's (representing the views of the US/Bush Administration).
The Supreme Court generally cares more about what the SG thinks than the EFF.
At what point will it become so difficult to do research in the US that all meaningful science is done in other countries?
Due to global trade agreements that enforce US IP laws in many foreign countries, how long will it be before no one in the world can do any meaningful research without being liable for patent infringment?
No, the summary is saying something more like this:
1) Someone patents something. (Even though there's prior art)
2) FOSS Person doesn't check patents, because he knows he's doing something that's obvious and has been done before.
3) FOSS Person writes a program violating patent that should never have been issued.
4) FOSS Person gets sued by commercial entity that holds the rights to the obvious patent, and loses because he doesn't have the resources to fight it in court.
Stupid patents should not get granted. If they do, the patent office has become no more than a filing cabinet to reference before going to court. OTOH, maybe that's the whole idea.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
You know that judicial activism that those "right wing wingnuts" bitch about? This is an example of it. Judges seem to often lack any common sense, reading comprehension skills and any sense of limit on what words can actually mean. Kelo v. New London's gang rape of the phrase "public use," which was interpretted in its most legalistic and textbook definition, rather than it is more long-lived, vernacular use, is but one of many examples... this being the latest.
Even most patent law defenders would agree that this is bad and outside the scope of what patents are for. Unfortunately, judges have often proved that if they can interpet something some way, they will almost seemingly for the hell of it.
The only solution I can think of involves ending life-long terms and breaking up the law schools, which are, quite frankly, dens of sophistry, malfeasance, linguistic license and villainy. Generally speaking, any law that requires a highly specialized person, trained **in the law** (not the regulated profession), to interpet it, is a bad law.
What really bothers me is not simply that the patent system is being used to protect the obvious these days, because it's a reflection on the general zeitgeist in America.
It seems to me in a very general way that there is no sense of achievement in American business outside of the next quarter. Instead of concentrating on moving forward and doing new things, there's an emphasis on not moving at all and creating wealth by protecting what someone has.
It's become a very different kind of hostile business climate. Not so many years ago a hostile business climate was described as one with high tax burden and many regulations that made it expensive to run a business. I'd say we're well on our way to eliminating both in the U.S. and yet the business climate is even more hostile because of the threat of litigation. Is the country better off for this? For the majority of Americans, I'd say no. Not at all.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Patents are supposed to be for specific implementations, not general ideas.
Check out the variety of automatic transmission designs, each under it's own patent. Yet clearly they do the same "obvious" task of shifting.
The only reason that isn't the case for software patents is that the USPTO and legal system haven't got a clue how to do anything but follow the money. And the money is in the hands of those who benefit from misinterpreting the law.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
All of that is wrong. Have you never heard the phrase "You can't patent an idea"?
Certainly you are describing the state of US patents as they are practiced by the USPO, but the law and the justification behind patents are in flat opposition to that model. Basically, the patent office has taken it upon itself to rewrite the law to suit the economic/political ideas of its chief. Who happens to be an idiot.
I think that the current system is so bad that we would probably all be better off scrapping the whole thing. At the end of the day, monopolies are bad, and that's what a patent actually is - a monopoly backed by the entire force of the government. Do we really want that in the 21st century?
Yes, you're correct- let's all ignore IP laws, and just be careful to do so anonymously so that we can't get in trouble. Who cares what laws they pass, we'll just ignore them anyway. Of course, if you're going to run illegal software, why bother with Open Source when you can just pirate the latest Microsoft software?
We've discussed this with you in the past, Steve- Open Source is worthless if it isn't legal and doesn't credit the inventor. For one thing, many Open Source products come from or are supported by companies that would not participate in illegal activity. For another, most people want to take credit for the work they have done. For a third, laws that illegalize good behavior make criminals out of good people.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Yes but if you invent a braking system that makes a motor vehicle stop, then get a patent for it. Then someone else goes out and makes a braking system that is different but does the same thing. In the software world you would be able to sue someone else just because the outcome is the same even if the implementation is comletely different. This is one reason software patents shouldn't exist. Someone could write a program in VB and patent it.. then someone could come and write a similar program in Java that has a completely different implementation and get sued.