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

05.27.09

US Breeds Software Patents

Posted in America, Europe, IBM, Law at 4:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

USPTOSummary: A look at some new articles about software patents in the United States

THERE ARE some new comparisons out there which show the difference between the European and United States-based patent systems. Great risk remains however because these two might be combined in a sense [1, 2]; that’s the plan of proponents of software patents anyway. From Science Business: [via Digital Majority]

One of the fears – particularly in the software community – is that globalization of patents will mean dumbing down to the system in the US, where the bar for what can be patented is set lower than in Europe.

In the EU the system not only sets tougher standards for applicants, it’s also much more expensive to litigate here than stateside, partly because you have to fight it out in several different national patent courts, rather than in just one in the US.

IAM Magazine, which is pro-patents and litigation, shows that the US system is more patent-happy and trigger-happy when it comes to litigation (that’s where lawyers like the IAM crowd make money). Here is why, based on the experience of SAS:

Even in Europe’s most expensive jurisdiction, the UK, it is very unlikely to cost more than £1 million ($1.5 million) to litigate a case. In Germany, France and Italy you are looking at perhaps $200,000 to $300,000 at the most. In the US, the latest I saw was that on average getting a first instance decision in a big case will give you little change from $5million. In other words, SAS could litigate a case in the UK, France, Germany and Italy, probably throw in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, and still spend less than it would cost to litigate in the United States. But even were it to cost $10 million and you won, it would be money well spent if you ended up fighting off a competitor and protecting or establishing a revenue stream.

If legal action is discouraged, how it that a bad thing? Was the introduction of patents intended to spur lawyers rather than scientists?

Watch what type of redundant software patents IBM is filing for:

IBM Wants Patent For Regex SSN Validation?

“What do you get when you combine IBM contributors with the Dojo Foundation? A patent for Real-Time Validation of Text Input Fields Using Regular Expression Evaluation During Text Entry, assuming the newly-disclosed Big Blue patent application passes muster with the USPTO. IBM explains that the invention of four IBMers addresses a ‘persistent problem that plagues Web form fields’ — e.g., ‘a social security number can be entered with or without dashes.’ A non-legalese description of IBM’s patent-pending invention can be found in The Official Dojo Documentation. While IBM has formed a Strategic Partnership With the Dojo Foundation which may protect one from a patent infringement lawsuit over validating phone numbers, concerns have been voiced over an exception clause in IBM’s open source pledge.”

IBM should know better than this. It should help the ending of software patents rather than promote them.

Wired Magazine has this short new article about the genesis of software patents (some time before I was born). Here is where we stand today:

In 2007 alone, nearly 39,000 software patents were issued in the United States.

Does this promote the creation of more software? That, after all, is the original purpose of such intellectual monopolies. This whole bubble market has truly gone out of control.

Software patent on rise

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

14 Comments

  1. Jose_X said,

    May 27, 2009 at 7:23 am

    Gravatar

    Software patents are an embarrassment (just look at the example given above). They leave a dirty mark on all that participate.

    Wasn’t IBM the one that recently said that the bar for software patents needed to be raised? Any bar is too low, but I was hoping their idea of a high bar was a little higher than a regexp for an SSN.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    No, IBM has many junk patents.

  2. The Mad Hatter said,

    May 27, 2009 at 9:47 am

    Gravatar

    Software patents aren’t the issue. Patents are the issue. Software Patents aren’t any worse than the KSR Patent for installing a microswitch in a certain location (see KSR vs Teleflex).

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    There is a level of ethical and moral degradation in each patent, but it varies depending on the area and the nature of the patent.

    Complete implementation is an example where patents are not even needed, notably trademarks and copyrights. Some argue for the elimination of those too.

    The Mad Hatter Reply:

    Yes, there are some problems with Trademark and Copyright law. One example being that non-commercial performances of a song, technically you have to pay to perform “Happy Birthday” if you take the kids to McDonald’s for a birthday party.

    As to Trademark law, again, there should be a non-commercial exemption. Some kid painting Mickey Mouse, scaning it, and puting it up on their web site is not a crime.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Speaking of McDonald’s, They patented making a sandwich (in the USPTO).

    Jose_X Reply:

    I agree. Some classes of patents are worse than others because, eg, of greater opportunity costs to society. A lot more inventors/developers will be handcuffed by a typical software patent than by a typical industrial process patent because you have a lot more people developing software. You also have greater costs because the evolution of software is faster so more useful software *per contributor* is forgone in 20 years than useful industrial contributions per such contributor.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    I agree. Some classes of patents are worse than others because, eg, of greater opportunity costs to society.

    It probably also depends a great deal on who you ask. I am most disturbed (in the sympathetic sense), for example, by protesters whose lives are at stake because of USPTO-granted patents on life-saving drugs or even human genes. Then again, as a programmer, I am most focused on the harms of software patents. I am not properly qualified in biology.

    Jose_X Reply:

    I forgot to add.. because the Internet+communication, computers, and other advances have lowered costs, sped up development, increased access to credit and services, allowed more people to participate in the process, etc, arguably all patents today take a greater toll than they did decades back.

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> I am most disturbed (in the sympathetic sense), for example, by protesters whose lives are at stake because of USPTO-granted patents on life-saving drugs or even human genes.

    Well, yes, that is a whole different argument I wasn’t thinking about.

    If no one could solve problem X for a hundred years and someone did it in one year, then they might argue that it’s acceptable to allow them to prevent everyone else from exploiting the solution for a measly 20 years; however, I think a more accurate scenario is that a solution would have been forthcoming within 5 years. There are too many capable people working on important problems and feeding off each other. The one to run to the USPTO likely gained from others as much or more than they put back.

    We still can’t ignore that some types of experiments are costly and are carried out by a limited number of people; however, with the Internet, you have a huge global workforce working on almost any problem of any significance. Perhaps for drug patents a much more limited monopoly and limits on fees — if we were to keep patents around for these cases, which, as argued, perhaps we shouldn’t.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    I forgot to add.. because the Internet+communication, computers, and other advances have lowered costs, sped up development, increased access to credit and services, allowed more people to participate in the process, etc, arguably all patents today take a greater toll than they did decades back.

    Yes, the same goes for dissemination of knowledge. Journals (in the printed sense, with huge libraries) become Web sites and conferences/letters can become E-mail correspondence or Internet chats.

  3. Dale B. Halling said,

    June 4, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    Gravatar

    The arguments against software patents have a fundamental flaw. As any electrical engineer knows, solutions to problems implemented in software can also be realized in hardware, i.e., electronic circuits. The main reason for choosing a software solution is the ease in implementing changes, the main reason for choosing a hardware solution is speed of processing. Therefore, a time critical solution is more likely to be implemented in hardware. While a solution that requires the ability to add features easily will be implemented in software. As a result, to be intellectually consistent those people against software patents also have to be against patents for electronic circuits. For more information on patents and innovation see http://www.hallingblog.com.

    oiaohm Reply:

    The is a bigger problem. Take the MS approved COM(Component Object Model) protocol patent. Yes MS made a new design. There is a Older design still alive in OpenOffice called UNO that could in theory invalidate the patent.

    Yet people still try say UNO is in breach of COM. That is basically legally impossible. Both are based on the ideas from 1968 titled Mass Produced Software Components.

    This is the problem how do you prevent people from getting invalid patents and blackmailing others with it. Not everyone has the funds to research out to find. Even that Openoffice copyright says 2000 the UNO design comes from a prior product that is pre 1990~. So anyone who does not know this could be tricked into pay for a patent they never should have.

    Major problem is there is no requirement under patent a law to refund in case patent is found that is should not have been applied.

    Next Monopoly bit. Opensource does not pay for anything like patents. So patents can be used to exclude projects. Patent holder is not required to put a recommend price patent in advance so people know how much they are in for when using patent. This causes the Monopoly. You walk up ask for a license and the licensor can set what ever. Favoritism is ripe in the patent world. If your local stores did that everyone would be out to kill them.

    Even worse is the use of submarine patents. By the way forbin in the country I am in. So you release instructions how to do something other people do it. 4 years latter you hit them all with patent infringement and make a profit. This is bate and switch illegal to do in any store. Yet perfectly legal to do with patents in a lot of countries.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Please don’t post identical comments in all of our posts on software patents.

What Else is New


  1. Immunity of the European Patent Office and Lack of Oversight Within the Organisation Mean That It's a Rogue Entity Above the Law

    In light of remarks from the Attorney General in the Netherlands and in light of some recent and highly disturbing developments (like Board 28 folding for Benoît Battistelli), it is increasingly apparent that the EPO is disconnected from any accountability whatsoever



  2. Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC Are at War With European Democracy, Which They View as an Obstacle to Money and Power

    Some of the latest hints of the vain attitude which EPO managers and UPC-leaning law firms have adopted, as part of their plan to impose the UPC on Europe in spite of public resistance (or apathy due to lack of information and consultation)



  3. Links 1/10/2016: Linux 4.7.6 and 4.4.23, Blender 2.78

    Links for the day



  4. Dutch Court Rules Against SUEPO (in a Reversal), But EPO Management Would Have Ignored the Ruling Even If SUEPO Won (Updated)

    SUEPO loses a case against EPO management, but the EPO's overzealous management was going to ignore the ruling anyway



  5. New Paper Provides Evidence of Sinking Patent Quality at the EPO, Refuting the Liar in Chief Battistelli

    In spite of Battistelli's claims (lies) about patent quality under his watch, reality suggests that so-called 'production' is simply rushed issuance of invalid patents (one step away from rubberstamping, in order to meet unreasonable, imposed-from-the-top targets)



  6. Battistelli Locks EPO Staff Union Out of Social Conference So That He Can Lie About the Union and the Social Climate

    The attacks on staff of the EPO carry on, with brainwash sessions meticulously scheduled to ensure that Administrative Council delegates are just their master's voice, or the voice of the person whom they are in principle supposed to oversee



  7. Unprecedented Levels of UPC Lobbying by Big Business Europe (Multinationals) and Their Patent Law Firms

    A quick look at some of the latest deception which is intended to bamboozle European politicians and have them play along with the unitary [sic] patent for private interests of the super-rich



  8. Links 29/9/2016: Russia Moving to FOSS, New Nmap and PostgreSQL Releases

    Links for the day



  9. Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow's Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests

    A quick look at the growing bulk of UPC lobbying (by the legal firms which stand to benefit from it) ahead of tomorrow's European Council meeting which is expected to discuss a unitary patent system



  10. IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

    When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?



  11. Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

    The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO



  12. Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

    The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  13. EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

    The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers



  14. Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

    Links for the day



  15. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  16. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  17. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  18. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  19. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  20. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  21. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  22. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  23. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  24. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  25. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  26. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  27. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  28. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  29. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  30. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts