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."
So write your congress critter now and tell them to scrap software patents!
The sad fact is that extending copyrights basically hurts nobody with money. Ensuring Micky Mouse is perpetually in copyright only harms the public domain and the insults the various founding principles of America.
Patents on the other hand, do harm people with money, and worse, patent trolls ensure that everyone is at huge risk. Thus change will happen.
It is depressing that, as a highly trained engineer, my patents have less monetary value to society than the latest Justin Bieber garbage. If society had to pay the same toll to 'patent artists' as it has to pay to 'creative artists' then you'd have to stick a nickle in your computer every minute just to keep using it.
IMHO - the best thing would be to say lifetime of patents == lifetime of copyrights - battle royal begin! At least there would a well financed opposing view point to the idea that copyright should be forever.
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.
Okay, that's fair. But look at the examples I give, and tell me that doesn't seem like an abuse of the system. Honestly, assembling a flight plan on a computer is an example of going too far.
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.
I don't believe this is really the case.
It's true that politicians don't understand technology very well. They come from varied backgrounds, but rarely does that include IT. So they need people to explain technology topics in terms they can quickly understand. Otherwise, they'll listen to the people who are in their face most often - and that's usually the big lobbyists.
Do some research on software patents before you talk to your Senator or Representative. I often bring up the progress bar patent (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."
Never fails to stun them into realizing that's stupid.
I honestly believe that if enough people go to their Representatives RIGHT NOW and talk to them about software patent reform, they'll listen.
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.
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.
I call BS on that one. Have you actually talked to your Congressperson? They do want to hear from you.
Maybe I'm lucky. I live in Minnesota, so I have Senator Al Franken: privacy, net neutrality. I actually met him a few times, which is what got me interested in doing something about software patent reform. Al made a great comment to me: "It's your job (constituent) to tell me what's important, and my job (Senator) to go do something about that in Washington - but first you need to let me know what's important."
And true to form, when I contacted his office, they listened to me. At my first contact, I spoke with the office's state director. Then I got to meet the constituent affairs person. That led to a conversation with the office's lead counsel on patent issues, and who works with Al on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. Everyone was very helpful, and very engaged with what I had to say. His office is the one that pointed out the USPTO RFC to me - I had missed it. (USPTO web site is hard to navigate.)
Don't be defeatist with your "They are interested in how much money they can get from donors" attitude, and do something about it. On Slashdot, we've been bitching about software patent reform for years (and I have a low UID). Finally, now we have a window of opportunity. Don't lose it!
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.
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!
I'm VERY interested in hearing why the American Medical Association and IEEE are against the bill. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
The "First to File" is a major issue for a lot of folks. I believe this is true for IEEE - not sure about AMA, but I'd hazard a "yes" on that too.
A software patent is a form of thought censorship: it means that there are certain ideas you're not allowed to think up and write down and exploit, even though it's entirely your idea and you came up with it on your own, just because someone you've never met has paid the government for it some time earlier. Worse, you don't even know you had a thoughtcrime until years later when you get sued for infringement.
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 think you're missing the point. The thing that is being patented is prior art or not novel. Computers and the Internet are also 'prior art' and their use for storing data, processing data by the application of algorithms, and transmitting data is in the public domain for the all encompassing set of things called data and/or algorithms. Simply taking a single existing (albeit inefficient) process or a particular type of data and putting it on a computer (even if doing so makes it practical) is not patentable.
One example (mentioned elsewhere) is the preparation of flight plans from a server, transmitted over the Internet and wireless links. All of these functions have long standing equivalents in the manual paper, filing cabinet, copy machine and US Mail delivery world. They have been preparing flight plans "by hand" for years. So the use of "computers" and the "Internet" isn't novel. It may speed things up, but I certainly can't patent delivering vegetables to the market by building a faster truck.
Have gnu, will travel.
This is true. I work for a Rep in the US House. And I've been talking to lots of people about this bill. Not too many constituents, though, which is too bad. Lots of business people from our state though. We do want to hear. Especially on bills like this, which are very technical. I'm having trouble offering a recommendation since this is a flawed bill with some good, some bad, and much missing.
But I'll tell you this, too: It's pretty much too late to change this bill on most issues. That was a done deal by leadership and committees over the past 6 months. Rank and filers don't get much of a say on the major issues unless they're on that committee. Big changes (like software patents) will blow it up. There is a small chance the House will have a chance to substantively amend on the floor, which could get interesting. So this advice if you call:
0. Call the House. The Senate voted (something like 95-4) to pass this bill. Now's the time to influence the House process. You can go back to the Senate if there's a conference. ... ... how should the Rep vote given that reality?
1. As for the "LA (Legislative Assistant)" handling patent issues. Talk to them if you can. If you can't, leave a message and ask for a call back. Many LA's will work 12-16 hour days and are still way behind. So the odds are they won't be there. But most will call you back.
2. Don't focus overly on software patents. You can say that they're bad. You can say vote against them in an amendment if you get the chance. But
3. For the most part we'll want to know what you think of this bill. Will things be better or worse if we pass it? Yes, I know it's flawed, but
4. If you want to go deep, look at amendments next week and offer opinions on those if there's something impt.
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
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.
No, it won't. Because someone else will get another patent covering basically the same area with different language. If you cry "prior art" they'll point out some trivial difference and have the patent upheld. If you actually build the prior art, they'll claim your device is equivalent to theirs and thus covered by the patent... and likely win.
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
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.