The USPTO has had two previous software patent road trips I recall having
read submissions from them. Last time around they held meetings in Arlington
and San Jose.
I haven't located any of the previous efforts results structured
in an organized fashion, although I think they once were.
Googling for [
USPTO "software patents" industry submissions ] with a time range of 01/01/1990
to 01/01/2003 you'd find the first four hits are for DOUGLAS BROTZ of Adobe saying innovation in software occurs regardless
of software patents - Jan 31, 2001, RICHARD STALLMAN demonstrating difficulties to innovation software
patents bring - Jan 31 2001, VERN BLANCHARD representing a small company decrying software
patents - Jan 31 2002, and R. DUFF THOMPSON then of Word Perfect Corporation describing the
lack of obviousness findings over non-patent prior art and a need to improve the
examination process - Jan 31 2002.
The return links to organized indexes for
these meetings found at the bottom of each submission are inoperative. The
message implied there that the USPTO feels free to ignore answers that don't fit
in with their world view and they'll be swept under the rug (eventually, the
submissions were organized around a decade ago).
Searching on the USPTO web
site you'd also find that the first of these meetings was held in Alviso,
California on January 26th and 27th, 1994, Public Hearing on Use of the Patent
System to Protect Software-Related Inventions, from the Transcript of Proceedings.
From my perspective this is the USPTO
looking for suggestions that support their current practice with whatever useful
submissions that enhance the process without ending software patents.
I had
saved the totality of these proceedings at one time but suspect my copies are
lost in the mists of time following discontinuation of using QIC tape backups
and no longer having an operable tape drive. I recall pounding around 70 tape
cartridges with a sledge hammer.
A further message being those who ignore
history are doomed to repeat it, in this case forced by a government agency
non-responsive to an industry it 'serves'.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
