|
|
| New Patent Proposals: It Shouldn't Be Obvious, for Starters |
 |
|
Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:01 PM EDT
|
More recognition that the US patent system needs tweaking. A new report from the National Academies' National Research Council sets forth recommendations for improving the patent system:
- The patent system should accommodate new technologies.
- The system should reward only inventions that meet statutory tests of novelty and utility, and that are not obvious to contemporaries skilled in the relevant technology.
- Descriptions of patented inventions should be as complete, clear, and accessible as possible; and in all cases, applications should be published during patent examinations.
- Administrative and judicial decisions should be timely, and costs associated with them should be reasonable.
- Access to patented technologies should be available for research purposes and in the development of cumulative technologies, where one advance builds upon previous advances.
- Progress should be made in harmonizing the U.S., European, and Japanese patent-examination systems to reduce public and private transaction costs, and to facilitate trade, investment, and innovation.
- Similarly situated holders of intellectual property rights should enjoy the same benefits and be accountable for the same legal obligations.
One suggestion from the report, which you will be able to obtain here, is "an "'open review procedure' for third parties to challenge recently issued patents before the USPTO's administrative patent judges, who would resolve questions about a given patent's validity. If administrative judges handled these validity questions, then federal district courts could focus on patent-infringement issues. . . . The report also urges the USPTO to strenuously observe the statutory requirement known as the 'nonobviousness standard,' which says that in order to qualify for a patent, an invention cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in a given area."The study was sponsored by NASA, U.S. Department of Commerce, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Center for the Public Domain, Pharmacia Corp., Merck & Co. Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., and IBM. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. An executive summary is here.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
Please collect all my mistakes in one heap here, so I can fix quickly. Thank
you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:25 PM EDT |
| Collect them here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- URLs please - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 10:10 PM EDT
- URLs please - Authored by: Trepalium on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 10:29 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
****************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH
______________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff,
vs
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.
Defendant
______________________________________
Case No. 2:03cv00294 DK
ORDER Sua Sponte DISMISSING SCO'S
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
______________________________________
The Court has heard arguments regarding the SCO Group Incorporated's (SCO)
compliance with the Court's Orders to Compel Discovery.
The Court having heard argument, having read the parties' memoranda, having
considered relevant case law, and finding good cause shown, hereby enters the
following findings of fact, conclusions of law and orders the following:
I. Findings of Fact
1. Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant has not specified any of their Unix code in
Linux, nor any Linux code from Unix. Their Counsel have stated in open Court
that they can not specify such code. They do not allege any violation of
copyrights, patents or business secrets.
2. The Court judicially notes that every month since the suit has commenced it
has been able to download the Linux Code in question directly from the
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant's website along with the terms of its licensing
under the General Public License (GPL). The Court notes further that it can do
whatever it wants with this code consistent with the license including give it
to IBM to use as they see fit consistent with the license.
3. The Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant has filed several other suits.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant has made public statements throughout this
litigation. They have made claims of confidentiality despite distributing the
code under the GPL. Their filings and public statements are repeatedly
inconsistent and therefore false.
3. The Court hereby finds that any SCO code from Unix System v, from which IBM's
contributions from AIX and Dynix are alleged to be derived, have been
nevertheless distributed by SCO under the GPL. This is not a finding that there
is such code.
4. IBM has not improperly distributed or used any code in question, all relevant
code being subject to the GPL.
5. SCO and IBM have both distributed or contributed code to Linux under a
disciplined process governed by the GPL. They can not reasonably disclaim it.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. SCO claims have all been abandoned, estopped or bound by the GPL. They are
also without any evidentiary foundation.
2. IBM in its involvement with Linux has not transgressed any proprietary
"intellectual property" interests of the
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant.
3. The Court hereby deems the Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Complaint to be
legally frivolous.
III ORDERS
Based on the aforementioned findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. That Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Complaint is hereby dismissed with
prejudice.
2. That the Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff prepare Motions for Summary
Judgment on their counterclaims, and a Petition for Attorneys fees in light of
the above order.
3. That both parties prepare amended scheduling orders anticipating trial in
August on the issue of damages arising from the remining claims.
Dated this _3rd_ day of May, 2004.
BY THE COURT:
__[sig: Brooke C. Wells]__
BROOKE C. WELLS
United States Magistrate Judge
_______________________________
** CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK **
Re: 2:03-Cv-00294
True and correct copies of the attached were eithere mailed, faxed, or e-mailed
by the clerk to the following:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
EMAIL
Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
EMAIL
David K. Markarian, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
EMAIL
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAvATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
Thomas G. Rafferty, Esq.
CRAvATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
David R. Marriott, Esq.
CRAvATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Amy F. Sorenson, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Kevin P. McBride, Esq.
[address]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LinuxLobbyist on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:45 PM EDT |
The study was sponsored by NASA, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Center for the Public Domain, Pharmacia Corp.,
Merck & Co. Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., and IBM.
Now,
now, PJ, don't be spoutin' IBM propaganda on Groklaw.
Oops! I forgot,
you're a paid shill of IBM. After all, SCO says so, so it must be true, right?
;-)
Seriously, though, it's pretty awesome to see IBM's name on there,
considering that they are allegedly the largest patent holder there
is.
---
Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM...hmm - Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:50 PM EDT
- IBM...hmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 03:55 AM EDT
- IBM...hmm - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- IBM, pharmaceuticals - Authored by: reuben on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 09:56 PM EDT
- IBM...hmm - Authored by: Zeke on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 09:56 PM EDT
- IBM...hmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 01:11 AM EDT
- IBM...hmm - Authored by: OrlandoNative on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 09:30 AM EDT
- IBM...hmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- IBM...hmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 09:57 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: aanderson on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
They left out one important suggestion, to wit:
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press.
This would solve the problem of patents applying to free
software.
Oh, wait....
---
Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
I so desperate to see the supporting memo that it hurts. If anybody has it,
please, please make it available. I don't care how ugly, how badly scanned or
what format.
Anybody?
Regarding the patent issue, I'd like to see patents be truly required to
disclose sufficient information to allow the invention to be recreated by others
once the patent expires. The inventor should be able to demonstrate that they
have indeed done this, BEFORE being granted a patent. I think this would reduce
frivilous patents, simplify litigation on infringement issues, and serve the
original intent of patent law. My idea should apply no matter what the field of
invention (whether patents should apply at all to software is a different
question which I won't go into here).
Quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thorpie on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
I severely question the need for any IP rights in any field whatsoever.
The greatest transfers of wealth in the world are currently from developing
countries to developed countries because of IP rights. This helps keep poor
countries poor.
I do question the conclusion that investment will cease/be severely reduced if
IP ownership is not maintained - just what are these corporations going to spend
their money on?
Just look at the humble television and Sony. Patent technology constricted the
development of TV's in the west to such an extent that when Sony managed to
bypass all the patents all the western TV manufacturers were out of business
within a decade.
Even Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was close to being discovered by
someone else (Rutherford I think) at the time Einstein published. Memes will
continue to arrive when their time is right.
I personally just do not consider IP ownership to be anything but official
extortion and theft.
Thank you for your time
---
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime -
Floyd, Pink[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- source? - Authored by: gdeinsta on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- Hmmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- Hmmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- IP laws help in some cases, hurt in others - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 08:54 PM EDT |
They should include a description of a working application of the patent that is
in existence. It is to be submitted with an affidavit of a neutral examiner
describing it. They could also be photos, video and audio depictions and
descriptions. In this way non-obviousness would be apparent. Also folks just
couldn't think up stuff and then apply it to other peoples similar applications.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kuwan on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
Not that I'm saying that they should even exist at all, but if we're going to
have them then they should be much more limited than they are now. For
starters, I think software patents should be much shorter than
traditional
patents, say 5-10 years. I think that 5 years (from time granted,
or 7 years
from application) is plenty of time for a software patent.
My reason for
this is because the software industry moves many times
faster than any other
industry. The modern software industry is only about
30 years old which is
only 10 years longer than the length of a patent. Take a
look at the whole
Forgent JPEG mess right now and it's obvious that there are
problems with
software patents. Also, there is no manufacturing or physical
product that
needs to be built to create software, it is essentially
mathematics. To bog
the software industry down with all the useless patents
that have been granted
will only result in stagnant innovation and endless
litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 09:14 PM EDT |
I'm not in any way in favor of patents on software and business methods, but the
negative impact of such patents would be lessened if they had shorter durations
(eg 5 years). Has this ever been considered? 5 years is a long time in software
-- enough to give the "inventor" a massive head start, but short
enough not to put too big a damper on innovation and competition.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
These proposals make a lot of sense.
Corporate USA will NOT go for them.
"pat. pending" is used as a weapon & corporates will not want to
be subjected to open processes. What exactly is patented on something that has
stamped on the bottom "pat. pending?"
I do not know if ayone here hangs out with a bunch of MBAs but Darl's
"bottled water spew" is standard fare for these people & patents
play a big part in that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Prototrm on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
I have a suggestion:
The total cost of research and analysis on a patent application should be
completely paid for by the applicant -- the more resources that are needed
(e.g., for researching prior art), the more the applicant pays.
This will do two things: it will better fund the Patent Office, and it will help
discourage frivolous patents, since the applicant will have to pay the patent
office's costs even if the patent is rejected. With proper funding, the office
will reject a lot more patents than it does today, which is a good thing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
I am an inventor and have a current patent granted in the field of industrial
process control. The apparatus so described is widely used worldwide in the
field of casting light metals. Naturally this was assigned to my employer so I
got zip for all the midnight oil.
Anyway....
"Prior art" and the "obvious" tests are a problem. The
"obvious" test is largely subjective and the "prior art"
test is compromised by lack of resources and the lack of an incentive to derail
the invention. These are fundamental defects of the system.
Most legitimate inventors would be happy to submit their invention to rigorous
prior art research but their employer's discourage this for obvious reasons. And
most inventors would be happy to put their invention to the test of being
"obvious" -- if we only had an "official" means to do this.
And then you have the lawyers who brag about their "bait" to initiate
patent litigation.
In short, the incentives are all against reform.
The solution? Invent, patent, then donate to the public domain....
Count me in...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 11:44 PM EDT |
Here is a simple idea...
How about having companies hold their IP as a trade secret
until the rest of the world upon finding the technology
is really non-obvious requests the granting of a patent.
May seem odd but it certainly eliminates obvious patents.
I am an Engineer and I have read many patents in many areas
of technology and I hate to say it but it is really a
rare patent in any field that is truly non-obvious to
a practitioner of that art. Often the technology is
obvious to any high school kid that took Physics. I say
that because many obvious patents I've read are not in
my field.
Believe me when I say that the problem is not just with
Software Patents although I believe the potential harm to
the progression of Computer Science could happen at a
greater rate than most fields of endevor. A result of
the many individual concepts and ideas introduced in
software. Every routine and mechanism (potentially
thousands in a typical software project) could require its
own patent search to avoid infringement. Having done a few
patent searched I can attest to a real search taking at
least two orders of magnitude more time then the code
development. Considering the man power cost of a typical
software project, I do not see how this can possibly benefit
society.
veatnik (having trouble signing in today)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: howard_b_golden on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 12:22 AM EDT |
For a long time, it has seemed to me that the legal system's treatment of
patents and monopolies needs to be harmonized. If monopolies are so bad when
they arise due to private action and market forces, why are they granted by
administrative fiat in the case of patents (and copyrights)?
Should there be patents at all? If the desire is to encourage invention, is
granting patents the best way to do it in modern society? If there are patents,
why should minor inventions be protected for as long as major inventions? Why
should patents in rapidly evolving fields have the same duration as patents in
mature fields? These are only a few of the questions that need to be resolved.
Society's ambivalence toward monopoly needs to be faced squarely, and laws
granting or punishing monopolies need to be rationalized.
On a related topic, the May, 2004 issue of Technology Review has several stories
about invention and innovation. I recommend it to anyone interested in these
issues. The current system doesn't work very well, and patents are only part of
the problem. You can read some of the articles online for free (with
registration) at http://www.technologyreview.com .[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emmenjay on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 12:56 AM EDT |
If people are using a technology in a public way, and you should reasonably know
about it and do not challenge them, then that ought to harm your chances of
claiming later.
e.g. the JPEG patent, where technology that is in wide use is suddenly
challenged by a patent claim.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 02:33 AM EDT |
Patents are immoral, dishonest and ridiculous.
Patents cannot "be reformed" - they should be abolished.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 04:09 AM EDT |
So what they are saying is essentially that the USPTO should enforce the
existing patent regulations in order to improve the system? Reading the list
above was like reading a list of exactly what the USPTO is currently SUPPOSED to
do, with no changes in current rules or regulations.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 04:39 AM EDT |
If the PO has a "statutory requirement known as the 'nonobviousness
standard'"... and they are failing to do it.
Then they are causing harm, so sue them (tort) for their failure?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Bracegirdle on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 05:39 AM EDT |
| There is an interesting but old (2001) consultation conclusion by the UK patent
office here:
Here
It's interesting to note that only individuals responded about Open
Source, and the UKPO never asked any Open Source related organisations, this
pattern has been repeated by their latest and ongoing consultations; only IBM is
on the government's list of people to consult about FOSS and patents!
One of
the actual conclusions that worried me is :
"16. The Government does not,
however, accept the view asserted by some respondents that Open Source software
is threatened by the existing extent of patentability. This seems to fly in the
face of the facts, notably that during the last decade Open Source software has
flourished."
So they'll wait until Open Source is damaged before even
thinking about offering legal protection.
Most of the UKPO's moves will be
made through the European Union and the European Patent Convention so FFII and others should be able to represent
FOSS there, but it is thought by FFII that the UK is driving the "patent
everything" idea and this document gives a bit of incite into what they are
proposing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 05:40 AM EDT |
It sounds very much like what the status quo is already supposed to
be.
But anyway, here's (briefly) where I stand on the issue of
patents.
I believe that patentability should not be the norm. Patents
potentially infringe the freedom of other individuals who happen to
independently come up with the same ideas, in that such individuals cannot
distribute their own implementations without the patent holder's
permission.
If, however, a particular field is such that the costs
(financial and/or otherwise) of seeking to develop an idea into a distributable
product, deliverable service, etc, are prohibitively high, then it is that
prohibitive cost that prevents individuals from having that freedom in
practice. In such fields, patents don't infringe other individuals'
freedoms in practice, and instead potentially enable
individuals to exercise such freedoms by attracting enabling
investment.
Software is not such a field, as the Free/Libre /
Open-Source Software community/communities demonstrate so magnificently.
Software patents are unnecessary, and do infringe freedoms.
In
particular with software, there is the issue of Freedom of
Expression, which is widely held to be a fundamental human
right. Software patents do infringe our rights to Freedom of
Expression, and should therefore be rejected in their entirity as
illegal.
:-)
---
Open and Honest - Open Source
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 05:40 AM EDT |
How about the society must always pay the inventor a billion dollars for any
patent rights to any patents granted, and that any patents granted must
immediately be given a BSD license in return?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 06:01 AM EDT |
Orwellian
Passionate
Clinical<
/p>
Canonical [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
"an "'open review procedure' for third parties to challenge recently
issued patents before the USPTO's administrative patent judges, who would
resolve questions about a given patent's validity..."
Maybe I am being paranoid, but what this sounds like a way of delaying a patent
being issues for whatever reason. I release a patent and then you challenge it
with frivilous issues to stretch out the time. I don't know if there would be
any benefit for doing that. Hopefully I'm just being paranoid.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ine on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
<rant>One of the things that bothers me about the patent system is this.
You can *patent* technologies you use in a car. But you cannot *copyright* a
car.
You can *copyright* a book. But you cannot *patent*, say, a book or even new
plot device (like "I hold the patent for 'the butler did it!'").
But you can *copyright* software AND *patent* it. Seems to me like software
companies are getting two bites at the same cherry.
A second thing is the lack of reciprocity with patents. What obligations do
patent-holders have? They seem to get a benefit (a government-granted monopoly)
without corresponding obligations. Talk about something for nothing (corporate
welfare)! It is rather like when the government used to print more money: it was
"funny money", it may stimulate activity in the short term, but it
will bite you with raging inflation later. So too the current patent
free-for-all: the government is effectively handing out "funny money
printing machines" to all these patent-holders - it will bite us by a
severe restriction in innovation and through the on-costs of rampant litigation
and parasitical "IP businesses" (Exhibit 1: Darl McBride).
The IP industry is not productive - it is a drain on the economy. It is not
adding to the total REAL wealth of the nation, it is merely re-distributing a
(possibily shrinking) pool of wealth to those who already have too much.
(Exhibit 2: Darl McBride)
You don't have to be a socialist to desire a serious restriction in the issuing
of patents, especially software patents. A simple dedication to free, efficient
markets is enough.</rant>
Ah, that feels better.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Paul Shirley on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 07:42 AM EDT |
The reason we have patents is to encourage the spread of new ideas through
timely disclosure, instead of locking them away as trade secrets. More or less
its a reasonable idea for most inventive fields.
As an idea it breaks down totally for software for one simple reason: there are
many more active programmers doing inventive work at any time than in any other
inventive field. Take away the 99% writing database front ends, data input forms
and other 'programming by numbers' jobs and there are still 10's of millions of
programmers, amateur&professional, working on projects requiring inventive
steps. Its inevitable that ideas will be independently rediscovered for any
small invention.
The growth of OSS and the large groups of people working on, examing and
commenting on large projects means even big inventions are increasingly likely
to be independently rediscovered.
In a world where programmers are still needed in such numbers, still working at
a relatively primitive level and increasingly willing to share the fruits of
their work the question is: does society gain sufficient advantage to justify
patent monopolies. I say no.
Either lose them or raise the bar high enough to only catch inventions we really
could lose to trade secrecy for at least 5 years. The non-obvious requirement
should already be achieving that if any account was made of the pool of talent
available, clearly that's not happening and the more drastic solution is now our
best bet.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 07:44 AM EDT |
Please note that it was Microsoft's continuous theft of other people's ideas and
efforts that drove companies to protect their software more and more.
MS didn't care about patents for a long time, until it became harder to steal
because of them.
<tin foil hat>Maybe MS are making deliberate problems, just so that
software patents go away. Then they can go back to their old ways
again.</hat>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mickeym on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 08:13 AM EDT |
What happened to the requirement to demonstrate a working model?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
Granted, what I know about patents is what I learned in High School, but I
remember a rule that I was taught, but which seems not to exist in the real
world.
That rule was that a person can patent a WAY of doing something, it cannot stop
someone from accomplishing the same task. (The example used was that Eli
Whitney had a patent on a cotton gin, but that doesn't mean that nobody can come
up with a DIFFERENT way to seperate cotton.)
Too many of the patents I see now exist simply for the purpose of preventing
somebody from making anything that DOES what my invention does.
(Example: Intel patenting the SOCKET that the Pentium chip plugs into, because
they're tired of AMD making chips that do the same thing their chips do, but
faster and cheaper.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- AMD - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 09:23 AM EDT
- AMD - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: James on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
If a patent is included in a standard with the patent holder's knowledge, or if
a patent is deemed "to close" to an open standard, that patent holder
waives all future rights to defend whatever part of the patent is used for the
standard.
This will stop the kind of patent extortion that we're seeing in the JPEG case,
and what we could potentially see for IPSEC.
The second condition would stop companies like MS from patenting document
formats that are little or nothing more than XML.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rben13 on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
There are some other things needed besides the recomendations given. For
instance, if a company pushes for a standard to include technology upon which it
has a patent, and the company does not disclose it's patent, the patent rights
should be automatically forfeited. This might stop some of nastier practices
going on today.
I am in favor of a open patent process, one in which
there is a public review portion during the process. It would help improve the
spread of knowledge, establish the originator of ideas, and hopefully slow the
granting of ridiculous patents.
A word to those who want to shorten the
length of patents. While it seems like a good idea on the face of it, you would
have to also put a great deal of money into the patent office so they could
actually get a patent approved before it ran out. The patent office just
recently announced that with the current influx of new patents they expect the
delay from time of application to date of grant to grow from the current two
years to five. If the patent stipulated a run time of 5 years or 7 years from
time of application, most patents would only last 2 years.
I think that
one of the best observations made in this discussion was that the writing of
software is an inherently creative task and that almost every programmer is
called upon to come up with a novel solution at some point in their career.
Some programmers do little else then come up with ways to solve problems that
have never been solved before. Those of us in this field are fortunate to have
an occupation that provides us with such a creative challenge.
It seems
clear to me that copyright alone is sufficient for the vast majority of software
applications. Patents on software are generally harmful. As someone else
pointed out, giving the software industry both patent and copyright protection
seems to be somewhat unfair as well.
If we don't put up a truely massive
fight, though, I suspect that we'll soon see software patents in this country
and in all the other developed nations. As soon as the patent laws are in
place, the software giants like Microsoft will immediately start churning out
patents designed to cripple Linux and lobbying Congress for greatly increased
terms. I wouldn't be surprised to see the life of a patent increased to over
100 years in my lifetime.
The result of this activity will be an
incredible slowdown in innovation in the software industry. The only companies
that will be able to afford the lawyers to protect themselves from patent and
copyright infringement will be large corporations like Microsoft and IBM. The
days of the independent software developer will be over.
Software
patents are the most potent weapon that a company like Microsoft can add to it's
arsenal. They provide a way to attack the very foundations of any operating
system or application that is otherwise protected by the GPL. I wouldn't be
shocked to see a clause added to a software patent law that allowed large
corporations to grandfather in their technology, shutting down whole areas of
competition.
Keep in mind that it's a lot easier on a politician who is
looking for a political campaign contribution to go to a few giant corporations
capable of donating millions than for him or her to appeal to hundreds or
thousands of small companies and individuals. There is a bias built into our
political system that tends to favor large lobbying organizations and large
corporations over individuals. Individuals have to fight much harder to be
heard.
....um... end of rant. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fcw on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
Somewhat bitter
interview
about standards,
including commentary about how Microsoft and IBM sidelined "real" standards for
"proprietary" ones.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
It should cost very little to have your patent application granted.
It should cost very much to have your patent application rejected.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Baldy on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
here's a few more proposals
1. The applicant must maintain the invention they want to
patent as a trade secret until the application is
published.
If they fail to keep it secret .... NO PATENT
2. Patent Protection only commences from formal
publication by the patent office.
Prior art is anything developed / published prior to the
formal publication.
3. All applications formally published and freely
available online for comment. / critisism.
4. once the application is published the only alterations
permitted are reductions in scope or addition of prior
art.
5. If the application fails to acheive a patent the
contents of the application become public domain.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
