[IP] more on Patents -- What is the distinction?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 16, 2004 3:04:18 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: tom_gray_grc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Patents -- What is the distinction?
You're absolutely right that you should be able to patent your
machine, including the software inside. What most people complaining
about software patents are talking about would not interfere with that
-- they (well, we) have a problem with a different type of software
patent. As a couple of examples, there was a patent on using the RSA
algorithm to secure data. That was fine. There's a patent on use of
the LZW algorithm to compress data -- somewhat less fine. There's a
patent on using XOR to draw a cursor on a display. That's completely
not fine. And there's a patent on remembering a customer so that he
can buy things just buy telling you he wants them -- the infamous
Amazon "one-click" patent. That's so far from fine it's coarse.
What's the distinction here? Well, there are two. The Amazon patent,
and many other very, very bad software patents, are patents on
business methods. There's a booming industry in taking any
traditional method of commerce, slapping a web interface on it, and
patenting it. And this is legal -- now that organization is the only
one who can use that technique, for years and years.
The one-click idea is obvious. There were plenty of ways of
implementing it, and plenty of people who'd done pieces of it. But
now, not only does Amazon have a monopoly on one-click purchases, but
on many systems like that or incorporating pieces of it.
These patents on business methods in software are a real, serious
problem. And they share a characteristic with the other troublesome
software patents: they're obvious.
A patent on use of XOR for drawing a glyph that's supposed to be
obvious is right up there with a patent on using a lever to lift heavy
things. It's a normal, expected part of building a graphics system.
It's so basic that it's definitional: a cursor *is* a quickly-drawn
obvious glyph. XOR *is* the maximum contrast operator, and *is*
simple to calculate.
Patents like this are scattered throughout the current software
development universe. Rederiving LZW is a standard undergraduate
information-theory problem. That is, a bunch of undergrads will be
given LZ and told to improve it to solve certain problems, and the
vast majority of the class will come in the next morning with LZW.
But until it expired very recently, somebody (UNISYS, more or less)
has a monopoly on use of that algorithm for compression, granted as a
reward for developing something innovative and non-obvious. There are
over two hundred similar patents which encumber any reasonable
implementation of a computer operating system. It's not possible to
build a reasonable software system without infringing on many of these
patents. That strongly implies that they're not obvious, and many
never were.
What's the solution to this problem? There are several possibilities,
none of which are harmful to real innovators:
* Reduce the amount of time a patent lasts.
* Examine applications much more closely for obviousness and innovation.
* Rescind patents when their art matures enough to consider their
ideas obvious.
* Eliminate business-method-in-software patents. For example, require
that the technique be globally novel, not merely novel within the
field of software design.
But none of those hit the real core of the problem: software
construction is all about abstracting ideas and methods of operation.
Code reuse is common and vital. But the industry's still in its
nascent stages. Patents on techniques that weren't innovative in 1988
are still restricting what people can build; that became basic,
standard technique over a decade ago. The only way to fix that
problem is to remove the ability to patent ways of manipulating bits
with other bits.
-Brian
David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
There have been some recent postings to the IP list
about software patents. Frankly I cannot understand
the point behind these posts and others that I have
seen. I have designed hardware and I have designed
software. I cannot see any real difference in the
design of each. In fact, in designing a solution to a
problem, I am often faced with the choice of
developing a custom circuit or of choosing one of many
processor/software design architectures. The choice
between hardware and software does not depend on
anything inherent in either technique but in various
aspects, such as cost, space availability etc., that
depend on the current technological context.
Sine patents do not protect a design in itself but the
combination of a solution and a perceived problem, I
cannot see any reason why there should be a
distinction between a hardware and a software-based
design in this regard.
If I design a piece of hardware that contains a
controller which sequences circuit behavior through
some custom microcode, should I not be able to patent
this design. It is both hardware and software and both
neither.
Why should patenting not apply to software-based
designs?
Tom Gray
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as bts@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
--
Brian Sniffen bts@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/