Options
Are most software patents complete b******s?
alanwarwic
Posts: 28,396
Forum Member
✭✭✭
How can you really describe software as a 'find'?
So should Rod Stewart have got a patent and sued Bonnie Tyler?
I suppose he had no shareholders.
So should Rod Stewart have got a patent and sued Bonnie Tyler?
I suppose he had no shareholders.
0
Comments
How ever that is the way the world currently works,
Companies now take patents as defensive matters as opposed to challenging progress.
:eek:
Been happening for years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/nov/15/genetics.theissuesexplained
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/judge-nullifies-gene-patents/
But as I said, probably best for a different forum than Computing
Stop scaremongering. Gene patenting is about protecting modified gene sequences where astronomical amounts of time and money have gone into genetic engineering to achieve specific things. It's no different to innovation in any other field.
From one of your own links:
They sue when the Legal Dept takes their finger out.
Not just "modified gene sequences where astronomical amounts of time and money have gone into genetic engineering to achieve specific things".
The full quote you posted from my Wikipedia link:
Gene in natural state: Can't be patented.
Isolated sequence with a known function: Can be patented, without having been "modified" or "genetically engineered", and even though it is not an invention.
From the Grauniad link:
See also the Myriad case regarding the BRCA1/BRCA2 patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._U.S._Patent_and_Trademark_Office
Myriad did actually lose, in a surprise ruling, but an appeal is underway...
I think there is a big difference between patenting a drug (invention) or testing method (invention) versus an actual isolated gene sequence (discovery).
Your genes aren't unique to you, so it isn't yours either.
Suppose you crack a really nice problem. A super-fast super-secure encryption algorithm, the ultimate orthogonal basis for similarity search, the ultimate lotto number prediction algorithm, stuff like that. Surely I'd file for a patent if I see one of two things happening:
(a) my invention is such that someone actually would want to license it, or
(b) somebody else might file the same or similar before my product is ready, so can prevent me from marketing my idea with my own product.
Perfectly valid reasons, I should think. The patent offices' job includes to ensure the invention is actually new and a true invention in the sense of a novelty improvement, etc.
Problem isn't it doesn't work like that. We need to find someway of "reseting" things so it does.
Dave
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.
On that I agree. Unfortunately when people make bad decisions on something, that something gets a bad name to the extent people think it is better to have none than any of it. The views on software patents are certainly a spectrum.
The patentability criteria seems to work perfectly well in many other spheres therefore I don't necessarily think the criteria needs reviewing other than to make the it consistent for a universal and ubiquitously distributed product such as software. My criticism has always been on the application of the existing criteria.
Dave
The biggest single problem with software patents is that most of them originate from US companies and as I understand it the standards for US patents are much less rigorous than for UK or European patents.
In addition to this any patent infringement cases in the US are tried by a jury, not - as in the UK - by expert judges without a jury. This means that the lawyers just need to convince a jury that they have a case - which is much easier than convincing a judge who is expert in the area.
Also, the costs of challenging a patent in the US courts are very high, so it really is only the big companies who can afford to do this.
Having worked in the past for a company who felt obliged to try for patents and which had to worry about whether or not our software infringed patents I have had various meetings with patent lawyers.
In one case the patent lawyers had a watching brief on a European patent application from HP which our software might have breached. That particular one started off claiming a patent on a complex colour matching UI, but by the time the European patent lawyers had challenged it they had reduced it to a patent on the idea of a "default" button... and the last I heard they were still arguing:).
BTW: before anyone says that everything has "default" buttons - this particular patent was lodged in about 1995 when they were much less common, although the discussions we had were that we thought the lawyers should have been able to find "prior art" which invalidated that claim too.
App developers withdraw from US as patent fears reach 'tipping point'
"And that's why the patent problem is such a mess"
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/07/patents-in-apple-htc-case-filed-in-1994-1996-long-before-smartphones.html
It seems that like Nokia one against Apple, if the target companies has money then its always worth a punt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14254744
It's all very surreal with Lodsys also staying fairly silent on the matter. Twilight zone stuff for any author getting sued?
E.g. the technology MS developed in getting translation of movements in the kinect to near instant speed should be patentable IMO but the general concept of motion tracking should not be patentable.
Conceptually, property rights as a reward for undertaking the cost of risky R&D (i.e. patents) are very important. Problem in that china doesn't respect them.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/microsoft-says-motorola-s-android-phones-infringe-its-patents.html
I'm not exactly sure how removing opposition and thus ensuring limited choice plus higher prices really helps the customers. The fact that they mention partners must mean current partners offering platform choice are very much under the cosh too.