Slashdot Mirror
Software Patent Reform Happening Now
Jim Hall writes "Many of us in IT recognize that software patents are a bad idea — you can patent just about anything if you put "on a computer" at the end of it. But now we can finally do something about it. Congress is considering the America Invents Act — your Representatives are very interested in hearing from you. Also, the USPTO is inviting public comments to change the system (you need to file by June 29, 2011.) I've written a blog post about software patents with more, starting with a primer of copyright and patents."
For the better or worse ???
Well, that depends on whether we take action on this, or let it sit. As I've written here before, How will a Senator or Representative know what are the important topics their constituents need addressed? They pay attention to it when you direct their attention, but first you need to get their attention. And the way to get their attention right now is through writing letters, calling, and visiting them.
Right now, your congresscritter is paying attention to patent reform - albeit without software patents. Make sure they hear from you to do the right thing with software patents.
This is the same legislature that has basically extended copyrights indefinitely, I'm sure this will end well
So write your congress critter now and tell them to scrap software patents!
No matter what should be done with software patents. What will be done is ensure the profits of the biggest lobbyist there, and that won't be abolish them, at best will make harder to non-lobbyist to fill them.
It is not software patents itself that is a bad idea, it is that math (or anything else) is patentable just because it is executed on a computer that is a bad idea, which do cover many software patents.
...you can patent just about anything if you put "on a computer" at the end of it.
That is by design. If that wasn't a separate patent, then Ikea could hold patents that affect HP devices.
I'm not saying software patents are good, I'm strictly saying that the 'put computer at the end of it' rationale actually has some basis in reason.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Software is just not a patent-able matter http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php
1. Find who your Senators / Representatives are.
2. Buy some decent letter writing materials. A physical letter carries a LOT more impact than an email.
3. Write the letters without profanity or insults. Include your contact information.
4. Send the letters to your Senators / Representatives.
5. Get your friends to write similar letters. The more letters they get, the more they will focus on this issue.
6. If an important vote is coming up, place a follow-up call to remind them how important this issue is.
The people most INVOLVED with the political process are the people who shape the political process. Corporations can pay people to devote time to influencing such decisions.
They'll happily take your opinion but then do what the guy with the most money wants them to do.
The RFC by the USPTO is limited in scope to restructuring the re-exam process for increased efficiency, quality, and throughput. Comments on this process will need to be framed by the current statute and case law built on the statute, because the USPTO cannot change the statute by itself. Instead, this is talking about changing internal procedure as well as possibly changing the regulations (37 CFR).
This law will make things worse. Also, this will make it seem like a problem has been addressed, so getting the problem looked at again will take another 30 years.
Well unless you plan on spending millions, it is the corporations who will continue to have the biggest voice and the biggest bribes.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
>Your Representatives are very interested in hearing from you.
No... no they're not.
They are interested in how much money they can get from their campaign "donors" to vote one way or the other.
--
BMO
If you're going to write a primer on patents, at least try to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. Getting basic facts wrong about for example term length makes you look silly.
IMHO - the best thing would be to say lifetime of patents == lifetime of copyrights
Apologists might rationalize the shorter patent term thus: Unlike patents, copyrights in theory have an independent creation defense. Proving an allegation of copyright infringement involves proving that the alleged infringer had at some time had access to a copy or performance of the plaintiff's work. This theoretical defense does break down, however, in the case of musical works played over radio and over loudspeaker systems in grocery stores, where someone can effectively force access to a work on someone else.
how do you keep someone else from prevent you from your own work
Defensive publication. Google it if you want..
with this shit about dumping inventor rights over first to file
As I understand it, a switch from first-to-invent to first-to-file only affects conflicts of patent vs. patent, not patent vs. published prior art. An invention that is not novel would still be not patentable, and an invention described in a publication in the prior art would still be not novel.
Yes, patents are often written to be overly broad. Sometimes that's a hedge against a later change in technology, so the patent still is applicable in some way. Other times, it's just to get the patent accepted - if it sounds hard, it must be "new", right?
Richard Stallman wrote a great article about that once, about how they intentionally write these software patent applications to be obscure. I don't see it on my blog, so it must be queued for next week (I post one item a day.) Check back next week.
But on the flight planning patent - RunwayFinder was a free web site run by a guy out of his home. But FlightPrep sued, claiming infringement on their patent. A big company against one guy ... not surprised he shut down, rather than lose his home in an expensive lawsuit.
your Representatives are very interested in hearing from you
Is there anyone out there who still believes this?
Le français vous intéresse?
I'm VERY interested in hearing why the American Medical Association and IEEE are against the bill. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
I wonder what Google would lobby for?
ipv6 is my vpn
This is a fourth rebranding of the proposed Patent Reform Act. Deckchairs get rearranged but there is little substance to all this and none of the driving forces have computer users in mind.
Some procedures get changed to make X more efficient and to improve quality sometimes for Y.
None of this solves the software patents problem in the USA. The software patents problem *isn't* caused by some bad apple applications slipping through the procedures. The problem is that software has to conform to standards (interfaces and data formats), and these are being covered by thickets of patents.
If there's 900 patents on something (i.e. mpeg), then weeding out the worst 10% changes nothing.
We need abolition, and we need Congress's support in this. The current Supreme Court has shown itself to be reluctant regarding substantial changes to law, and even if we won there, if we have no support in Congress then our victory would be wiped out by a legislative change.
Yes, do work on this proposal. Work to get software clearly excluded - you have to keep trying if you want to have a chance. But don't get overexcited. This is unlikely to be a big turning point - that is, of course, unless you get active and make it happen.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/The_Patent_Reform_Act_(USA)
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
From reading the Wikipedia article, it is pretty obvious the Intellectual Ventures(Read: Patent Troll Incorporated), is leading the opposition to this bill. If patent trolls like IV oppose the America Invents Act, then that seems like a pretty decent heuristic to determine that the AIA is a good idea.
A corporation has the millions, yes, but members of Congress really do listen to constituents. Here's the thing, though, about letter-writing: depend on the member, they may not realize what's being sent to them if it's a one-off. When I worked on the Hill, I answered an email to my Senator that was about DIRECT. I thought it was a fantastic idea, but I also knew that NASA had examined the issue, that my boss didn't deal with space issues, and, after some research, hadn't said anything on the subject. Therefore, I sent an email thanking the constituent for his input, reiterated that "I" trusted NASA to make the right decisions on this matter, and encouraging him to write again.
This is in contrast to an email-writing campaign on some changes being made to the financial taxation system (this was when I worked for a Member of Parliament there). I got about 100 emails and it was coupled with some personal interactions. At that point, it caught the ear of my boss and he started paying attention. In summary, you don't need millions; you just need cohorts and a good sales strategy.
What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
I can't see much that is better. The present system is being gamed. The new system will also be gamed. All it takes is one really good lawyer to figure the angles, use them once, then all the corporations will follow suit. Sad fact is, our legal system favors him with the deepest pockets, and this changes nothing.
Outlaw software patents, and be done with this farce.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Why should you be able to patent it for thinking of it? With hardware, you need to implement it, and if someone can figure out a better implementation they can patent that. With software, you can't, and that pretty much stops innovation in places that have software patents.
Now send yours. Click the "inviting public comments" link above and email the patent office. There is an address in the link.
It's one thing to sit and bitch about the state of things. You have an opportunity to fix it, right now.
So do so. Be heard!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Please don't feed the troll.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Another way to look at it is that within the next 17 years nearly everything will be public domain.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
software patents are bad, yet copyright for music in perpetuity, handed down to heirs or held by companies, is good?
After years of fighting Mr. Ballard at the federal Patent Office, in court and across a negotiating table, the banks went to see one of their best friends in Congress, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who inserted into a patent overhaul bill a provision that appears largely aimed at helping banks rid themselves of the Ballard problem. The Senate passed the bill easily in March.
Banks do not like “business method” patents.
But is it the right thing?
Slightly at odds to my remarks about Microsoft in a sibling post, let's try this Microsoft example from Wikipedia.
Any comments?
--- From Wikipedia
Impact of the changes
Opponents of H.R. 1249 assert that the impact of the changes to the current law will be to effectively neuter the U.S. patent system. Patents owned by startup companies, research institutions, and independent inventors ("startups") will be unenforceable against large corporations. Avistar Communications Corporation's encounter with Microsoft illustrates how this plays out. In 2007 Avistar was a startup developing desktop videoconferencing and online collaboration tools. Avistar had 29 U.S. patents, a number of pending U.S. patent applications, and numerous foreign patents and applications. Avistar approached Microsoft to negotiate a license to Avistar's patented technology. Microsoft wanted a license on terms Avistar would not agree to, and decided to use post-grant opposition in the PTO to litigate Avistar into submission. After six months of licensing negotiations, Microsoft, in February and March 2008, requested reexamination of each of Avistar's 29 U.S. patents.[66] Defending a single patent in a reexamination proceeding "routinely costs a patent owner hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees."[67] To pay the legal expenses associated with the reexaminations, Avistar, in April 2008, announced that it would cut its work force by about 25 percent.[68] This was not enough. With legal costs piling up, Avistar was forced to sell substantially all of its U.S. patents and patent applications, and related foreign patents and patent applications to Intellectual Ventures ("IV"). IV, originally called the Patent Defense Fund, was founded in 2000 by two-ex Microsoft employees. The idea was that IV would provide a way for Microsoft and other large technology companies to protect themselves against patented inventions. "Initially, each company ... was asked to pony up $50 million. The plan was that IV would then go out and buy patents that were knocking dangerously around the marketplace, and investors would get a license to the entire portfolioâ"effectively immunizing them from the danger of intellectual property litigation." [69]. IV has raised over $5 billion.[70] Avistar sold its patent portolio to IV in January 2010, taking a grant-back license so it could continue to sell its patented products.[71]
Avistarâ(TM)s encounter with Microsoft reduced the price of Avistar stock 61%,[72] and Avistar no longer owned the intellectual property it spent years developing. Microsoft imposed unbearable costs on Avistar using the reexamination procedure available under current law, i.e. without the benefit of the even costlier post-grant opposition procedures created by H.R. 1249.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Invents_Act
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
No matter what rep you work for, their office - through the auspices of a series of elected officials - is known to have completely and utterly broken their solemn oaths; known to have violated the constitution repeatedly and deeply; and you... you suggest we trust the current rep in that office, that we spend our time providing suggestions to them.
You're hilarious, you are.
But I'll tell you what. When the reps you work for rewrite the laws to respect the commerce clause for what it actually was meant to accomplish; when they reverse the ex post facto laws they've put into the legal system; when they stop trampling the bill of rights; maybe it'll be worth contacting them without bribe in hand.
Not that anyone sensible is holding their breath for any of that, mind you.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
My problem is that my US Representative is Joe Walsh. A bigger idiot, corporate lick-spittle and traitor to the American citizen never existed. Writing to him is a huge waste of time. (I know I've tried.) Calling him is worse. You're lucky if you ever get past voicemail. (I never have.) Joe doesn't want to hear from the "little people". The only way to get his attention is to have "Corp." after your name and a check in your hand.
Patent licenses are one of the main forms of passive income enjoyed by rich people along with copyrights and real state.
Software patents should not exist. These so called inventions should be protected by copyright instead but this is going to be very hard to change since the same rich people earning passive income from them is the people that pays lobbyists or happen to be the lawyers and judges that hear these cases.
Patent reform to the point of eliminating software patents can be done but it would require a massive effort similar to the Civil Rights movement.
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
I'll write to my Rep. He's a Republican, so I'll put it in terms I think will resonate. Patents are government interference! Get the government out of my business!
But I want to go much further than a mere bill. I want to remove the "exclusive" part of both patents and copyrights. No more monopolies. To do that would, I believe, require a constitutional amendment. I'd like to change to a permissive system, in which anyone can use anyone else's work without explicit permission, payment, or anything else burdensome. As matters stand, the default is "no". If you can't contact the rights holder, and negotiate an acceptable agreement with them, then you have to do something else. They don't have to be reasonable. They don't have to deal. Or you do it anyway and risk a lawsuit. In practice, so many things are patented that you are stepping on many toes whenever you do anything at all. Totally impractical to determine whether you are violating thousands of patents, let alone track down hundreds of rights holders. Your only real choices are to risk the lawsuits, or do nothing.
Let's change that default to "yes". Make it so inventors want their inventions used. If someone else uses an idea you patented, you can apply for money from various funds set aside for this purpose. In short, the replacement system would be an updated, modernized form of patronage.
I've been hacking up a draft for the "Freedom of Knowledge" Amendment, as I've been calling it. Not at all satisfied with it, yet. I think such a proposal, if it went anywhere, would really light a fire under the owner class in our society.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I often bring up the progress bar patent [blogspot.com] (which expired just a few months ago.) Start with "You know when your computer boots up, or you're loading a web page on your browser? Notice that progress bar at the bottom of the screen? That's patented, and technically someone would have had to pay a license for that."
That is not the impression I get from reading the patent, which is much more specific (and the patent claims the methods to accomplish this task. In fact, the patent doesn't even mention a bar, it mentions a rectangle of twenty characters, and the characters disappear in an unspecified order (but not necessarily linearly):
The icon does not require a graphics display to be used and therefore can be used on both graphics and non-graphics displays. The icon of the prepared embodiment has five rows consisting of four percent (%) symbols surrounded by a border. At the beginning of a task, a task monitor quantifies the task into substantially equivalent task work units. All twenty "%" symbols are present and displayed to the user. When the task monitor determines that one task work unit has completed, one "%" symbol is replaced in the icon by a replacement character, such as a blank or null character. The replacement of one "%" symbol each time a task work unit completes continues until all of the "%" symbols are replaced, indicating 100% completion of the task. The order in which symbols inside the icon are replaced is determined by a pattern array and can be modified if desired. The symbols used inside the icon and for the border are selected to be available in virtually all languages, and can also be modified to meet the needs of a particular user.
Granted, it still seems pretty trivial, though it was filed in 1989. The main problem is that it makes no sense for software patents to last 20 years from filing... that's an eternity and then some in the software world.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I think that there had been some abuses on the software industry since govement lacked to regulate this at its time. It is time to pass a law that: 1) All software source code of commercial product should be available for public observation under the license the author choose. 2) All software that reached EOF must be open source under a license that allow legally derivate work.
That's a great example, and it shows why we (as a slashdot community) need to contact our Senators and Representatives now about software patent reform! Especially the Representatives, since that's where the America Invents Act currently is up for vote.
My advice: if they aren't willing to take action now (because AIA is about to go for vote, so they don't want to change it) ask them to support a procedural change with the USPTO. See my other post on that. If the AIA passes, the USPTO is supposed to propose new rules and guidelines for review, etc - and review is our next opportunity to fix software patents. Community Review (where the USPTO can proactively poll other industry experts if a software patent application seems "new" or if it's "obvious") is one idea.
The key point, though, is that your Representative or Senator knows his/her constituents are paying attention to software patents. When they know the voters at home care about it, the politicians start to care about it.
But in general, if you live in Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Utah, or South Carolina, you need to talk to your Senator's office about technology issues. Why? Because your Senator is on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. Technology is a subject your Senator is very sensitive to right now.
Hey, if you can get your Senator or Representative to pay attention to you by posting a video on YouTube, then go with it.
But I'm just telling you what we know politicians will listen to. And right now, the best way to get a politician's attention is to contact them through traditional means. And yes, writing letters or calling their office (or if you happen to live nearby to an office, visiting them) is something they listen to.
Thanks for the post! If I had mod points, I'd give them to you.
Hi. I submitted the story.
Did you bother to read the blog I linked to? I know this is Slashdot, but it helps if you RTFA. I know the America Invents Act doesn't do anything about software patents. From the linked blog:
And then I talk about what we can do to fix that. If your Rep won't take action, encourage him/her to support a procedural change at the USPTO. And a link to the USPTO call for comments on streamlining the patent re-examination process, which is another way "in" to fix things.
Jim, your software patents primer page asserts: "A patent protects an invention."
Is that really the case, in your opinion? (Honest question, not sarcasm, since I was personally defrauded of multiple patents by a former employer.)
It seems to me that protecting inventions is a root of the problem: it shouldn't be an invention that is protected, but a right, of an inventor. Inventions don't have rights, inventors do.
The implication of that, in my view, is that intellectual property rights (in the US) should not be transferable away from individual inventors, and that the protections should not outlive the inventors themselves, since rights are no longer useful to an inventor after death, though an invention likely survives its inventor.
Case in point: Java. James Gosling was ostensibly its inventor. He doesn't own the Java IP - Oracle now does, via his former employer, Sun; Oracle bought Sun to obtain that IP. They've sued Google over that IP. Gosling is now a Google employee, so in effect, he's being sued over something he invented, when his status as inventor would be stipulated by all involved - it's just not a relevant point of law.
I think some other model is needed for funded inventions, maybe something similar to what Sen. Sanders recently proposed, e.g. for inventors who work for companies. I.e., if it is truly an organization that invents and not specific individuals, then some other form of protection should be applicable. And it should have a legal fragility similar to that of trade secrets, since organizations themselves are fragile. Intellectual property should not outlive its inventors, whether those are individuals or organizations, since what is to be protected is inventors' rights, not the invention itself.