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. Links 1/7/2015: OpenDaylight Lithium, OpenMandriva Lx 2014.2

    Links for the day



  2. Munich Press, Münchner Merkur, Slams the Munich-based EPO

    Pressure on Benoît Battistelli to leave (or be fired) grows as the cronies whom he filled his office with have become a huge public embarrassment to the decades-old European Patent Office



  3. The Shameless Campaign to Paint/Portray Free Software as Inherently Insecure, Using Brands, Logos, and Excessive, Selective Press Coverage

    Some more FUD from firms such as Sonatype, which hope to make money by making people scared of Free/libre software



  4. National Insecurity and Blackmail, Courtesy of Microsoft

    British members of parliament (MPs) outsourced their communication to the number one PRISM company and they are paying the price for it; The US Navy's systems continue to be unbelievably insecure (Windows XP), despite access to the world's biggest nuclear arsenal



  5. Microsoft Keeps Shrinking

    As the era of shrink-wrapped software comes to an end so does Microsoft, whose effort to become a 'cloud' company with online operations has been miserable at best



  6. They 'R' Coming: More Microsoft Money for the Linux Foundation

    The problem with having Microsoft in a Linux Foundation initiative, the R Consortium



  7. Speculations About the EPO's Possible Role in DDOS Attacks

    Readers' views on who might be behind the attacks on this site amid confirmation that it's on the 'targets' list of the EPO



  8. Links 30/6/2015: Linux Mint 17.2, OpenMandriva

    Links for the day



  9. Techrights Confirmed as a Target of EPO Surveillance, With Help From Control Risks Group (CRG)

    Unveiling the cloak of secrecy from long-term surveillance by the European Patent Office (EPO) and a London-based mercenary it hired, bypassing the law



  10. Google's Fight to Keep APIs Free is Lost, Let's Hope Google Continues Fighting

    SCOTUS refuses to rule that APIs cannot be considered copyright-'protected', despite common sense and despite Java (which the case is about) being Free/libre software



  11. Patent Trolls in the Post-Alice World

    A round-up of news about patent trolls in the United States, some of whom are are doing well and some of them not as well



  12. DDOS Attacks Against Techrights

    Information about some of the most recent DDOS attacks against this Web site and the steps to be taken next



  13. The Patent System Not What it Used to be, Large Corporations and Patent Lawyers the Principal Beneficiaries

    A look at some recent patent stories and what can be deduced from them, based on statistics and trends



  14. After Intervention by the Council of Europe Comes a Detailed Summary of the Situation in the European Patent Office (EPO)





  15. IRC Proceedings: May 31st - June 27th, 2015

    Many IRC logs



  16. Links 28/6/2015: Manjaro Linux Cinnamon 0.8.13, VectorLinux 7.1

    Links for the day



  17. Williamson v. Citrix Online (at CAFC) Reinforces Alice v. CLS Bank (at SCOTUS) in Crushing Software Patents

    More patent news from the United States, again serving to indicate that software patents over there are getting weak (harder to defend in court or acquire from the patent office)



  18. Proskauer Rose LLP is Cherry-Picking Cases to Make Software Patents Seem Eligible Despite Alice v. CLS Bank

    Naming and shaming those who are trying to reshape the consensus despite a rather consistent pattern of software patents being rejected



  19. IAM Biased: How IAM 'Magazine' Glorifies Patent Stockpiling

    A look at the bias of one of the most overzealous sites for and by patent lawyers



  20. PATENT Act No Longer in the News... and That's Just Fine

    Putting the PATENT Act aside for the time being, for it has little or no impact on the really problematic patents



  21. The Latest Lies From Microsoft's PR Apparatus/Public Face, Mr. Nadella

    Having spread the outrageous lie that “Microsoft loves Linux” (whilst obviously attacking it in many ways), Microsoft's CEO (essentially Bill Gates' right-hand man) says Microsoft is “one of the biggest contributors to Linux kernel” (because of proprietary software it tries to contaminate it with while violating the terms of the GPL)



  22. Microsoft Jack (Schofield) Promotes Microsoft's Proprietary Lock-in and Calls People Who Recommend Free/Libre Software 'Trolls'

    Jack Schofield, writing for a Bill Gates-funded paper despite claiming to have retired, promotes Microsoft Office and insults all those readers who do not agree with him



  23. The Council of Europe Slams the EPO as Political Pressure Grows for EPO Management to Obey the Law

    Battistelli et al. come under yet more fire as politicians -- many of whom from Battistelli's home country -- become better informed of the EPO's management fiasco, abuses, and scandals



  24. Operating Systems Usage Based on Technical Site Statistics

    ome numbers to show what goes on in sites that do not share information about their visitors (unlike Windows-centric sites which target non-technical audiences)



  25. Links 27/6/2015: Wine 1.7.46, SparkyLinux 4.0

    Links for the day



  26. Proprietary Software on Top of Proprietary Software (AV on Windows) Only an Illusion of Security

    Remarks on the recent revelations about code and communication interceptions targeting insecurity firms and Microsoft's claim that 'transparency' alone would be enough to assure security



  27. The EPO's Circus of Nepotism, Corporatism and Gross Abuse is Promoting the Unitary Patent

    The shameful management of the EPO, which Benoît Battistelli constructed based on his nefarious self-serving agenda, keeps pushing forth in a direction that greatly harms European citizens while mistreating the EPO's technical staff (scientists and examiners)



  28. Links 26/6/2015: Ardour 4.1, GNOME 3.17.3 Released

    Links for the day



  29. An Estimated 1,000 EPO Staff in Munich Demonstrated Against EPO Management Yesterday Afternoon

    Earliest coverage of yesterday's protest against EPO corruption and abuses



  30. Microsoft Windows So Insecure That Even Fonts Are Remotely Exploitable

    Windows userbase is once again under serious threat and high risk because something as simple as fonts (rendering of text/pixels on the screen) isn't done securely in Windows


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