"The USPTO interpreted these new decisions very broadly and began to issue patents on computer software--hitherto considered uncopyrightable as mathematical algorithms, since they are not really human inventions."
First off, computer software, both object and source code, has always been amenable to copyright protection.
Secondly, the decisions the author refers to have nothing to do with computer software, only methods of doing business. Moreover, patent applications for computer software have been routinely filed and allowed for over thirty years.
The real problem is that thousands of dot.bomb corps were awarded patents on questionable inventions due to lack of funding for additional examiners and technology resources through which to carry out patentability searches. As for the PTO being a cash cow, sure, but because Congress regulary strips generated revenue to pay for general expendatures of the federal government, we aren't seeing a better system as a result of increased revenue.
Lobby Congress to stop taking PTO funds and maybe fewer questionable patents will be issued.
That's all well and good, but you need to read each and every element of the claims. In order to invalidate a claim (by anticipation), a prior art reference must disclose each and every element of the claim. I haven't looked at the SightSound patents in about a year, but I believe the broadest claim has payment by a credit card as an essential element.
Seizure is available in civil matters. For example, if you're a trademark holder and have evidence that a third party is selling counterfeit goods, a warrant can be obtained to send in the Marshalls for a seizure. I've done it before, and it can get quite ugly.
While a number of interesting points are made by the author, he offer no support for any of his assertions, e.g., 95% of software patents are invalid or companies conduct research only to build patent portfolios. Any good argument should have a structure with SUPPORT for each point raised in the argument other then just saying it's so. I'm sure many companies, lawyers, and scientists would argue that they fund and conduct research to make new discoveries. The patent process is used to commercialize these discoveries and prevent others from free riding on their work.
How many of you are patent attorneys? Even better, how many of you are lawyers? It must be pretty easy to sit and bitch about the problem when you have no idea what your talking about. Patents have never aided the progress of the arts and sciences?!? You have to be kidding. There may be problems with the system, but it sounds like many people are just pissed beacuse they want to just be able to TAKE the things they want. Sorry, but that's not how it works. People have a right to protect ideas they create and prevent them from being taken just like people have a right to sell the software they create as opposed to having it ripped off/given away. Open Source/Free Software may work well as a solution for some problems, but how much progress will be promoted if all software is free and no one is making money on it? Lots of progress when everyone is out of work, huh?
After reading through a lot of the comments posted in response to this article, it seems to me that a lot of open source types are opposed to the patent system because it prevents them from simply taking what they want. Patents in general exist to allow companies and individuals to prevent others from practicing their ideas for a limited time in return for revealing their ideas to the world. Essentially, it's a motivator for innovation. You come up with a good idea, and in return for letting everyone know about it you'll be protected for a set number of years. It would be pretty tough to convince a major company, who is ultimately liable to its shareholders, to invest millions of dollars and hours of their time to create a product only to have it ripped off by the competition. Now I know many people are complaining that the patent system is "out of control" due to parties such as Amazon obtaining patents for ideas that many agree are completely obvious. Unfortunately, technology is moving so fast that attorneys and the USPTO don't have the time and resources to find every piece of prior art when it comes to software patents. Instead of simply complaining about the situation (because that will NOT change anything), the community should work within the system to effect change. The best way to do this would be to provide IP attorneys who are in the software industry and the USPTO a new resource by which to identify prior art. If patent agents at the USPTO could simply go to a well maintained site that cataloged software innovations and inventions that have been done, a lot patents that many people in software consider "obvious" would never be granted patent protection in the first place, thereby eliminating the litigation that gives lawyers such a bad name. Unfortunately, however, when someone comes up with an idea that no one has done before, even something as simple as "one click shopping" they will be granted a patent for it. The standard is obvious, not simple. Providing lawyers and the PTO with a resource to accurately identify prior art, especially obscure prior art, is probably the best solution to the problem. I guess the biggest problem is getting a group of people together to get a site up and running. Any suggestions? --The opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not represent the opinions of my employers--
Slashdot Mirror
Once the product has been sold, they can't exercise any control over its further sale according to the first sale doctrine.
"The USPTO interpreted these new decisions very broadly and began to issue patents on computer software--hitherto considered uncopyrightable as mathematical algorithms, since they are not really human inventions."
First off, computer software, both object and source code, has always been amenable to copyright protection.
Secondly, the decisions the author refers to have nothing to do with computer software, only methods of doing business. Moreover, patent applications for computer software have been routinely filed and allowed for over thirty years.
The real problem is that thousands of dot.bomb corps were awarded patents on questionable inventions due to lack of funding for additional examiners and technology resources through which to carry out patentability searches. As for the PTO being a cash cow, sure, but because Congress regulary strips generated revenue to pay for general expendatures of the federal government, we aren't seeing a better system as a result of increased revenue.
Lobby Congress to stop taking PTO funds and maybe fewer questionable patents will be issued.
Just my 2 cents...
That's all well and good, but you need to read each and every element of the claims. In order to invalidate a claim (by anticipation), a prior art reference must disclose each and every element of the claim. I haven't looked at the SightSound patents in about a year, but I believe the broadest claim has payment by a credit card as an essential element.
Seizure is available in civil matters. For example, if you're a trademark holder and have evidence that a third party is selling counterfeit goods, a warrant can be obtained to send in the Marshalls for a seizure. I've done it before, and it can get quite ugly.
While a number of interesting points are made by the author, he offer no support for any of his assertions, e.g., 95% of software patents are invalid or companies conduct research only to build patent portfolios. Any good argument should have a structure with SUPPORT for each point raised in the argument other then just saying it's so. I'm sure many companies, lawyers, and scientists would argue that they fund and conduct research to make new discoveries. The patent process is used to commercialize these discoveries and prevent others from free riding on their work.
How many of you are patent attorneys? Even better, how many of you are lawyers? It must be pretty easy to sit and bitch about the problem when you have no idea what your talking about. Patents have never aided the progress of the arts and sciences?!? You have to be kidding. There may be problems with the system, but it sounds like many people are just pissed beacuse they want to just be able to TAKE the things they want. Sorry, but that's not how it works. People have a right to protect ideas they create and prevent them from being taken just like people have a right to sell the software they create as opposed to having it ripped off/given away. Open Source/Free Software may work well as a solution for some problems, but how much progress will be promoted if all software is free and no one is making money on it? Lots of progress when everyone is out of work, huh?
After reading through a lot of the comments posted in response to this article, it seems to me that a lot of open source types are opposed to the patent system because it prevents them from simply taking what they want. Patents in general exist to allow companies and individuals to prevent others from practicing their ideas for a limited time in return for revealing their ideas to the world. Essentially, it's a motivator for innovation. You come up with a good idea, and in return for letting everyone know about it you'll be protected for a set number of years. It would be pretty tough to convince a major company, who is ultimately liable to its shareholders, to invest millions of dollars and hours of their time to create a product only to have it ripped off by the competition. Now I know many people are complaining that the patent system is "out of control" due to parties such as Amazon obtaining patents for ideas that many agree are completely obvious. Unfortunately, technology is moving so fast that attorneys and the USPTO don't have the time and resources to find every piece of prior art when it comes to software patents. Instead of simply complaining about the situation (because that will NOT change anything), the community should work within the system to effect change. The best way to do this would be to provide IP attorneys who are in the software industry and the USPTO a new resource by which to identify prior art. If patent agents at the USPTO could simply go to a well maintained site that cataloged software innovations and inventions that have been done, a lot patents that many people in software consider "obvious" would never be granted patent protection in the first place, thereby eliminating the litigation that gives lawyers such a bad name. Unfortunately, however, when someone comes up with an idea that no one has done before, even something as simple as "one click shopping" they will be granted a patent for it. The standard is obvious, not simple. Providing lawyers and the PTO with a resource to accurately identify prior art, especially obscure prior art, is probably the best solution to the problem. I guess the biggest problem is getting a group of people together to get a site up and running. Any suggestions? --The opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not represent the opinions of my employers--