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."

11 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. /. editors have better things to do... by RingDev · · Score: 5, Funny

    Than to sort through yestarday's stories: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/15 13218

    -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
    1. Re:/. editors have better things to do... by Richy_T · · Score: 4, Funny

      The scene: A badly lit office somewhere in America. Empty pizza boxes are scattered around and a plush penguin lies face down on the floor.

      Sounds of death and destruction come from the corner. Panning around, we see a Slashdot editor (it doesn't matter which one) hunched over a keyboard playing the latest version of quake or WoW or Everquest (it doesn't matter which one). Almost inaudible, a "beep beep beep" sounds from watch on the editor's wrist. It's time for a new Slashdot article. He looks up at his second monitor to the open "Slashdot Submitted Articles" page and scans frantically for the words "Microsoft", "SCO" or "Patent" (it doesn't matter which one) clicks quickly at the "accept" button (maybe he gets the button for the previous article, maybe the next. It doesn't matter which one) then gets back to the real business of the day, some serious, hard-core fragging.

      Rich

  2. Better Idea... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...maybe the EFF can talk the US Supreme Court into invalidating ALL software patents, not just the "obvious" ones.

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Better Idea... by Reverend528 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You say that as if there are non-obvious software patents.

    2. Re:Better Idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Disclaimer: I am a patent engineer. I write software patents for a living.

      Let's think about this for a minute. There are two common arguments for doing away with software patents: 1) It's just math (i.e., algorithms), and 2) software is already covered by copyright.

      Addressing 1) first, this argument could be taken to its natural conclusion by suggesting that *nothing* should be patented, since *everything* is simply a combination of laws of nature. But if we take a step back, we realize that what people are patenting is novel *uses* for laws of nature. 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?

      Some will respond to the previous points with 2). BUT, and this is an important point, copyright only covers the specific implementation or manifestation of the invention. So, if I were to copyright an insanely powerful peer-to-peer model, you would only have to use a different programming language, change the system architecture a little bit, throw a different GUI on it, and away you go. You may be copying my ideas EXACTLY, but you've found a way around the copyright. So it's clear that copyright doesn't protect certain kinds of inventions to the extent that patents do.

      Now, I'll be the first to acknowledge that the USPTO needs improvement. The examination process is flawed, and recent reform proposals have fallen far short of what's actually needed. But does that mean we should just do away with an entire class of patents? Of course not.

    3. Re:Better Idea... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    4. Re:Better Idea... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
  3. Wave goodbye everyone... by STDOUBT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    as Greed drives yet more brilliance out of the USA

  4. Yeah, so? by Dan+Berlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Soo... by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Think about it this way though, if some part-time OSS developer can stumble on the same idea how non-obvious is it?

    There is a difference between "not done yet" and "non-obvious". The non-obvious leap is something where even if you knew about the problem you wouldn't have likely found the solution.

    Take LZW for example, it's a rather straightforward addition to LZ78. In my books any competent comp.sci student would try that too. It's obvious. By the same token, it wasn't obvious how to get MP3 like efficiency 20 years ago in encoding audio [given that the state of the art back then was ADPCM, CELP and u-Law].

    Most OSS developers couldn't implement an MP3 codec [hence the lack of options in choosing such a lib] but most could implement LZW, specially when given LZ78.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  6. Way to Kill Innovation by mpapet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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