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.

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.