/ Apparently prior art doesn't mean anything. /
Exactly one of the main problems with software patents in the current system.
Michael Masnick writes about this at techdirt:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0439545883.shtml
The problem is that obvious mostly only means there exists many hits in search results in USPTO:s database.
For information (processing, calculation, business) its to darn easy to use other words in describing... information. Searching gets silly... hence abstract. Hence mine field.
Patents where never meant for abstract matters. Presenting information and doing calculations can be new in so many ways, easily. There are no heat problems in organizing digits as such. The problem here is that patents are only obvious if there are other patents very like them in the eyes of (US)PTO:s. This makes software patents stupid by default. They are too easy to make "un-obvious" by design.
Naaaa.. who really reads patents to work around them? Take what is known as the core mp3-patent, http://eupat.ffii.org/pikta/mupli/ep287578/index.en.html for instance. (its not valid anymore now)... Ogg infringed this. But most folks just assumes its clear by not looking at patents or not claiming them in open standards. The patents are still there like land mines scaring people off from publishing source or selling software. Thats a very powerful barrier against innovation.
These patents survive because they are too darn invisible, if they would be more transparent we would have removed them from the software market a log time ago. Instead they create uncertainty and risks that make us invent less and stay friends with the giants that protect us.
Gartner also made the case that EU governments should not abandon open standards, but rather redefine open standards by removing royalty free use. Thats basically tossing the success story of the Internet out the window and still using it as branding name for the new EIFv2 "European Interoperability Framework"
See EU-commission pages at:
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7728
and a post about it here:
http://bosson.blogspot.com/2009/05/stealing-free-from-open-standards.html
Because of the high risks. Ignoring also has other creeping side effects. Like:
First they went after the gnu/linux-distros, but I had no real relation to a distro, so I didn't really care... Then they came after all word processors, but then, I didn't program word processors. Anyway none of them could read any of the big file formats that the government was forced to use by then, so none of them had any reason to consider court actions.
Now all IT-consultants have to pay patent-tax and sign agreements not to think too freely. The larger ones still have some freedom. They removed all our free tools and wrapped us in DRM so we where unable to develop anything outside the patent-box.
Software patents tend to be very broad. Often too broad to find covering prior art. That is, too broad to invalidate even though some specific application of the patent claim has prior art... is a game of abstractions.
Of course, Microsoft offers insurance: www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/indemn ification/policy.mspx
I wonder how long it will take for the others to follow.:-(
Something on antitrust or invalid program claims must be issued to stop this or else there wont be any free software no more - at least without Microsoft EULA:s./jonas
Hence, method vs program claims.
A apparatus/method claim makes running software an infringement.
A program claim makes publishing software an infringement.
You just cant overlap copyright more than this.
In fact 'program claims' started the surge in granting software patents in Europe in 1999-2000, with the IBM I+II at the European patent office - board of appeal, where "records on a carrier" was found to be a sort of infringement.
In the long run, this stupid thinking also makes films scripts or music scores into patentable ideas.
Its the definite crossing from the real world into the abstract world of fantasies, and thats what makes it so easy to file software or abstract patents in general.
Dropping program claims would be the first and best step to avoid patents on pure abstracts and will rise quality like nothing else. Just what everyone is crying for...
Get your facts right. They are using FAT-patents to get license fees from storage manufacturers. And they started using it *after* storage manufacturers where using vfat as a standard for flash drives.
So the methods bears all the marks of asserting broad patents against standardization initiatives. The set of patents they hold could just as easy be used to kill off mozilla or any other competitor, but they should be playing it safe not to upset any legislators too early.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have reference to those predictions?
/ Apparently prior art doesn't mean anything. / Exactly one of the main problems with software patents in the current system. Michael Masnick writes about this at techdirt: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0439545883.shtml The problem is that obvious mostly only means there exists many hits in search results in USPTO:s database. For information (processing, calculation, business) its to darn easy to use other words in describing ... information. Searching gets silly... hence abstract. Hence mine field.
Patents where never meant for abstract matters. Presenting information and doing calculations can be new in so many ways, easily. There are no heat problems in organizing digits as such. The problem here is that patents are only obvious if there are other patents very like them in the eyes of (US)PTO:s. This makes software patents stupid by default. They are too easy to make "un-obvious" by design.
Naaaa.. who really reads patents to work around them? Take what is known as the core mp3-patent, http://eupat.ffii.org/pikta/mupli/ep287578/index.en.html for instance. (its not valid anymore now)... Ogg infringed this. But most folks just assumes its clear by not looking at patents or not claiming them in open standards. The patents are still there like land mines scaring people off from publishing source or selling software. Thats a very powerful barrier against innovation. These patents survive because they are too darn invisible, if they would be more transparent we would have removed them from the software market a log time ago. Instead they create uncertainty and risks that make us invent less and stay friends with the giants that protect us.
Gartner also made the case that EU governments should not abandon open standards, but rather redefine open standards by removing royalty free use. Thats basically tossing the success story of the Internet out the window and still using it as branding name for the new EIFv2 "European Interoperability Framework" See EU-commission pages at: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7728 and a post about it here: http://bosson.blogspot.com/2009/05/stealing-free-from-open-standards.html
What about this patent for XML: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,3920 0380,00.htm
This is whats going to happen sooner or later too...
MS patents also cover stuff like logic operators and mouse-clicks.
Because of the high risks. Ignoring also has other creeping side effects. Like:
n ification/policy.mspx
First they went after the gnu/linux-distros, but I had no real relation to a distro, so I didn't really care...
Then they came after all word processors, but then, I didn't program word processors.
Anyway none of them could read any of the big file formats that the government was forced to use by then, so none of them had any reason to consider court actions.
Now all IT-consultants have to pay patent-tax and sign agreements not to think too freely. The larger ones still have some freedom.
They removed all our free tools and wrapped us in DRM so we where unable to develop anything outside the patent-box.
Software patents tend to be very broad. Often too broad to find covering prior art.
That is, too broad to invalidate even though some specific application of the patent claim has prior art... is a game of abstractions.
Of course, Microsoft offers insurance:
www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/indem
Seems Linspire has taken the bait and given up linux for MS:
http://www.linspire.com/linspireletter
I wonder how long it will take for the others to follow.
Something on antitrust or invalid program claims must be issued to stop this or else there wont be any free software no more - at least without Microsoft EULA:s.
Hence, method vs program claims. A apparatus/method claim makes running software an infringement. A program claim makes publishing software an infringement. You just cant overlap copyright more than this. In fact 'program claims' started the surge in granting software patents in Europe in 1999-2000, with the IBM I+II at the European patent office - board of appeal, where "records on a carrier" was found to be a sort of infringement. In the long run, this stupid thinking also makes films scripts or music scores into patentable ideas. Its the definite crossing from the real world into the abstract world of fantasies, and thats what makes it so easy to file software or abstract patents in general. Dropping program claims would be the first and best step to avoid patents on pure abstracts and will rise quality like nothing else. Just what everyone is crying for...
Get your facts right. They are using FAT-patents to get license fees from storage manufacturers. And they started using it *after* storage manufacturers where using vfat as a standard for flash drives.
So the methods bears all the marks of asserting broad patents against standardization initiatives. The set of patents they hold could just as easy be used to kill off mozilla or any other competitor, but they should be playing it safe not to upset any legislators too early.