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

10.31.11

Shocker: Man With First Software Patent Defends Software Patents

Posted in Patents at 4:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Martin Goetz

Summary: Martin Goetz speaks in favour of software patents again, but his arguments are full of holes

PEOPLE who came from Microsoft tend to defend Microsoft (this includes the leadership of Xamarin, whose COO seems to be the only top manager without Microsoft background). Businesses with many software patents (like IBM and Microsoft) tend to promote software patents in Europe. Marty of software patents fame or infamy (depending on whose side one is on) is still a top promoter of software patents. But why does he get so much attention from the press? He is clearly biased because he was the first man to get a patent on software.

“I have been involved in this software controversy for many years,” he writes. “It began when I and my small software company, Applied Data Research, applied for a patent in 1965 for a Sorting System.”

Well, using other people’s knowledge and work. But let’s disregard for a moment the fact that anything he ever created built upon other code. He goes on to saying something which in no way contradicts the fact that software is mathematics and in fact reinforces this fact. For example: “Highly skilled personnel are employed in these companies and many have advanced computer science degrees, including PhDs. And because of their complexity, many programs are written using software engineering disciplines.”

“But let’s disregard for a moment the fact that anything he ever created built upon other code.”Or mathematics? And equations? Seriously, scientific programming is all about formulating rules and applying them in code. Do we want a monopoly on rules that are immutable? “When these programs are inventions,” he claims (whatever “invention” actually means), “patent protection is important to help protect these companies’ investments.”

Utter nonsense. Those companies rely a great deal on using code and knowledge provided by others. How would a company cope financially if it had to ‘license’ each and every pertinent idea it codifies? That article just fails on so many levels and it often demonstrates the author’s arrogance because he thinks that his own ‘invention’ (a sorting algorithm) is so much more sophisticated than the machine and coded framework he ran his program on. Well, the FFII’s president asked us in IRC, “have you seen the article software is hardware?” He quoted this article, adding a ludicrous quote: “It is a fact that software and mental processes are interchangeable, thus mental processes are patentabe” (this is Aptly tagged #wrong).

Calacanis, whom I once worked for in Netscape.com, says he never filed any patents. There are many like him who take pride in it too. Quoting the report:

Jason ‘Mr. Startups’ Calacanis may not do patents, but he has just done an episode of his weekly TV show where he brought in a seasoned patent attorney and a prolific inventor to take us through the latest developments on the US patent scene

Google too was never happy about software patents. It-reluctantly had to buy some for “defensive” purposes and now it also indexes patent applications. To quote the Against Monopoly Web site:

Google has had its own issues with patents. Like much of the rest of the software industry, it avoided filing for them for some years, but competitive patenting has taken over the industry in the drive to gain a monopolistic advantage or prevent others from doing so by establishing a patent pool to force cross licensing. By making it easier to challenge applications and even granted patents, putting them on line should make bad patents rarer. The problem of identifying and proving prior art remains.

A lot of work from 20+ years ago prelates the Web, so proving prior art is not always simple. We need to fill some gaps by online preservation and Google is trying to help. We already lost track of Cablegate, Gates’ history of crimes (he was allegedly arrested at least twice), and ‘old’ Novell (some Comes vs. Microsoft material that we had reproduced before Microsoft buried it is proving to be very helpful). Some of it predates the World Wide Web.

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

7 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    October 31, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    Gravatar

    FUD:

    “When these programs are inventions,” he claims (whatever “invention” actually means), “patent protection is important to help protect these companies’ investments.”

    Utter nonsense.

    If you really think this, Roy, then say why. But you do not. Instead you post a straw man.

    Those companies rely a great deal on using code and knowledge provided by others.

    Nobody has suggested that current inventions do not benefit from past inventions. Could the incandescent lightbulb have been invented without the prior invention of many forms of metal working? No. Same with cars. No metal working – no cars as we know them.

    FUD:

    That article just fails on so many levels and it often demonstrates the author’s arrogance because he thinks that his own ‘invention’ (a sorting algorithm) is so much more sophisticated than the machine and coded framework he ran his program on.

    He never said that. You made that up.

    A lot of work from 20+ years ago prelates the Web, so proving prior art is not always simple.

    And this is true. It is not always simply and is certainly not black and white. All too often amazingly dumb decisions have been made in the US patent system (and elsewhere I assume).

  2. walterbyrd said,

    October 31, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    Gravatar

    How can you criticize Google for defending itself in the only way that is possible for Google to do so?

    Patent thugs like Oracle, Microsoft, and Apple, would not have ganged up on Google, if Google had not been so defenseless at the time.

    Sadly, Google has been left with the unpleasant choice of acquiring patents, or being sued out of business by a conspiring gang of abusive scam artists.

    It may be worth noting, Google has not used it patent arsenal offensively. How many major technology companies can say that?

    Michael Reply:

    FUD:

    How can you criticize Google for defending itself in the only way that is possible for Google to do so?

    Who is doing that?

    I am noting Roy’s hypocrisy. Heck, he is the one who attacks Apple and calls them an aggressor but does not offer any other way for them to defend themselves.

    Do you have any better ideas on how Apple should defend themselves against the attacks by Android, Google, Samsung and the like?

    FUD:

    Patent thugs like Oracle, Microsoft, and Apple, would not have ganged up on Google, if Google had not been so defenseless at the time.

    You do not like how Apple defended themselves against attacks by Android, Google, Samsung and the like… so how do you think they should have reacted to the attacks? Seems to me giving the attackers a chance to make things right and then taking them to court if that fails (as it did) makes sense.

    FUD:

    Sadly, Google has been left with the unpleasant choice of acquiring patents, or being sued out of business by a conspiring gang of abusive scam artists.

    What? Conspiracies of scam artists? You made that up.

    FUD:

    It may be worth noting, Google has not used it patent arsenal offensively. How many major technology companies can say that?

    Google has sued people over IP infringements. But even if they had not, so? Does this give then the right to be an aggressor against Apple and others? I do not see the connection.

    Needs Sunlight Reply:

    Not all of the scam artists can be counter-sued. There are also trolls to contend with. It will take too much time and money to fight each patent individually. The money can be much better spent to eliminate software patents entirely. That would solve the root of the problem.

    Michael Reply:

    If you eliminate software patents completely, what mechanism do you replace it with in order to help protect the years of work and millions of dollars put toward innovation?

    I agree patents are heavily messed up – but eliminating them without having such a solution does not make things better.

  3. walterbyrd said,

    October 31, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    Gravatar

    When did Google sue Apple? Please stop lying.

    In fact, when did Google initiate patent litigation against anybody?

    Apple is a successful patent parasite. Apple has no ideas to defend. For example: JooJoo/Crunchpad had rounded corners before Apple.

    Apple has done an amazing job abusing the patent system, and legal system, I will give Apple credit for that.

    How is Apple “defending itself?” Samsung clearly sued Apple in retaliation to Apple’s bogus lawsuits against Samsung. Not to mention Apple’s bogus lawsuits against HTC, and others.

    Michael Reply:

    FUD:

    When did Google sue Apple? Please stop lying.

    In fact, when did Google initiate patent litigation against anybody?

    The implication here is someone said Google sued Apple over patents. Nobody said so, thus you are pushing a false claim.

    FUD:

    Apple is a successful patent parasite. Apple has no ideas to defend. For example: JooJoo/Crunchpad had rounded corners before Apple.

    The implication here is that someone has said the JooJoo/Crunchpad did not have rounded corners before Apple. Nobody said so, thus you are pushing a false claim.

    FUD:

    Apple has done an amazing job abusing the patent system, and legal system, I will give Apple credit for that.

    The implication here is that someone has shown where Apple abused the patent system. Nobody has shown so, thus you are pushing a false claim.

    Question:

    How is Apple “defending itself?”

    As shown, Samsung has been very heavily copying Apple’s ideas – crossing the line from being inspired to just being absurd.

    http://goo.gl/4mQI9
    http://goo.gl/S2AJR
    http://goo.gl/bWDs6
    http://goo.gl/NjrfV

    Apple has responded to this attack by trying to stop it. The fact Samsung has done as shown has not been refuted in any way.

    FUD:

    Samsung clearly sued Apple in retaliation to Apple’s bogus lawsuits against Samsung. Not to mention Apple’s bogus lawsuits against HTC, and others.

    You left out the start of the battle, shown above. This is openly dishonest of you. You also claimed Apple’s suits have been “bogus” but in at least some cases the courts have decided otherwise. Samsung did just win a reversal in one case.

What Else is New


  1. Kather Augenstein and Bristows Shift Attention to Germany in an Effort to Ram the Dying UPC Down Everyone's Throats

    Down the throat, hopes Team UPC, the Unitary Patent system will go, even though Britain cannot ratify, throwing the whole thing into grave uncertainty



  2. United for Patent Reform Defends USPTO Director Michelle Lee From Attacks by the Patent Microcosm

    Michelle Lee is finally (if not belatedly) shielded by a bunch of large technology companies; The deep-pocketed industry finally steps in line with our position, which is usually when things turn out the way we advocate for



  3. Team UPC and CIPA Are Lobbying, Publishing Puff Pieces, and Rewriting the Law for Unitary Patent (UPC) Behind Closed Doors

    A collection of the latest news and views on the UPC, which is being lied about by those who stand to benefit from it and is probably going nowhere because Brexit means that the UK stays out, in which case it must be reset and pertinent ratifications done all over again



  4. China's Suffering From Patent Maximalism Has Europe Forewarned

    The parasitic elements inside China -- those that just want lots of litigation (even if from patent trolls) -- are winning over, much to the detriment of the Chinese economy, and Team UPC threatens to do the same in Europe with help from Battistelli



  5. Links 27/4/2017: Mesa 17.0.5 RC1, Git 2.13.0 RC1, and Linkerd 1.0

    Links for the day



  6. The Latest Expensive PR Blitz of the EPO, Led by Jana Mittermaier and Rainer Osterwalder Under the 'European Inventor Award' Banner

    The PR agencies of the Corsican in Chief, who appears to be buying political support rather than earning any, are very busy this week, as yet another reputation laundering campaign kicks off



  7. Links 26/4/2017: SMPlayer 17.4.2, Libreboot Wants to Rejoin GNU

    Links for the day



  8. PatentShield is Not the Solution and It Won't Protect Google/Android From Patent Trolls Like Microsoft's

    A new initiative called "PatentShield" is launched, but it's yet another one of those many initiatives (Peer-to-Patent and the likes of it, LOT Network, OIN, PAX etc.) that serve to distract from the real and much simpler solutions



  9. Patent Quality Crisis and Unprecedented Trouble at the European Patent Office (EPO) Negatively Affect Legitimate Companies in the US As Well

    The granting en masse of questionable patents by the EPO (patent maximalism) is becoming a liability and growing risk to companies which operate not only in Europe but also elsewhere



  10. Blog 'Takeovers' by Bristows and Then Censorship: Now This Firm Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC) and Then Deletes Comments That Point Out the Errors

    Not only are Bristows employees grabbing the mic in various high-profile IP blogs for the purpose of UPC promotion (by distortion of facts); they also actively suppress critics of the UPC



  11. Links 25/4/2017: Kali Linux 2017.1 Released, NSA Back Doors in Windows Cause Chaos

    Links for the day



  12. Astoundingly, IP Kat Has Become a Leading Source of UPC and Battistelli Propaganda

    The pro-UPC outlets, which enjoy EPO budget (i.e. stakeholders' money), are becoming mere amplifiers of Benoît Battistelli and his right-hand UPC woman Margot Fröhlinger, irrespective of actual facts



  13. EPO Fiasco to be Discussed in German Local Authority (Bavarian Parliament) Some Time Today as the Institution Continues Its Avoidable Collapse

    Conflict between management and staff -- a result of truly destructive strategies and violations of the law by Benoît Battistelli -- continues to escalate and threatens to altogether dismantle the European Patent Office (EPO)



  14. In the US and Elsewhere, Qualcomm's Software Patents Are a Significant Tax Everyone Must Pay

    The state of the mobile market when companies such as Qualcomm, which don't really produce anything, take a large piece of the revenue pie



  15. In South Asia, Old Myths to Promote Patent Maximalism, Courtesy of the Patent Microcosm

    The latest example of software patents advocacy and patent 'parades' in India, as well as something from IPOS in Singapore



  16. Links 24/4/2017: Linux 4.11 RC8, MPV 0.25

    Links for the day



  17. Why Authorities in the Netherlands Need to Strip the EPO of Immunity and Investigate Fire Safety Violations

    How intimidation and crackdown on the staff representatives at the EPO may have led to lack of awareness (and action) about lack of compliance with fire safety standards



  18. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part IX: Testament to the Fear of an Autocratic Regime

    A return to the crucial observation and a reminder of the fact that at the EPO it takes great courage to say the truth nowadays



  19. For the Fordham Echo Chamber (Patent Maximalism), Judges From the EPO Boards of Appeal Are Not Worth Entertaining

    In an event steered if not stuffed by patent radicals such as Bristows and Microsoft (abusive, serial litigators) there are no balanced panels or even reasonable discussions



  20. EPO Staff Representatives Fired Using “Disciplinary Committee That Was Improperly Composed” as Per ILO's Decision

    The Board of the Administrative Council at European Patent Organisation is being informed of the union-busting activities of Battistelli -- activities that are both illegal (as per national and international standards) and are detrimental to the Organisation



  21. Links 23/4/2017: End of arkOS, Collabora Office 5.3 Released

    Links for the day



  22. Intellectual Discovery and Microsoft Feed Patent Trolls Like Intellectual Ventures Which Then Strategically Attack Rivals

    Like a swarm of blood-sucking bats, patent trolls prey on affluent companies that derive their wealth from GNU/Linux and freedom-respecting software (Free/libre software)



  23. The European Patent Office Has Just Killed a Cat (or Skinned a 'Kat')

    The EPO’s attack on the media, including us, resulted in a stream of misinformation and puff pieces about the EPO and UPC, putting at risk not just European democracy but also corrupting the European press



  24. Yann Ménière Resorts to Buzzwords to Recklessly Promote Floods of Patents, Dooming the EPO Amid Decline in Patent Applications

    Battistelli's French Chief Economist is not much of an economist but a patent maximalist toeing the party line of Monsieur Battistelli (lots of easy grants and litigation galore, for UPC hopefuls)



  25. Even Patent Bullies Like Microsoft and Facebook Find the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Useful

    Not just companies accused of patent infringement need the PTAB but also frequent accusers with deep pockets need the PTAB, based on some new figures and new developments



  26. Links 21/4/2017: Qt Creator 4.2.2, ROSA Desktop Fresh R9

    Links for the day



  27. At the EPO, Seeding of Puff Piece in the Press/Academia Sometimes Transparent Enough to View

    The EPO‘s PR team likes to 'spam' journalists and others (for PR) and sometimes does this publicly, as the tweets below show — a desperate recruitment and reputation laundering drive



  28. Affordable and Sophisticated Mobile Devices Are Kept Away by Patent Trolls and Aggressors That Tax Everything

    The war against commoditisation of mobile computing has turned a potentially thriving market with fast innovation rates into a war zone full of patent trolls (sometimes suing at the behest of large companies that hand them patents for this purpose)



  29. In Spite of Lobbying and Endless Attempts by the Patent Microcosm, US Supreme Court Won't Consider Any Software Patent Cases Anymore (in the Foreseeable Future)

    Lobbyists of software patents, i.e. proponents of endless litigation and patent trolls, are attempting to convince the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to have another look at abstract patents and reconsider its position on cases like Alice Corp. v CLS Bank International



  30. Expect Team UPC to Remain in Deep Denial About the Unitary Patent/Unified Court (UPC) Having No Prospects

    The prevailing denial that the UPC is effectively dead, courtesy of sites and blogs whose writers stood to profit from the UPC


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