Have you seen a representative sample of software patents or are you basing this thinly-disguised opinion on the occasional software patent that makes it into the public eye?
Edit:
Hint: Those patents (and patent applications which have not even been granted) that make it to the public eye are, by definition, exceptional rather than representative.
No doubt the media picks up on the most stupid aspects of the court cases but unless byte code has been lifted, much of the time, at least to me, it often appears that they claim to have reinvented the wheel.
The Lodsys pseudo-software saga continues.
No doubt they are having much contentious success. Much of that we might never know because of the Apple non disclosure agreement that stops developers talking. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14682700
"
BBC contacted both Apple and Google. Apple asked to be quoted stating that "Apple declined to comment".
A spokesman for Google was a little less stark.
"Developers would have to take their own decisions in responding to correspondence from anyone," he said.
Apple might just be secretly testing a few support pennies on the very first few to appear in court.
It seems that Apple's iPhone related application to patent multi-touch has just been rejected at appeal.
Multi-touch only became possible with the move to imprecise capacitive screens from low sensitivity but precise resistive screens.
Maybe the patent office now knows that stronger patent scrutiny is needed.
Thank God Tim Berners-Lee didn't patent the Web or even worse sell it to Microsoft, otherwise we'd all be subject to their restrictive licensing agreements and it'd have a really silly name or number and updates every other day.
No.
If he had done that, the Web would have died at birth.
I understand that. I agree. I don't want the right-click patented either. Rather than blaming software patents with foul-language in umbrella accusations (see OP's chosen subject to this thread), the blame should fall on those filing, and on those approving, any patent application that doesn't meet the core criteria of patentability. Maybe those criteria need reviewing.
I remain convinced that software inventions should be patentable in principle.
Strictly IMO but I would shift the blame to those approving patents. I work for a company that files every other idea as a patent not to go trolling but for defence. Most midly large companies these days sees patents as a way to come surving rather that a way to do business.
It is a sad reality of industry that patents are required to survive.
"In an unusually heated blog post, the company claimed that its competitors were "banding together" to impose a "tax" on Android with "dubious patents." More broadly, it argued that intellectual property is now being used to squelch rather than promote innovation"
Even at the time of the steam engine it was no doubt similar at times but less par the course.
There's a fuss in computer chess over Rybka, just because the programmer adapted substantial open-source code for a program which he sold. A question of can adapting something readily available in a way that your rivals can't, or were too gloriously noble to?
Part of me said that he was too successful at coding so to help trade in other software he got booted out. He had years before openly admitted to writing his own code by studying techniques.
I quite doubt the competitors were much different here.
Very very suspect was the act of banning him years later when his code had metamorphosed into the sublime.
edit - an interesting follow up on his 'naive' interviews.
With competing real browsers not being allowed on some mobile OS an Opera blog is certainly expressing its frustration at patent hindrance on WSC open standards
"I'm starting to see a pattern here:
2009: Apple discloses one at the last minute. Patent Advisory Group created. Patent was found not to be relevant.
2010: Apple discloses two patent applications at the last minute. PAG created. One patent found to not apply. The other deemed not relevant.
2011: Apple discloses three patents and one application at the last minute. PAG likely to be created. Unclear what the result will be.
" http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/12/09/apple-w3c
Now its BT turn to sue Google.
Similar in absurdity to the Apple versus Samsung stuff?
"One example of an alleged infringement is Android's ability to allow a music download if a smartphone is connected to a wi-fi network, but to prevent it when the device only has access to a 3G data link."
"Another example is Google Maps ability to make different information available at different levels of zoom." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16243414
So what exactly is the long term benefit for BT in undermining Android?
I absolutely fail to see what the following has to do with BT. BT's not created an online map service, search engine, social network or ebooks. What the hell's BT playing at, I wonder? If BT are just fannying on, I hope Google sues the backsides off them.
I think software/hardware patents are necessary to protect someone's investment (time and money) but I do believe they need to be reformed to bring them into the 21st century. We can see from the amount of lawsuits that they are starting to stifle innovation rather than aid it. I mean, why create a new product if you are going to fall foul of patents that are too vague and be susceptible to a lawsuit by the likes of Apple?
Comments
Have you seen a representative sample of software patents or are you basing this thinly-disguised opinion on the occasional software patent that makes it into the public eye?
Edit:
Hint: Those patents (and patent applications which have not even been granted) that make it to the public eye are, by definition, exceptional rather than representative.
What proportion of patents/patent applications in this field do you think get a mention in the media?
No doubt the media picks up on the most stupid aspects of the court cases but unless byte code has been lifted, much of the time, at least to me, it often appears that they claim to have reinvented the wheel.
No doubt they are having much contentious success. Much of that we might never know because of the Apple non disclosure agreement that stops developers talking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14682700
"
BBC contacted both Apple and Google. Apple asked to be quoted stating that "Apple declined to comment".
A spokesman for Google was a little less stark.
"Developers would have to take their own decisions in responding to correspondence from anyone," he said.
Apple might just be secretly testing a few support pennies on the very first few to appear in court.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/09/google-to-htc-take-these-patents-keep-fighting-apple.ars
It appears to me that Android have the patent that does the quick enlargement of keys being typed.
Sadly it's the one way to stand up for yourself
Multi-touch only became possible with the move to imprecise capacitive screens from low sensitivity but precise resistive screens.
Maybe the patent office now knows that stronger patent scrutiny is needed.
Without Hank Williams there may have been no Buddy Holly and thus no Beatles.
And even more obviously there would be no coming of the Monkees.
No.
If he had done that, the Web would have died at birth.
Strictly IMO but I would shift the blame to those approving patents. I work for a company that files every other idea as a patent not to go trolling but for defence. Most midly large companies these days sees patents as a way to come surving rather that a way to do business.
It is a sad reality of industry that patents are required to survive.
"In an unusually heated blog post, the company claimed that its competitors were "banding together" to impose a "tax" on Android with "dubious patents." More broadly, it argued that intellectual property is now being used to squelch rather than promote innovation"
Even at the time of the steam engine it was no doubt similar at times but less par the course.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/11/google-granted-patent-for-pattern-unlock-screen/
Logically you an set an unlock pattern to match the infamous 'slide to unlock' patent!
I quite doubt the competitors were much different here.
Very very suspect was the act of banning him years later when his code had metamorphosed into the sublime.
edit - an interesting follow up on his 'naive' interviews.
"I'm starting to see a pattern here:
2009: Apple discloses one at the last minute. Patent Advisory Group created. Patent was found not to be relevant.
2010: Apple discloses two patent applications at the last minute. PAG created. One patent found to not apply. The other deemed not relevant.
2011: Apple discloses three patents and one application at the last minute. PAG likely to be created. Unclear what the result will be.
"
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/12/09/apple-w3c
They have patented much of the basic logic behind driver-less cars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16197664
Similar in absurdity to the Apple versus Samsung stuff?
"One example of an alleged infringement is Android's ability to allow a music download if a smartphone is connected to a wi-fi network, but to prevent it when the device only has access to a 3G data link."
"Another example is Google Maps ability to make different information available at different levels of zoom."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16243414
So what exactly is the long term benefit for BT in undermining Android?
'Sold a dud' by the patent office springs to mind.