Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ

The Problem of Software Patents in Standards (Technocrat.net)

[Posted November 8, 2004 by ris]

Bruce Perens has written an article on software patents in standards, at Technocrat.net. "Patents, originally created to stimulate innovation, may now be having the opposite effect, at least in the software industry. Plagued by an exponential growth in software patents, many of which are not valid, software vendors and developers must navigate a potential minefield to avoid patent infringement and future lawsuits. Coupled with strategies to exploit this confusion over patents, especially in standards setting organizations, it appears that software advancement will become stifled unless legal action is taken to resolve the situation. This article examines the current situation facing software developers and users, the methods employed by standards setting organizations to address these problems, and recommends strategies for resolving the problem caused by software patents."

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Nov 8, 2004 23:22 UTC (Mon) by rickfdd (guest, #4519) [Link]

Didn't radio once suffer from patent deadlock? IIRC the U.S.
governement at one time set aside all radio patents because
nobody could obtain enough rights to make a radio system.

Sadly, that may be impossible to repeat today with software
patents for the same reason copyright is now
perpetual. Any reduction in rights for American corporations
will be portrayed as an unfair gift to overseas competitors.

The Problem of Software Patents in Standards (Technocrat.net)

Posted Nov 9, 2004 13:40 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

That's why they want software patents in Europe---so European slaves can be as miserable as American slaves, to the benefit of their masters.

The Problem of Software Patents in Standards (Technocrat.net)

Posted Nov 9, 2004 19:34 UTC (Tue) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link]

Hey Bruce;

"growth in software patents, many of which are not valid,"

I thought that a patent couldn't be "not valid" until it
was reviewed and found to be not valid.

It may be your opinion (and mine) that these patents
are mostly all bogus garbage, that doesn't really mean
anything in the wonderful world of patent law, does it?

The Problem of Software Patents in Standards (Technocrat.net)

Posted Nov 10, 2004 20:00 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Perhaps you're confusing valid with granted. Microsoft's FAT patent was a granted patent, One person petitioned for re-examination, and presented sufficient prior art that every claim in the patent was rejected by the same patent office that originally granted it. Which means it wasn't examined sufficiently. Certainly it was never valid, no matter what the date was upon which the patent office finally understood that fact. Given that all US patents are in essentially the same state, there can be no assumption that a granted patent is valid.

Bruce