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. Web Site 'Patent Progress' Now Officially 'Powered by CCIA' (FRAND Proponent, Microsoft Front)

    After talking a job at CCIA, "Patent Progress" and its chief author should be treated as dubious on real patent progress



  2. Articles About the Death of Software Patents in the United States

    Recent coverage of software patents and their demise in their country of origin, where even proponents of software patents are giving up



  3. The Death of Software Patents is Already Killing Some Major Patent Trolls

    VirnetX seems to be the latest victim of the demise of software patents in the United States



  4. More Microsoft Layoffs

    More Microsoft layoffs go ahead as the company is unable to compete



  5. ODF on the Rise

    Milestones for OpenDocument Format (ODF) and the launch of FixMyDocuments



  6. Links 17/9/2014: CoreOS, ChromeOS, and systemd

    Links for the day



  7. Italy is Cracking Down on Microsoft's Monopoly Abuse While Gradually Moving to GNU/Linux

    Italy is not only moving to Free/Open Source software but also to GNU/Linux while at the same time barring Microsoft from forcibly tying Windows to new PCs



  8. OpenSUSE's 'Assurances' Are Classic MBA School Hogwash

    OpenSUSE is not part of any commitment, except for SUSE's; the impact of the Novell/SUSE acquisition casts uncertainty on the project's future



  9. Links 16/9/2014: Firefox OS Smartphones in Bangladesh, “Treasure Map” of the Internet

    Links for the day



  10. The United Kingdom Should Dump Microsoft For the Sake of National Security

    The UK has issues of Microsoft dependency and Windows viruses; its migration to Free software and GNU/Linux is not fast enough to guard its autonomy in the age of digital imperialism



  11. CBS Hires Even More Microsoft Staff to Cover Microsoft Matters

    CBS continues to be infested with Microsoft staff past and present (this time Dave Johnson) and the bias in output is quite revealing



  12. Microsoft Has Just Killed Minecraft for GNU/Linux and the Possibility of Free/Open Source Releases

    Persson sells out to Microsoft and lets the abusive monopolist destroy the popular cross-platform game that a community has been built around



  13. Another Reason to Boycott Intel UEFI

    More anti-competitive aspects are revealed inside UEFI, which helps merginalise GNU/Linux



  14. Quick Mention: Novell and SUSE Passed to Microsoft's 'Partner of the Year', Microsoft Focus

    Novell is changing hands again, and falling into the hands of even more Microsoft-friendly actors



  15. Links 16/9/2014: Linux 3.17 RC5, KDE Frameworks 5.2.0

    Links for the day



  16. Željko Topić, Benoît Battistelli, and the European Patent Office (EPO): Part II

    Part II of our look into the EPO appointment of Željko Topić and other matters showing the dubious integrity of the EPO



  17. Links 14/9/2014: Android-based Watches Earn Optimism

    Links for the day



  18. Links 14/9/2014: Eucalyptus Devoured

    Links for the day



  19. Links 11/9/2014: Linux Toilet Project, Linux-Based Wheelchair Project

    Links for the day



  20. Links 10/9/2014: Brian Stevens in Google, Ubuntu 14.10 Expectations

    Links for the day



  21. Links 9/9/2014: Hating/Loving Linux, Android Aplenty

    Links for the day



  22. Links 8/9/2014: Linux 3.17 RC 4, Switzerland Welcoming Snowden

    Links for the day



  23. Suspicion of High-Level Corruption at the European Patent Office (EPO): Part I

    The European Patent Office (EPO) Vice-President has a background of corruption and his appointment to the EPO too is believed to be reliant on systemic corruption



  24. Links 6/9/2014: Core OS at DigitalOcean, Women in Xorg

    Links for the day



  25. Software Patents 'Quality' Debated in Courts, Microsoft's Biggest Patent Troll Still a Chronic Liar

    Intellectual Ventures, Microsoft's and Bill Gates' largest patent proxy, continues to spread lies about its motivations, claiming that patent assessment is among the goals when in fact only the courts and patent offices do this



  26. New Article Explains How Bill Gates Prevents Schools From Moving to GNU/Linux and Free Software

    A new article from Al Jazeera provides details about the role of so-called 'charities' of billionaires inside school systems



  27. Microsoft Sued for Large-scale Copyright Abuses

    Microsoft reveals its disregard for copyright law which it loves so much to wield as a weapon against its competition and clients



  28. Links 5/9/2014: New WordPress, Systemd Debate Continues

    Links for the day



  29. 'Embrace and Extend' at Microsoft: The New Generation

    Some of the latest examples of Microsoft's predatory acts against Free software and against competition in general, disguised as acts of friendliness



  30. Bill Gates' God Complex: Common Core a One-Man Campaign of Greed and Control

    The push for Common Core is overwhelmingly dominated by Bill Gates, who intimidates and even resorts to retribution against critics while bribing those who help him accomplish the goal of privatised (for his private profit) indoctrination in US schools


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