--Larry Goldfarb, key investor in SCO
What A Shock: Another Wireless Standard Beset By Patent Problems
It's becoming such that news about another patent battle surrounding a new standard is barely newsworthy -- especially in the wireless space. Name the standard, and we can probably find someone claiming patents on it. There are still ongoing patent battles surrounding both WiFi and WiMax.
The Dutch standard researcher asks: "Who pays for interoperability in public IT procurement?". Our site reproduces her letter sent by email to standard professionals.
Although the Bilski case doesn’t involve computer software, the implications for a software company may be enormous. Expect several immediate outcomes from this court decision –
- A “pure business method” patent claim is clearly not patentable. Such business method patent claims often set out broad, human-implemented type processes, without requiring the use of a computer.
- Software patents will need to be drafted very differently in the future to enhance the likelihood of the U.S. Patent Office agreeing to issue a software patent.
- Existing software patents may be challenged and attacked, particularly if the patent owner is trying to enforce rights against others.
Groklaw is right about one thing for sure though, Microsoft filed an amicus brief asking that software and business method patents be curtailed. The trouble with this, however, is that Microsoft's motives were anything but pure and anything but intelligent. The fact that a major corporation would advocate a position that will ultimately lead to their demise is hardly newsworthy. Microsoft and the other members of the Coalition for Patent Fairness have taken the position that patents should provide weaker rights and be harder to get. While this is short sighted, it is also self serving. These technology companies get sued constantly and sometimes unfairly. As a result, much of what they support are measures aimed to curtail litigation where they are the defendant. The fact that the positions they take are significantly weakening their own intellectual property portfolios and will make it much easier for the next generation of mega-companies to supplant them as market leaders demonstrates that their position is not at all rational and is likely impulsive.
From a conceptual standpoint why not allow for software to be patented. What is the harm? I know many of you reading this have now gone into an apoplectic rage, but conceptually why should software be treated any differently? Isn’t the problem that patent offices, particularly the United States Patent Office, are increasingly doing a poor job of finding relevant prior art and weeding out what is new and non-obvious from what is old and obvious? If prosecution were more meaningful, what is the harm in granting software patents? I see none because there is none....
Software is not a mathematical equation, nor is it a mathematical language. How anyone who writes software or professes to understand software could argue to the contrary is beyond me. Do people who write software actually think they are sitting down and writing mathematical equations and stringing them together? It is absurd to have such a narrow view of software. When you write software you are trying to enable a device, such as a computer, to provide certain functionality given a certain stimulus. So you are writing instructions for a computer or other device and explaining how the computer or device needs to process information. You do not explain how to process information with mathematical equations.
[I]t seems unlikely that US IP policy will change significantly under the Obama administration. The pharmaceutical industry remains a powerful lobby in the United States regardless of which political party is in the White House and Congress, and the same goes for Hollywood and the entertainment industry. The technology sector, from information technology to biotechnology, contributes significantly to the US economy. The influence of these and other industries that rely heavily on patents, trademarks and copyright is due to one simple fact—IP is the largest export of the United States to the world.
The American Intellectual Property Law Association faces profound political, legislative and administrative challenges in coming months, new Executive Director Q. Todd Dickinson said in a 13 November interview in The Hague. Key among them are major changes at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in the new Obama administration, the fate of patent reform in the new US Congress, and the impact, if any, of the global economic downturn on patents, he said.
[PDF]
can be obtained too.
Delegations will find in Annex a Presidency working document containing a revised version of the Draft Agreement on the European Union Patent Court, for discussion at the meeting of the Intellectual Property (Patents) Working Party on 11 November 2008. This revised version takes account of the discussions in the Working Party on 24-25 July 2008 and on 11 September 2008 as well as of written comments submitted by delegations.
Comments
Jose_X
2008-11-17 20:21:56
Right off the bat, there is an interesting thread that is not very long under "He asks the wrong question."
Also, does anyone want to help build arguments for why we *should* (wink wink) have more patents in more industries [extra points for especially good reasons why lawyers would benefit from more patents in their profession]: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20081114205538108&title=Other%20disciplines%20need%20to%20be%20allowed%20to%20enjoy%20the%20benefits%20of%20patents%21%21%21&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=0#c736803
Roy Schestowitz
2008-11-17 20:29:53
Chocolate coins for EPO cash cow
Examiners of the European Patent Office have recently invaded one of the secret meetings of the Administrative Council with chocolate coins, pointing to the conflict of interests between the National Patent Offices (NPOs) and their appetite of "more patents, more money".
http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/forum/t-105735/chocolate-coins-for-epo-corruption
It used to say "corruption coins," I think.