EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

11.05.08

Ideas Are Not a Property, Devices May Be

Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Law, Patents at 9:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“IP is often compared to physical property rights but knowledge is fundamentally different.”

Professor Joseph Stiglitz

ONE of the best writers on the issue of intellectual monopolies, among others like Mike Masnick, is Glyn Moody. He has no mercy when he sees an unjust system and yesterday he published this post in IDG about patents and the notion of “property”.

As long-suffering readers of this blog will have noticed, one of my favourite hobby-horses is that the whole idea of “intellectual property” is a trick, designed to plug into the warm and fuzzy feeling most people have about the idea of property, and aiming to cover up the fact that what we are really dealing with here are intellectual monopolies – of which few people are fans.

Also from Glyn, a prelude to another financial collapse caused by paper-thin monopolies? It seems possible. As pointed out in the comments, however, not patents are involved, but something a little more reasonable in this case.

The fact remains that the system was corrupted to the point where simple abstract ideas can be considered ownership, but this era appears to be ending, eliminating along with it billions of dollars in imaginary assets.

Your Business Method Patent Has Just Been Invalidated

[...]

This ruling raises a ton of questions like that across literally thousands of patents. And it is a good thing too because business-method patents tend to be overly broad and abused.

Dana Blankenhorn puts forth the assessment of Bruce Wieder, who comments on the impact of the Bilski ruling [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

“Because there’s no categorical exclusion of these things they probably ought to look at those individual patents to see if they have any value. But you have to look at it patent by patent.”

That’s the word from Bruce Wieder, who heads the patent practice over at Dow Lohnes PLLC in Washington. As always this new legal decision is really great for lawyers.

So what will they be looking for? According to Wieder the court set a simple test. “Business method patents must be tied to a machine,” one that does real transformations of something. You can’t just patent the idea.

For software it’s the same thing. “You have to look at what the software does.” The court gives the example of a machine that cures rubber. You can patent the machine, but not the software timing the process.

The world is at least moving in the right direction. It has been a long time since that last happened.

WIPO
WIPO (World Intellectual Monopolies
Organisation), Geneva, Switzerland

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

2 Comments

  1. Jose_X said,

    November 5, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    Gravatar

    Some patent machine madness and a possible way forward:

    I was going to mention earlier that if general purpose computers with attached peripherals end up being ruled as legit machines depending on the patent, then would it be acceptable to put the thing together on your own if you own the various components already using them for legal uses? Note that the software itself would not be patentable. [See example here http://boycottnovell.com/2008/10/30/bilski-decision/#comment-32129 ]

    One argument is that it would be illegal, ie, the combination would be a patent violation, but then that would seem to mock the idea of a patent since a patent would be granting a monopoly to something whose components would be fairly well understood/unprotected “inventions”.

    One ruling recently said you couldn’t put together two obvious items in combination and get something patentable, but what about 3 or 4? If 1 and 1 obvious leads to obvious, then 1 and 1 and 1 is obvious by induction. Ie, 1 and 1 was shown to be obvious, so now that same 1 and 1 together with another obvious 1 would also be obvious, at least it would once the first two were put together.

    This argument might point to how courts might ultimately rule. A combination of 3 obvious items might be non-obvious if no one could find an intermediate obvious use for 2 of these or if such use would have the addition of the 3rd item be non-obvious.

    The value here is that perhaps existing patents can be shown to be “obvious” if we can break down the invention components into a series of steps, all such steps shown to be obvious constructions from the 2 component parts. This would apply to all patents.

    Patent laws are horrible. They kill growth and cleverness in people for the sake of giving the first person to put that combo together (and file for a patent) a monopoly for 17+ years. Imagine if every person coming up with a mathematical theorem patented it so that no one could leverage that theorem in their own future proofs for 17 years. That would kill mathematics and science and much more as we know it. But why not allow it for mathematical algorithms yet then allow “inventors” to gain that huge anit-social power grant when they make some aspect of the invention physical/machine? Why kill technological advancements? Frequently, it’s actually the abstract ideas/algorithms the ones that require the greatest craftiness. So we don’t allow patenting of the truly difficult for the sake of social advancement in math etc, yet we then allow the patenting of the frequently more obvious physical device inventions [though maybe this won't be allowed in the future if we can show a clear "proof" to the courts as indicated in the earlier paragraphs above].

    Presumably a just reason for granting patent monopolies would be that further advancement along those lines would not be likely in the short term (17 years) and we would want to help subsidize the investments that led to such a discovery/invention. I think this would make some sense for some of the inventions that have been patented over the years. But then this fails horribly for sw patents for the most part (if not in all cases) because the sw industry has shown that basic inventions and inventions supported by past inventions happen frequently — lead to better products for end users frequently. Meanwhile, FOSS has shown these inventions have real value to users/society and to businesses (eg, Red Hat) at *nominal costs* to those contributing to the development.

    A basis for granting any patents should be that it could not be used to restrict products if those products could be shown to be derivable and mass produced at a low investment by those (eg, inventors) taking part. For example, if they came up with the invention pretty much on their own (and can show clear progression of evolution of ideas) and at an affordable cost and could then get it into the hands of users also affordably.

    I think future arguments before the courts (and before Congress, if laws need to be adjusted) should focus on the unaffordability condition and on the lack of a clear recipe understandable by many practitioners as two prerequisites for granting a patent and for validating a granted patent. Perhaps, based on the recipe and cost functions, if a threshold was met and the patent was granted/upheld, a suitable monopoly period and potential royalty conditions would be determined by the PTO/courts ..or perhaps these limits and allowance would only be determined by the courts (not the PTO), once a challenge was filed, in order to help relive the PTO of such burden for each patent granted.

  2. Jose_X said,

    November 5, 2008 at 10:37 pm

    Gravatar

    I added a bit more explanation within a comment titled “Affordability or having been broken into clear recipes should trump patent rights” here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081105132651542#comments

What Else is New


  1. The Fall of the UPC - Part XVII: Bardehle Pagenberg in 'Corona Zombie' Mode

    Gymnastics in logic and outright lies told by Bardehle Pagenberg, which spent endless time and money trying to pass the UPC(A) for its patent-trolling clients



  2. The Fall of the UPC - Part XVI: What's Reality Got to Do With It? Ask Hogan Lovells.

    Hogan Lovells, whose Counsel is Winfried Tilmann, wants us to think that UPC is dead only for formal reasons or that it's not really dead because they just need to vote again; reality, however, is far more complicated, but lawyers gonna lie...



  3. The Fall of the UPC - Part XV: A Three-Week Parade of Lies From Team UPC and Its Media Collaborators

    Team UPC continues to shamelessly lie about the fate of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA); we've studied all the responses we were able to find and we'll tackle them one by one (or firm by firm)



  4. Coronavirus Has Not Slowed Down the EPO's Promotion of Illegal Software Patents

    Using the latest buzzwords and weasel words (digital, games, videogames, digitalisation etc.) the EPO continues to invite bogus patents/applications and boasts about granting a lot more of them



  5. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, April 08, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, April 08, 2020



  6. Links 8/4/2020: Tails 4.5, Septor 2020.2, GNOME Money Awards and Mozilla's New CEO

    Links for the day



  7. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, April 07, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, April 07, 2020



  8. GitHug - A Guest Article by Thomas Grzybowski

    "Now, if Azure revenue has increased 72%, but the gross revenue in this category has only increased 25%, that means that the other components, primary GitHub, are actually a substantial negative."



  9. Links 7/4/2020: Firefox 75, Python 2.7.1 RC1

    Links for the day



  10. The Fall of the UPC - Part XIV: Media Owned and Controlled by Law Firms Did Not Properly Cover the Decision of the German Constitutional Court (FCC)

    We take another look at the shallow if not deliberately misleading coverage in sites that are literally owned and run by law firms, for the benefit of law firms rather than informing the public



  11. The Media Paints Bill Gates as the Man Who Will Save the World While Seattle's Police Department Obstructs Access to Documents About Pedophilia Arrest at His Home

    We're still unable to receive even one single page of the police report about arrest for pedophilia at the home of Bill and Melinda Gates; the media says nothing about this and instead it paints Gates as a national or international hero



  12. IRC Proceedings: Monday, April 06, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, April 06, 2020



  13. Software Patents Remain Junk Patents in the United States (Not Enforceable), Whereas the EPO Keeps Granting Them and Promoting Them

    We take note of the positive outcomes in the US, where courts continue to reject software patents, but in Europe the largest patent office, which sought to replace all the courts, still acts as if patent law does not exist and patents can be endlessly printed irrespective of their merit (or validity as judged by actual courts)



  14. The Fall of the UPC - Part XIII: A Death Worth Celebrating and Many Lies Worth Debunking

    We take stock of positive responses to the decision made by the German constitutional court (FCC) 2.5 weeks ago; we also explain why it has taken so long to piece together firm-by-firm scoresheet for UPC lies



  15. GitHub is Moving the Free Software Movement Into “Check”

    GitHub's growing levels of control over Free software projects (GitHub itself is proprietary and Microsoft-controlled) ought to alarm the community; it's a lot worse than most people care to acknowledge, based on weeks of detailed analysis of GNU/Linux distros



  16. Links 6/4/2020: New Red Hat CEO, elementary OS Hera Updates

    Links for the day



  17. When the Decision is OK and the Judge's Motivations Are Also OK

    Justice Huber made the right call; but the bullies and charlatans who conspired to undermine laws and constitutions will never be satisfied



  18. The Fall of the UPC - Part XII: Doing the Unthinkable by Blaming the Judge's (Justice's) Wife?

    Team UPC and its media partners never cease to amaze us; anybody who stands in their way is either portrayed as a Russian stooge or too ignorant to be worth talking to



  19. The Fall of the UPC - Part XI: Lies Told by Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) in Süddeutsche Zeitung

    Today we look at misleading claims (or lies) published by Süddeutsche Zeitung after the Germans' constitutional court (FCC) had pointed out the obvious, namely that UPC ratification would be in violation of the German constitution



  20. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, April 05, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, April 05, 2020



  21. Links 5/4/2020: MindSpore, Covid-19 Projects and More

    Links for the day



  22. EPO is Just Like Some Cruel Political Party and Not a Patent Office

    The "cabal" which runs today's EPO (even the word "Mafia" seems suitable here) isn't acting -- not even remotely -- like a patent office; it's a patent-printing operation ("protection money" as income) that uses shallow political stunts to manufacture consent with the EU's 'generous' assistance



  23. Digitalisation and Digital Technologies as a Ploy to Justify Illegal Software Patents

    Say "hello" to the next weasel word/s; from the "hey hi" hype wave we've now moved to something "digital" (which can mean just about anything, including algorithms of all sorts)



  24. The Fall of the UPC - Part X: How We Shall Catalogue UPC Lies

    The cult that Team UPC became (one member lying to another member, maintaining a false version of reality) will be judged based on underlying facts, not lying about facts; we start with a token of contempt for IP Kat and Bristows LLP (there are overlaps)



  25. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, April 04, 2020

    IRC logs for Saturday, April 04, 2020



  26. Major Revelation: Microsoft Blackmail Against LAMP (GNU/Linux and Free Stacks for Servers) Goes At Least 16 Years Back, Predating the Novell Patent Deal

    (Techno-)Anthropological analyses of Microsoft's patent war on Free/libre software must take into account what Microsoft did to MySQL, a Swedish company at the time



  27. Links 4/4/2020: Sparky 5.11, Firefox 74.0.1, POCL 1.5

    Links for the day



  28. IRC Proceedings: Friday, April 03, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, April 03, 2020



  29. Links 3/4/2020: Ubuntu Beta, GNOME 3.36.1, ExTiX LXQt Mini, NetBSD 8.2 Released

    Links for the day



  30. Digital Communication, Digitalisation and Videogaming Among the EPO's Latest Smokescreens for Illegal and Abstract Patents on Algorithms

    The EPO keeps liaising with the EU to promote patents which EU officials have themselves said were illegal; to make matters worse, the EPO's violations of its own laws inspire the United States to do the same


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts