Prior art won't solve the software patent problem (NewsForge) [LWN.net]

Prior art won't solve the software patent problem (NewsForge)

Posted Sep 19, 2006 7:51 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433)
In reply to: Prior art won't solve the software patent problem (NewsForge) by PaulMcKenney
Parent article: Prior art won't solve the software patent problem (NewsForge)

"There are many problems with software patents. Patents ignoring prior art is one of these problems -- and is a key problem, since it is a way for patent-based attackers to fund resistance to reforms that could resolve other problems with software patents. And, unlike most of the other problems surrounding software patents, the prior-art piece can be solved without new laws or legal precedents"

Except it CAN'T. There is a *H*U*G*E* problem with patents that differ only slightly (and in "obvious" ways) from prior art, but are considered valid because they aren't quite the same and (as a result of court judgements) the Patent Office feels obliged to grant EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW THEY ARE ALMOST THE SAME.

There are two huge problems with patents. Firstly, software patents (which shouldn't exist at all), and secondly the "non-obvious" requirement should be enforced MUCH more strongly. And BOTH require judicial precedent to be overturned ...

Cheers,
Wol

(Log in to post comments)

Prior art won't solve the software patent problem (NewsForge)

Posted Sep 19, 2006 14:25 UTC (Tue) by PaulMcKenney (subscriber, #9624) [Link]

Either legislative action or judicial precedent, but yes, I do agree that many problems with software patents do require long-term changes in the legal environment.

But that is no reason to refuse to work on the issues that -can- be solved in the current legal environment. Prior-art collection is one such issue. Yes, it is limited. No, it will not solve the whole software-patent problem. But it is something that can be done now.

As someone once said, "don't forget about the short term and mid term fights on our way to the grand finale, every patent defeated is one less the developers must concern themselves with..."

Paul E. McKenney (my thoughts, not necessarily those of my employer)