Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw)
Groklaw presents
an alternate view on software patents. "I received an email from
Craig A. James, a software architect, who wishes to express an alternative
view on patents. Because he believes it is unrealistic to ask that there be
no software patents, he suggests alternatives. His reform proposals make so
much sense I am happy to publish his article. Craig specializes in
software design and architecture for scientific systems. His best-known
project was a special-purpose database specific to chemistry that
revolutionized the cheminformatics industry."
(Log in to post comments)
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 11, 2004 18:06 UTC (Mon) by fermigier (guest, #12330) [Link] It *is* realistic to ask that there be no software patents, at least in Europe.
For that, we (= european citizens) need to support the Paliament's position (= amendments) against the Commission's.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 11, 2004 19:13 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Something like Mr. James' proposal is about the best we can hope for in the US (though the GATT/WTO treaty might kill the idea of shorter terms for software patents). But I agree that in Europe the battle has not yet been lost, and you guys should keep the fight going against all software patents.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 11, 2004 20:02 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] The point is -- and I think it is very well made -- that we do not want to get rid of patents altogether. A software patent in itself is, or should be, quite harmless. It's the big companies that abuse the system, as well as the ignorant or corrupt politicians that allow it, that are the ones that put Free Software at jeopardy.So, yes, we should be very vocal about our concerns regarding the proposals made by the European Commission, but we should focus on reforming the system -- not discarding it.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 11, 2004 22:00 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link] I disagree. Software patents is nothing but abuse of the concept with patents. Please see my reply below.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 12, 2004 12:33 UTC (Tue) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Well, "We" may not want to, but "I" sure want to.
There wasn't anything left of the US patent system after
Reform, as in form it again, yes. Reform as in working within
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 12, 2004 13:38 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] I'm sorry, I didn't mean to speak for you -- of course you are free to feel differently. I meant to say that the author expresses the idea that software patents are not necessarily an evil thing that has to be rooted out at all cost.And yes, I do mean reform using a sledgehammer.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 11, 2004 20:12 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Indeed, I don't actually see why software patents should be prohibited, or even how software patents could be defined so as to prohibit them. I expect to live long enough to own mechanical devices implemented in software, and computers which physically rearrange themselves at the nanoscale to run programs.
I find the argument that software is math and discovered not invented unconvincing; fluid dynamics is just as much physics, and the toilet is a legitimate invention. Patents (should) cover not the math which implies that software works, but the use of that math for a particular purpose.
The main issue I see with software patents is that they apply to a field where the amount of time it is beneficial to society to protect inventions is very short, relative to fields that patents were originally intended for. There do need to be some properties of patents particular to the field, including the duration.
The problem is abuse of the patent system in general, not software in particular. At the moment, the ease of abuse is sufficiently great that it would be, on average, beneficial to prohibit software patents, or any other sort of patents which could be picked out.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 11, 2004 20:25 UTC (Mon) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] Also, the original intent of patents was to make sure that public gets toknow about inventions and can use them (either by paying royalties or taking them into use after the patent has expired). However, I've *never* heard of anybody reading software patents so that they can find out / use the "inventions" from the patents... I think a system where it's impossible not to break law, even if you try not to (e.g. because of submarine/pending patents), to be a broken system. That's actually the best way to make a system that nobody respects (as has actually already happened with US patent system and partly, I guess, with laws at some parts in Russia...).
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 11, 2004 20:34 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Nobody looks at software patents only because it became unwise to look at patents in general (lest you find out that what you've implemented violates a patent, and be liable for willful infringement) before software patents were issued.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 11, 2004 21:59 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link] A toilet is an invention. "Flushing away poo with a lot of water" is not an invention. It is an idea. The definition of multiplication is not an invention. Again, idea. Or definition, if you'd like. The definition of mpeg4 decoding? Same. Actually implementing mpeg4 decoding? Invention. See? Software patents are by definition patents on ideas. Because as soon as you have specified your method well enough, your description becomes pseudo code -- indistinguishable from code that a computer can execute. An when you have done that you are already protected by copyright law, a much stronger law than patents. No one can take your work, whether it is a literary work or software, and sell it or say they made it. We have patents because inventions, such as a radical toilet design, would otherwise be unprotected. And keeping secrets aren't always feasible, such as when approaching venture capital needed for production. This is also a reason why non-patentability doesn't hurt software by the way: with software you don't need a lot of money to multiply your product. Let's recap. Patents for inventions: good. Patents for ideas: bad. This is for many reasons. One is that so sane person would think just typing down ideas represents enough work. (And as a matter of fact, neither did any patent lawyers util IBM came with a whole lot of money to make it happend.) IANAL, of course, but your comment was a bit naive and completely beside the point so I felt I had to type down something here. I hope it clears up matters a bit.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 11, 2004 22:40 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Actually implementing mpeg4 decoding? Invention.Right, so if you build a blueprint for this invention, which is what pseudocode for it is, you can submit this to the patent office for patent protection, because that's how you protect inventions. If you used a copyright on the pseudocode, this wouldn't cover implementations in actual languages, which would be independant works, as the similarities between the pseudocode version and the runnable version are determined by conformance to a standard (c.f. the limitations on copyright which protect Linux against claims that ELF implementations are derived works of the ELF specification). The standard for all patent descriptions is that they be sufficient for a person knowledgable in the field to be able to produce a working version from the description. This is essentially the pseudocode for making a toilet; if you know how to do the usual things (like a computer), you could build the invention without needing any insight into the particular problem. We have patents not primarily because it is difficult to keep secrets (although that is a factor) but because it is beneficial to society for people not to keep secrets, as others can learn from the invention.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 13, 2004 13:51 UTC (Wed) by mly (guest, #2171) [Link] > If you used a copyright on the pseudocode, this wouldn't> cover implementations in actual languages, which would > be independant works
Are you sure about that? Can you point me to any particular
Concerning books, it's certainly clear that translation of
Just try to write a book (or a computer program for that
I don't think that describing something like a particular plot,
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 13, 2004 22:29 UTC (Wed) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Most algorithms are described by copyrighted pseudocode in textbooks, and this doesn't seem to affect use of the algorithms. As far as I know, nobody has tried suing someone over an implementation of an algorithm explicated with copyrighted pseudocode, and I'd guess that someone would have tried, and I'd have heard, if it were at all plausible.
I think it would be like publishing a plot summary for a book, and then suing anyone who actually wrote a book that followed the outline. Pseudocode really glosses over a lot of details which are a substantial portion of the effort, and it's a far freer translation into an actual language from pseudocode than any translation of human language text into other human languages as a derived work is.
What tends to get people writing books or drawing cartoons is copyright on characters, not copyright on the actual text. This allows an author who has sufficiently developed a character to prohibit the same character appearing
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 21, 2004 16:54 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] Almost. You are wrong in assuming that copyright is only a protection ofverbatim copying. It would be ridicolous if no one thought it to be the same work anymore just because someone changed the syntax or punctuation slightly. Ask a book publisher what they would do if you did an inofficial translation and sold on. You can't even tell the same story as another author with your own words! But you are free to re-use ideas and themes as you see fit. The same is true for computer programs, at least in those parts of the world that hasn't allowed idea patents yet. If you apply your description of a patent to the software field, it would be a good enough description of something so a skilled programmer could implement it. That's everything! Computers are Turing complete things so they can by definition do anything. It is not the same in the physical world where there are lots of practical problems to solve in order to make something work! (Before you say "but that's true in software as well!", remember that *when* you've done that much, you've effectively written a copyrightable work!)
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 12, 2004 0:01 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Right.First, buy "Software Philosophers' Weekly", but don't read it. Burn it, it's a great symbolic gesture. Can you give me one good reason why software inventions shouldn't be patented?
Software patents are not needed Posted Oct 12, 2004 9:13 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] Can you give me one good reason why software inventions shouldn't be patented?One good reason is that patenting software inventions is demonstratably unnecessary for advancing the field! Software patents had no effect on the field anywhere until the late 1980's. In spite of this, almost all of the software technology we now use was developed before this (at least in embryonic form). In particular the widespread availability of affordable computers after mid 1970's released an explosion of creativity that produced almost all current genres of PC software, all without the "benefit" of patents. The biggest latecomer in the 1990's is probably WWW, which as we know was originally developed without patenting it (Tim Berners-Lee himself has spoken against software patents on several occasions). The patent system is a large and costly state bureacracy, not to mention all the related lawyering that goes on in companies in applying, defending and working around patents. Since the software field can demonstratably work without patents, all that is pure overhead, which the users of software products ultimately have to pay for no gain.
Software patents are not needed Posted Oct 12, 2004 12:24 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Indeed, a recent study shows that patents in general are not as effective as one would hope, taking Watt's steam engine as an example of new technology that was stalled until the patent expired and the frenzy of industrialisation started.I also agree with you that software patents are not required for technological advancement. However, that was not the question, and your reasoning applies to the current situation -- not Craig's proposal. Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly, so here goes take two: why would one want to forbid software patents if the patent system does not hinder software development and technological advancement in general? Really, I couldn't care less about software patents: I don't need them, I don't want them and I certainly do not want to be coding looking over my shoulder because of them. But that's my take. Big companies probably see things differently. If we can both coexist, and companies use patents to put them ahead of the competition (but not in the way of technological advancement), why would I want to force my view down their throat? Especially since that is a fight we are going to lose in the end (that's what I think anyway). You cannot win every battle, sometimes it is better to just make a reasonable peace. ;-)
Software patents are not needed Posted Oct 12, 2004 13:41 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] However, that was not the question, and your reasoning applies to the current situation -- not Craig's proposal. Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly, so here goes take two: why would one want to forbid software patents if the patent system does not hinder software development and technological advancement in general?If we take "does not hinder" as "has neutral effect" (does not promote either), and if that really would describe the situation, I would say that the software patents are still undesirable because they complicate life unnecessarily for developers and users of software. The "keep it simple" argument. One problem I see with software patents is that a software patent is the only kind of patent that a private person might violate on a massive scale: create a program that (knowingly or not) implements a patented technique and offer it for downloading on the Net. This kind of thing cannot really happen with patents covering physical widgets, unless you set up a company to make and sell such widgets. Some free software authors already have received threatening notes from patent owners. I don't know if any has had to pay reparations, but they have had to remove features or stop distributing binaries.
Software patents are not needed Posted Oct 12, 2004 14:08 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] "does not hinder" == "has no negative effect"(Very simple, and positive effects -- though unlikely -- are still welcome, eh? ;-) As to your concerns: people break the law all the time, but as far as I know usually the solution is not to get rid of the law. (Actually, being Dutch, I could probably tell you a thing or two about bending the law legitimately. ;-) But notice, again, how you cling to the current system (in the U.S.) -- I think everyone agrees that we do not want that. The problems with the current system are not so much because of patents themselves, they exist because of the corrupt, unjust and stupid circus around it.
Software patents are not needed Posted Oct 12, 2004 14:49 UTC (Tue) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] As to your concerns: people break the law all the time, but as far as I know usually the solution is not to get rid of the lawBut sometimes it is. Example: the prohibition of alcohol laws that were tried in various countries early in the 20th century. They did not work, people did not like them, and they actually promoted crime. The solution was scrapping them. Laws that are not obeyable by reasonably honest people have no business being in the books. They reduce respect for the rule of law in general. I believe laws permitting patenting of software belong to this category. (Actually, being Dutch, I could probably tell you a thing or two about bending the law legitimately. ;-) But notice, again, how you cling to the current system (in the U.S.) -- I think everyone agrees that we do not want that. The U.S. situation is a reference point because it is the place with the longest experience on software patents, and also because the U.S. IP laws these days get exported to the rest of the world. Remember the EUCD, modelled on the infamous DMCA? Actually, I am Finnish, so I am looking at the things from fairly similar legal context as you. The situation in Europe with respect to obvious software patents being passed is not that different from the U.S. (browse the FFII pages for some ghastly examples, and also note that U.S. patents routinely are used to get corresponding European versions without much if any added checking). The patents just aren't yet enforced as vigorously as in U.S., partly because theoretically software is still unpatentable in EU.
Software patents are not needed Posted Oct 12, 2004 17:55 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Agreed on almost everything.One thing though: your concerns about a failing future patent system seem to be solely based on the current U.S. situation (the one that we definitely do *not* want in Europe). If we can reform the patent system to everyone's satisfaction (and I certainly think that for instance the interests of you and me -- society -- weigh more heavily than those of money-grabbing monopolists, in case our interests conflict), I really don't see any reason for concern. So that's why I wouldn't boot patents altogether; as long as I don't have to deal with or worry about them in my daily, non-criminal routine. ;-)
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 21, 2004 16:56 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] The same reason patents should not be given for movie plots. It stiflesinnovation unnecessarily, with no inherent gain. (I eloborate further in my previous comments.)
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 26, 2004 13:19 UTC (Tue) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] > A toilet is an invention. "Flushing away poo with a lot of water" is not> an invention. It is an idea.
Actually I would say that The Toilet is the invention -- and that _is_ an idea.
A patent is a monopoly on the use of an idea.
You cannot fight software patents by pretending that patents traditionally
> The definition of multiplication is not an invention. Again, idea. Or
Yes, as are all other patents.
[...]
You can't patent just any old idea. The idea you patent has to be
The true reason why software should not be patentable is that ideas
> IANAL, of course, but your comment was a bit naive and completely
You are only muddying the waters! :)
The real question is: are they an incentive to invent? Posted Oct 12, 2004 3:31 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] People arguing about whether software is "idea" or "invention", or whether it "deserves" to be patented miss the whole point of the US patent system — the issue (for the founders) was not that anyone has a right to a patent (they don't, in the US), but rather whether a patent will encourage people to create and publish inventions that they would otherwise not. So, the question for software-patent proponents is: show that, without software patents, many patented software "inventions" would not exist or be available. This is a hard sell, I think, because in software there really isn't much shortage of good ideas, there's mostly only a shortage of good implementations. And the fact that so many software-patent infringements seem to come from independent invention is another reason to suspect that the patent wasn't the spur to the invention...
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 12, 2004 8:38 UTC (Tue) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] I could support an opinion that we don't abandon the patent system, rather try to reform it. Sadly, this article doesn't seem very realistic. For instance:2. Change the law, so that individuals and small businesses can investigate and rectify blahblahblah... ...sure! But how do we change the law? Also nr 5 is a very bad suggestion, it would mean that an inventor cannot get a patent, unless he works for a big (bad) company. Personally, I'd suggest the following:
As a European, I too believe we can do well without software patents altogether. But the patent system is similarly broken and abused in other fields as well, so I believe it's worth discussing. The author on groklaw mentions abuses by the medical industry, I personally now of a small boat manufacturer who had to give up producing something he invented, because a big Italian company patented it. Finally there is the issue of granting third world countries amnesty on at least medical patents, which is a rather orthogonal issue to our current discussion.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 12, 2004 13:07 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] I think the suggestions made in the article are really not that stupid -- in fact, I think the author has taken the time to think it through. Of course you can always find some weaker points; one cannot seriously expect a complete solution to the patent problem in 50 lines of text. I think the article addresses some very specific points that are somehow almost always absent in patent related discussions.Your suggestions do nothing to solve the problem, they just shift the pain -- if even that. Your first suggestion will still allow bogus patents to be filed routinely. A patent office should not earn its money by either denying or allowing patents as they please (both are equally bad) -- it should grant patents according to new, sound rules and procedures that make it virtually impossible to get very far into the process with a rubbish patent application. Your second suggestion is original, but a bit ridiculous -- you wouldn't get anywhere in court, if alone because your invalid patent has been granted by the patent office, right, so who is to blame -- and how do you define "invalid"? (IANAL, IANAL..)
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 12, 2004 15:23 UTC (Tue) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] I agree, and note that I avoided using the word "stupid". He knows about the problems, but the solution is not perfect. Shifting the pain (just like shifting reward) appropriately is often a very good solution. In this case we want to shift the pain upon those who file patents and the reason is that among that group we also find the companies that file bogus patents. Those will then have to give up, and the companies that really benefit from their true inventions can afford the additional pain.Invalid patents are any that already should be invalid in todays system. The patent is obvious, there is prior art etc... It is true that the real problem is in the patent office, that shouldn't be granting those patents. But somehow I don't believe suing the patent officers will help, and I don't think it's really their fault either (as individuals). So should we really sue the government, because the patent office isn't doing it's job? Maybe in the US that doesn't sound as ridiculous, but here in Europe that's not something we do.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 12, 2004 17:38 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Craig's view does push a lot of the pain towards potential patentees, which seems like the right thing to do indeed. I do think that finding and applying the right or most appropriate criteria regarding bonafide patents should be more scientific than a financial penalty. (Of course this is a huge problem, but for instance using peer review does seem viable.)You bring up another problem: suppose we pull it off, what do we do with the patents that would suddenly be invalidated by the new system? This is less tough to crack, I think. Your "patent bounty hunter" suggestion only makes sense in the kind of situation that is as bad as the one in which we find ourselves today -- I cannot see it as part of a future solution. If you meant it as a solution to the transition problem above: that would not work in court. The invalid patents of the future were granted according to the current rules. (I am not a U.S. citizen, by the way. But of course in Europe we do have our quarrels in court with governments, if necessary. So yes, I would say in a future patent system there should be room for penalizing patent offices if they do not follow the new rules.)
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 13, 2004 7:35 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] It seems none of us are US citizens, so why are we having this discussion that mostly pertains to the US? Maybe those poor bastards can use some help :-)Anyway, what I'm trying to say, there are currently loads of patents (and especially software patents in the US) that are invalid according to today's standards. For instance companies patent things where there is very obviously prior art (Oracle patented the idea of a content management system for instance). According to Bruce Perens, 50-95% of software patents today fall into this category. So I'm not proposing any new standards for granting patents, just a way to get rid of the patents (which are a majority) that shouldn't have been granted in the first place. There should be a grace period for already granted patents of course. The idea of the grace period would be: "Hey patent holder companies. We are now going to penalize you for all of your patents that you didn't really invent yourself or which are otherwise flawed. You now have 2 years to cancel those patents, after that rest assured somebody will do it for you and you'll pay for it." Note that there would also be positive side effects. As I said, today large companies like IBM and Nokia file to patent anything they can think about. No matter how silly some of the patents are, they want to get a lead in the statistics which says how many patents each company has. But with my proposal holding lots of patents would become a risk, so you would only want to file for the patents that are actually worth something in themselves. The side effect is that the number of patent applications should drop (if Bruce is right it would drop with more than 50%) and the patent office would have more time left to inspect the patents that are left. So yes. I too think that the bounty hunter scheme would be a solution to the situation we are in today. And how convenient, that IS the situation we are in today, so why not try it?
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 13, 2004 11:42 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] The problem with the current situation is, that I cannot afford to go to court to invalidate patents -- so effectively any patent that is granted is valid. (For big corporations the situation is different of course, but then they have no interest in invalidating patents in general because they benefit from this mess.)I don't really think the patent bounty hunter is a solution, not even in today's situation -- but the grace period and following sanctions if companies do not want to cooperate seems like a good idea. That would indeed help remove a lot of the cruft, so we can continue with a trimmed down and more healthy new patent system, that doesn't bother anyone except those who try to take advantage of patented inventions. (I think IBM's toilet usage algorithm patent proposal was brilliant, though. ;-)
patent application fees Posted Oct 12, 2004 13:41 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] It already does cost a substantial amount of money to apply for a patent, primarily because you have to hire a patent attorney. (Not only does the attorney write up the initial application, s/he also responds to the inevitable, usually easily refuted, objections raised by the patent office.) If I remember correctly, costs on the order of $10,000 were typical for (non-software) patents at one previous place where I worked.
patent application fees Posted Oct 15, 2004 16:07 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I believe the point, though not very clearly stated, is not to discourage people from applying for patents, but to discourage the patent office from granting them. Today, the patent office gets more money for granting a patent than for denying one, so has an incentive to grant them. Under the proposal, it would be reversed and the patent office would prefer not to grant patents.So what the applicant pays to a third party is irrelevant to the point. Of course, the argument ascribes human characteristics to the patent office -- assumes that the patent office is greedy and wants to maximize its income. I don't really believe that.
Patents - An Alternative View (Groklaw) Posted Oct 22, 2004 11:30 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] At least on the EPO (European Patent Office), there's even one more point:To pass a patent, the officer has to do practically nothing. To deny it, he has to write up reasoning. It should be the other way round: getting a patent approved should not only be hard for the inventor, but also hard for the patent officer. And anyone in the patent office should get exactly the same amount of "points" that judge if they actually did some work for smashing any of the pending patents around. Smashing is: bringing up prior art or arguments why the patent is obvious. The part of defending a patent should be usually left to the assigned officer only. The German patent office seems to be much closer to that procedure (a patent can't pass if the assigned officer doesn't write up a defense statement about it), and as consequence, most big companies fast-track their inventions directly to the EPO, instead of going through the forseen path: first get a national patent, and then a European one. Note that a European patent is much more expensive than a national one. Probably the fast-tracking of European patents was a good idea originally, when it was required to have a national patent. But even then, the EPO should be a backup quality control of national POs. It's a circumventing device for patent quality control now. BTW: IMHO, the patent system is now completely obsolete, not just software patents. Take pharmacy. That's a market where patents are supposed to make most sense. It takes a decade or more to develop a new drug, and costs a billion. To recover that costs, a monopoly is needed. Now, is there really a monopoly? From the last two scandals, Lipobay and Vioxx, we know: There isn't. Both drugs were leaders of their group (statins for Lipobay, COX-2-inhibotor for Vioxx), but there are other statins and COX-2-inhibitors on the market now. They have exactly the same adverse reactions as the original, but by being later, they have a legal advantage: they warned about the problem "earlier". So it's obvious that the patent didn't only fail to prevent imitators, it also didn't help to be economically. Being first still is the highest risk, and imitating successful drugs still is rewarded.
Patents - How do I search? Posted Oct 13, 2004 7:50 UTC (Wed) by YangBaxter (guest, #25377) [Link] Dear All,as a one-person developer of a medium sized project, ~2MB source code, I have one problem: How can I find out, which patents I'm infringing. Which keywords should I use for searching? I have developed several algorithms, which speeded up existing aproaches by more than a factor of a thousand, usually by using clever index tables. How can I find out, if someone has invented/used those ideas before and patented them?
Patents - How do I search? Posted Oct 13, 2004 12:15 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] You can search the US patent database here, apparently. IANAL, but I wouldn't do it!
Patents - How do I search? Posted Oct 13, 2004 12:45 UTC (Wed) by YangBaxter (guest, #25377) [Link] > You can search the US patent database here, apparently. IANAL, > but I wouldn't do it! No, I can't. What shall I put in as search term? The C++ source code, the algorithm without name? If I have invented a new machine, I can search for phrases used to describe the field, where the machine is going to be used. If I invent a new drug, I can search for the illness it should cure. But how do I check my 2MB source code? The point is, that I'm not developing a specific programme, but libraries to be used by others. Searching for "index table" I get 3447 patents. I just tried to search for some algorithm, where I have a precise description what they do. I'm sorry, the search results I checked are just ridiculous. The point is, that I just can't check all of them without quitting to work. Just try it out with your favourite work.
Patents - How do I search? Posted Oct 13, 2004 12:56 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] I'm not going to try. ;-)The problem you describe is, of course, one of the things that would have to change in a new patent system. I really wouldn't know anything else but just wade through endless patent descriptions, like you did -- which is a truly useless exercise in many respects. (Come to think of it, the best thing might just be to apply for a patent yourself! ;-)
|
|||||||||||||