The recent attention that the Blackboard patent situation has received made it fairly clear that in the education sector patents are unacceptable to most people.
What may not be clear is that it is becoming more generally accepted that software patents as a whole do little to increase innovation, and in fact create a significant risk.
The traditional approach of many large software companies was to apply for as many patents as possible, and the cross-license them to other software companies. This approach work because any company who attempted to enforce a patent claim on another company faced the risk that they would be counter-sued for infringement of another patent.
Recently, though, this strategy has begun to come undone. Companies are being formed who have no assets except a patent portfolio, and so are not vulnerable to counter-infringement claims. The RIM/Blackberry lawsuit and the Microsoft/Eolas lawsuit are two early examples of this.
The uncertainty generated by patent claims (most observers thought that the Eolas patent would have been invalidated by prior art) have made it pretty clear that the resources spent on developing patents would be better spent in implementing the ideas.
As the saying goes: Ideas are cheap - show me the working code.
2 Comments
“the resources spent on developing patents would be better spent in implementing the ideas”.
I’d have to agree. Looking at the reply from my patent attorney as to the reasons for “a non-final Office Action as issued by the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office” and reading “it will be necessary to undertake a review of each of these citations and prepare a detailed argument, with or without amendments, in order to overcome the Examiner’s objection”, it’s pretty apparent the only people making money are the lawyers.
The common problem appears to be, using my case as an illustration, that the code (the dewey decimal code) is often already there. It’s simply it’s application which makes it unique (= categorizing community web environments + constructing a new GDS (global dialing scheme)). So it’s global development which is needed more than than national research, and that means building relationships rather simply arguing about the paperwork. Although I’d never say (new) ideas are ever cheap.
“it’s pretty apparent the only people making money are the lawyers”
That’s probably true, but not the point. The point is that the current patent system makes it dangerous to try and develop new ideas, because the risks are increased.
“The common problem appears to be, using my case as an illustration, that the code (the dewey decimal code) is often already there”
That shows exactly why the fact something like this is patentable is wrong. Categorizing something apart from books via a taxonomy designed for books isn’t an innovation and shouldn’t be patentable - there are many instances of things like that around. For instance, EdNA can categorize websites using Library of Congress subject areas. Even if there was no prior art it appears to be an obvious application of the existing idea.
Of course, no one’s actually doing it in the real world for the same reason that most formal taxonomies are struggling - too much data to keep up with, even with a taxonomy designed to be used to categorize web resources (eg, The ODP subject areas).
However, the fact is that if someone was granted a patent on that idea (or even worse: the idea of using taxonomies to organize websites generally) it would create new dangers for people actually implementing software.
There are a few examples of truly new algorithms or ideas where I can understand the argument for software patents (eg Diffie-Hellman key exchange). Things which are old ideas just implemented in software or on the internet should live or die by their quality, and patents shouldn’t provide any incentive.
“It’s simply it’s application which makes it unique”
Things which are merely a new application of an old idea should never be patentable anyway IMHO. I realize that they are, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense or is right.
Post a Comment