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."

Comments

Better Idea...

[Penguinisto]

...maybe the EFF can talk the US Supreme Court into invalidating ALL software patents, not just the "obvious" ones.

/P

Re:Better Idea...

[Daniel_Staal]

Patents are supposed to be on a specific implementation of a specific idea. If I see your idea and come up with my own, different, implementation, that should not be covered by your patent.

So, from your argument, copyright already does that for software. So what's the point of the patent again?

(Note: Ideas are not supposed to be patentable or copyrightable. Only implementations or expressions of them (respectively) are.)

Re:Better Idea...

[ElleyKitten]

If I'm the first person to design voice recognition software, why would that be any less patentable than a new kind of rubber? The point (theoretically, at least) is to reward hard work and innovation. Why should software engineers be any less entitled to that kind of reward?

If you patent your rubber, I can work on a new, better type of rubber. If you patent voice recognition software, can I work on a new, better type of voice recognition software? Patenting voice recognition software would be like patenting all rubber; it's way too broad. Most software patents are way too broad, and thus stifle creativity instead of encourage it like patents are meant to do. Software copyrights, however, cover the implementation of software (not the vague concepts), so I am not allow to copy your voice recognition technology but I am allowed to work on new, better ways of voice recognition. Copyright law isn't perfect, but for software it is better than patents, at least the way the system is currently.

Re:Better Idea...

[pieterh]

Dear anonymous patent engineer,

The patent system, much like software, is the creation of our minds. It's an artificial system of monopolies with only one purpose, to maximise the amount of innovation society produces, through appropriate protection of investment. Copyright is, of course, exactly the same, only different.

Your arguments don't address the actual question, which is much simpler than technical debate about maths, the reality of the universe, and the difference between an idea and a piece of work.

The question is simply: does the patent system stimulate programmers and SMEs to invent, or does it not. It is a question with a black and white answer. Patents are either good for software, or they are bad for it. There are no special cases: any mechanism that produces more software, more cheaply, will do so systematically across all domains.

If the answer is yes, you will find programmers and the CEOs of SMEs in their thousands invading the streets, or at least writing emails, demanding more patent protection.

But, surprisingly perhaps for someone who has graduated to the position of engineer of patents, you find yourself confronted by masses of unhappy, angry, confused programmers and SME CEOs who detest software patents with such a fury that they are willing to sacrifice their time, their money, and years of their lives, in some cases, to oppose wider patentability of software.

Software patents must be stopped, and rolled back, or the software industry will suffer and in some parts of the world, die.

There is no pity in economics - inefficient systems are punished mercilessly, and if the US persists in its mindless pursuit of universal patentability, it will simply arrive at the stage where no-one - not the software industry, not the music industry, not the movie industry - will invest in copyrightable works, because every idea and concept will be owned by a patent engineer.

At which stage the patent engineers of the world can write the content.

Re:But... it's free.

[RingDev]

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

Wave goodbye everyone...

[STDOUBT]

as Greed drives yet more brilliance out of the USA

Yeah, so?

[Dan Berlin]

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.

Way to Kill Innovation

[mpapet]

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.

Grandparent was correct

[msobkow]

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.