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!
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).
Correct, and as pointed out in TFA:
(emphasis mine) (TFA is mine too, actually)
Maybe I should have made it clearer that I'm advocating two separate actions here:
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!
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!
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.
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