Slashdot Mirror
Prominent Pro-Patent Judge Issues Opinion Declaring All Software Patents Bad (techdirt.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: A lawsuit brought by the world's largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures, and handled on appeal (as are all patent cases), by the notoriously awful Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) may have actually killed off software patents. The ruling came from a judge that has ruled over patent cases since the 1980s, and it appears he's been born again into the anti-software patent world. Judge Mayer pointed out that the First Amendment says that "some" patents should not be allowed. The whole concurrence is worth reading, starting with the First Amendment argument -- which is kind of fascinating in that it goes well beyond what most people had talked about in the past concerning software patents. Judge Mayer makes the point that basically all software is unpatentable because software is "a form of language," which we don't patent: "All software implemented on a standard computer should be deemed categorically outside the bounds of Section 101. ("Section 101" is 35 U.S. Code; 101 is the part that governs patents.) The central problem with affording patent protection to generically-implemented software is that standard computers have long been ceded to the public domain .... Because generic computers are ubiquitous and indispensable, in effect the 'basic tool []' of modern life, they are not subject to the patent monopoly. In the section 101 calculus, adding software (which is as abstract as language) to a conventional computer (which rightfully resides in the public domain) results in a patent eligibility score of zero .... Software lies in the antechamber of patentable invention. Because generically-implemented software is an 'idea' insufficiently linked to any defining physical structure other than a standard computer, it is a precursor to technology rather than technology itself."
And there is another problem with software patents, and this is, what Judge Mayer was pointing out: Describing what a program is supposed to do is a far cry from actually implementing it. Only the actual implementation running on a universal purpose computer does affect the physical world. Software patents thus are merely a wishlist of what a conceived program shall do on an universal computer. The task of actually implementing them would still be a necessary, creative act. This is quite different from a patented mechanism, where the patent application actually contains a full description how to built the mechanism, e.g. the complete code.
Federal judges are appointed for life, they aren't elected.
In order to copyright it you have to publish. Binaries aren't subject to copyright.
Not true, in the U.S. something is copyrighted the moment it is created.
In order to get statutory damages and attorney fees, a work must be registered with the Copyright office.
17 U.S. Code 412 - Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement
In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), an action for infringement of the copyright of a work that has been preregistered under section 408(f) before the commencement of the infringement and that has an effective date of registration not later than the earlier of 3 months after the first publication of the work or 1 month after the copyright owner has learned of the infringement, or an action instituted under section 411(c), no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for—
(1)
any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or
(2)
any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.
Copyrights give lower level of protection for lower level of innovation and creativity. Whereas patents give higher level of protection for a much higher level of innovation. [...] As a creator, I want the strongest protection, whatever is applicable.
After twenty years, patents give zero protection.
If someone reverse engineers your software and then re-releases it as his own I'm guessing you can still sue for damages.
On what legal basis, other than patent infringement?
Nonliteral copying. It worked for The Tetris Company.
The thinking behind having a patent law are roughly as follows (apologies for huge post, BTW)...
Innovation is discouraged where people who innovate, and pay costs for innovation, have their market stolen by others who copy them; or who are required to keep commercial secrets, running the risks of betrayal, or of trade secrets dying with them inventor (reputed to be what happened with the 'purple of Cassius' deep red stained glass).
The innovation may not necessarily be 'invention' as we know it. if you bought new techniques into your country by studying what people were doing abroad, you deserved to recoup your research costs over a finite time. You could patent an idea in the UK that had been patented elsewhere up until 1968. This is not a UK eccentricity - before international patent treaties, many other countries had a similar approach. So, the idea that a patent was something that exclusively covers something that you thought up is just about 50 years old.
The idea that you could only patent a solid object or a physical process is more recent. This change happened about 1985 to 1995. People could patent something physical, but the physical thing could include a programmed processor. Then people tried to patent the particulars of the processing side, or patent the program as stored on memory as a physical thing, usually as an additional claim as an alternative to some dedicated processor which could be patented under the previous law. I was working in Canon on patents at the time, and saw it happen bit by bit.
There is no abstract reason why patenting a non-physical thing such as an algorithm should necessarily be a bad thing. In practice, there was relatively little established prior art experience, so cunning people were able to patent things that have been common knowledge for a long time, but have no known inventor. Again, this is not new: the Gillette company was threatened in 1913 by a latter-day patent troll patenting their safety razor, which was not protected in US law unless someone could find written evidence that was acceptable in court to prove that Gillette were the owners. Gillette won in the end, but the 'Gillette Defence' is still a term for the enormous cost of proving something in court even though everyone knows it.
The patent is a restrictive rule: it restricts the rights of everyone but the inventor. We may support such laws in the short term to encourage invention and innovation, but this support should always be tempered by a reluctance to restrict the rights of others. There are exceptions to patent law that allow people to use specific drugs for other problems not covered by the original patent. This is intended to allow re-use of existing compounds, rather than requiring the invention of a second-best compound to get around the existing patents.
In then end, the case for or against allowing software patents hangs on whether they do more harm than good. The experiment since they came in is almost exclusively against them. Software is usually well-protected by obscurity for several years because reverse engineering is hard. An imitation product will always lag behind the true one, provided the product is still being developed. If you wanted a logical argument against software patents, you might argue that the Church-Turing thesis covered a machine that could calculate anything that was calculable, and so should anticipate and cover all possible programs. This judge is arguing from a different direction, but the argument has similarities, but with the human mind is replacing the Turing-complete machine, and language is replacing algorithms. Judges can't just call laws into existence, even on the grounds of extreme obviousness, but they can put put ideas such as this, and they will become law if they stand the test of time.
Let's all hope they do.
Yeah. It's too bad this was a concurring opinion rather than the majority opinion, and thus apparently doesn't establish precedent.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
When I was in college, software was considered unpatentable, because a software program is an algorithm, and algorithms were unpatentable because they are essentially a "law of nature" or "scientific discovery". At some point the law changed to accept "business method" patents (which led to the "with a computer" patents). Imagine if someone had patented the concept of "an interrupt" or "DMA" or "UART", how everything would be completely incompatible - or there would be a small handful of oligarchies running hardware just as they do software. Oddly enough, at the same time as software patents were being enforced, Intel lost its case that its 8080 instruction set was patentable; the finding split the difference between the DESCRIPTION of the instruction set and the IMPLEMENTATION. So direct cloning of an x86 chip would be prohibited, but making a new chip that implemented the same instruction set (and a few more besides) allowed Zilog to make the Z80 just slightly better than - and upwardly compatible with - the 8080. This begat CP/M, which begat the personal computer industry, which was brilliantly co-opted by the IBM Personal Computer (note the capital letters, that makes it COMPLETELY different). And then in turn IBM lost control of the "IBM-compatible" computer market, which at this point is defined by the motherboard specification from the *software* company.