Software Patents and law
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:02 pmHaving trolled to another discussion board and picking up bits of the topic much of which was Microsoft bashing I did pick up this bit of information which I found interesting;
"Here is a frightening thought for ya, Microsoft owns the patent for
longitude and latitude - or something along the lines of "representing
a location on the globe with vertical and horizontal lines". Scary,
scary stuff."
"Basically M$ can't innovate, so they patent "the wheel" and then sue anyone who
manufactures a car, cart, bicycle, motorcycle, wheelchair or office chair. It's
a 2-pronged theme:
1) Scare people away from using competing products
2) Extort money, thus living off other people's work"
[USA] Patent Reform is not enough, software patents must be abolished
The US Senate Judiciary Committee’s bill on “patent reform” will not address the main patent problems of software developers.
The bill takes aim at a problem experienced by a small number of large companies, namely, the problem of patent trolls litigating in the hope of a pay-out at the end of a long legal process. Ironically, many of the large companies that will benefit from this bill are the cause of the real patent problems for software developers.
To write useful software, compatibility with existing data formats is essential. Examples are the “FAT” file system and the MPEG h.264 video format. The former is patented by Microsoft, and the latter is the subject of over 1,000 patent claims, mostly from large companies. Compatibility problems are not caused by trolls or excessive damages, it’s about powerful companies using patents to block everyone else or imposing “software distribution tax”.
Most software developers – SMEs and individuals – don’t have the resources to even begin the legal process, let alone the months or years necessary pursue it to the end. Regardless of the outcome, the possibilty of having to go to court is in itself an injustice for an activity such as software development, which is no more industrial than writing an article or a song.
Everyone who makes a web page or an app for their handheld computer is a software developer. This shouldn’t be exclusively for an elite.
Further, the demands of patent holders can be incompatible with the development or distribution model of software. The amount of damages has no effect on this. An example is developers who distribute their software at no cost, possibly earning money through a related product or service, or possibly as a public service (e.g. schools). This zero-cost distribution doesn’t happen in other domains where the raw materials require a per-unit production cost, such as pharmaceuticals or automobiles. This is one of the reasons why patents are not suited to software.
What software developers need is freedom to operate. Freedom to be compatible with the file formats that are widely used, freedom to add the features that are useful and expected by users. Fewer barriers to software development. Then we will see fewer monopolies and more software doing what users want.
The reform we need is legislation clarifying to the courts that software is not patentable.
Why this matters
Every company is in the software business, which means that every company has software liability. We estimate costs of $11.2 billion a year due to software patent suits (see our 2008 State of Softpatents report), and not just by Microsoft and IBM—The Green Bay Packers, Kraft Foods, and Ford Motor are facing software patent infringement lawsuits for their use of the standard software necessary for running a modern business.
Software innovation happens without government intervention. Virtually all of the technologies you use now were developed before software was widely viewed as patentable. The Web, email, your word processor and spreadsheet program, instant messaging, or even more technical features like the psychoacoustic encoding and Huffman compression underlying the MP3 standard—all of it was originally developed by enthusiastic programmers, many of whom have formed successful business around such software, none of whom asked the government for a monopoly. So if software authors have a proven track-record of innovation without patents, why force them to use patents? What is the gain from billions of dollars in patent litigation?
Change is happening now. The 2008 ruling of the appeals court of the US Federal Circuit on the case in re Bilski narrowed the scope of what is patentable. Some experts even question if software patents are still valid at all in the US. ESP, under the direction of Ben Klemens, played a key role in this case. See our resources for lawyers page for details.
This site is an overview of how courts self-expanded their jurisdiction to include software despite the protests of practitioners such as Bill Gates or Adobe Microsystems, of the economic damage done, how the story is evolving today, and how your company can help to restore the software market to a world run by innovators, not judges.
© 2008, End Software Patents
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
"Here is a frightening thought for ya, Microsoft owns the patent for
longitude and latitude - or something along the lines of "representing
a location on the globe with vertical and horizontal lines". Scary,
scary stuff."
"Basically M$ can't innovate, so they patent "the wheel" and then sue anyone who
manufactures a car, cart, bicycle, motorcycle, wheelchair or office chair. It's
a 2-pronged theme:
1) Scare people away from using competing products
2) Extort money, thus living off other people's work"
- The small guy
[USA] Patent Reform is not enough, software patents must be abolished
The US Senate Judiciary Committee’s bill on “patent reform” will not address the main patent problems of software developers.
The bill takes aim at a problem experienced by a small number of large companies, namely, the problem of patent trolls litigating in the hope of a pay-out at the end of a long legal process. Ironically, many of the large companies that will benefit from this bill are the cause of the real patent problems for software developers.
To write useful software, compatibility with existing data formats is essential. Examples are the “FAT” file system and the MPEG h.264 video format. The former is patented by Microsoft, and the latter is the subject of over 1,000 patent claims, mostly from large companies. Compatibility problems are not caused by trolls or excessive damages, it’s about powerful companies using patents to block everyone else or imposing “software distribution tax”.
Most software developers – SMEs and individuals – don’t have the resources to even begin the legal process, let alone the months or years necessary pursue it to the end. Regardless of the outcome, the possibilty of having to go to court is in itself an injustice for an activity such as software development, which is no more industrial than writing an article or a song.
Everyone who makes a web page or an app for their handheld computer is a software developer. This shouldn’t be exclusively for an elite.
Further, the demands of patent holders can be incompatible with the development or distribution model of software. The amount of damages has no effect on this. An example is developers who distribute their software at no cost, possibly earning money through a related product or service, or possibly as a public service (e.g. schools). This zero-cost distribution doesn’t happen in other domains where the raw materials require a per-unit production cost, such as pharmaceuticals or automobiles. This is one of the reasons why patents are not suited to software.
What software developers need is freedom to operate. Freedom to be compatible with the file formats that are widely used, freedom to add the features that are useful and expected by users. Fewer barriers to software development. Then we will see fewer monopolies and more software doing what users want.
The reform we need is legislation clarifying to the courts that software is not patentable.
Why this matters
Every company is in the software business, which means that every company has software liability. We estimate costs of $11.2 billion a year due to software patent suits (see our 2008 State of Softpatents report), and not just by Microsoft and IBM—The Green Bay Packers, Kraft Foods, and Ford Motor are facing software patent infringement lawsuits for their use of the standard software necessary for running a modern business.
Software innovation happens without government intervention. Virtually all of the technologies you use now were developed before software was widely viewed as patentable. The Web, email, your word processor and spreadsheet program, instant messaging, or even more technical features like the psychoacoustic encoding and Huffman compression underlying the MP3 standard—all of it was originally developed by enthusiastic programmers, many of whom have formed successful business around such software, none of whom asked the government for a monopoly. So if software authors have a proven track-record of innovation without patents, why force them to use patents? What is the gain from billions of dollars in patent litigation?
Change is happening now. The 2008 ruling of the appeals court of the US Federal Circuit on the case in re Bilski narrowed the scope of what is patentable. Some experts even question if software patents are still valid at all in the US. ESP, under the direction of Ben Klemens, played a key role in this case. See our resources for lawyers page for details.
This site is an overview of how courts self-expanded their jurisdiction to include software despite the protests of practitioners such as Bill Gates or Adobe Microsystems, of the economic damage done, how the story is evolving today, and how your company can help to restore the software market to a world run by innovators, not judges.
© 2008, End Software Patents
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.