| |||||||||||||
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired)BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired)Posted Dec 23, 2011 14:22 UTC (Fri) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656)In reply to: BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) by wookey Parent article: BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired)
> But those aren't issued yet, so lets look for some that are:
> GB2350973A covers fetching a web page and the linked pages (for wget or offline reading).
Are you sure? To me it appears to be a patent application (as opposed to a granted patent). Also it seems to have lapsed in 2002.
However the parallel EP1192778 is granted (and also lapsed in many countries). Looking at the characterising clause it seems to differ substantially from wget.
> GB2415797 is a symbian patent on sorting and caching file and directory pointers to speed up boot time.
Could you expand a bit on what you feel is the problem here.
I did some more checking and I see the corresponding EP application is still pending. That means you can file your own third party observations if you wish, free of charge.
(Log in to post comments)
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Dec 23, 2011 18:01 UTC (Fri) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]
No, I didn't check the granted status - I hadn't realised that a simple search would show me lapsed applications as well as granted patents by default.
My point was merely to show that it's trivially easy to find software patents in the system and that many are granted in Europe.
My basic problem is that I don't believe software should be patentable. Copyright is sufficient protection. There is nothing wrong with re-implementing or independently inventing software. In fact it's a good thing, promoting progress, and interoperabilty. The arguments have been rehearsed over and over again so there isn't much point me typing them in again here and now.
The problem with filing my own observations is that my observation that the entire system is a travesty won't be considered useful. I can only file observations within the tenets of the system: on prior art as deemed sufficient by the EPO, for example. Writing in about my fundamental belief that claiming a monopoly on _any_ particular method of caching to speed up boot time is ridiculous, would be a waste of both my and the EPO's time.
This disconnect is no doubt why the system is almost entirely ignored by software engineers, who just keep hoping some sense will finally prevail and it will go away. That is probably a folorn hope at this stage, as too much money has now been pumped into this particular fake property bubble, for it to be easily dismantled even if everyone wanted to, and the approaches of peertopatent and OIN are perhaps more effective.
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Dec 29, 2011 21:49 UTC (Thu) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> My basic problem is that I don't believe software should be patentable. Copyright is sufficient protection.
Copyright is frequently used together with patent protection but has a very different and limited scope. It is relatively easy to work around. Some places it lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator, that is far longer than for a normal patent.
> There is nothing wrong with re-implementing or independently inventing software. In fact it's a good thing, promoting progress, and interoperabilty.
How do you propose small startups should protect themselves from being steamrolled by big established software companies re-implementing inventions?
> The problem with filing my own observations is that my observation that the entire system is a travesty won't be considered useful. I can only file observations within the tenets of the system: on prior art as deemed sufficient by the EPO, for example.
Correct. However if the patent was not new and if it lacked inventive step at the time you still have a chance to file your observations. It doesn't have to look like a full opposition filing from a professional representative, it just has to show relevant prior art. This has been put into place for non-professionals, it is a bit of a downer that you now just withdraw from this opportunity.
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Dec 30, 2011 0:13 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
> How do you propose small startups should protect themselves from being steamrolled by big established software companies re-implementing inventions?
If you think that software patents somehow prevent this from happening you are living in a dream world. It takes years to get a patent, by that time the small company is either thriving, or dead.
I also question the premise that a small software shop is likely to be doing anything so innovative to qualify for a patent in the first place.
There are _very_ few programming ideas that are innovative enough to qualify as not being obvious to a skilled programmer (especially when presented with the same situation). If such ideas really were frequently a basis for software, you would have far fewer cases of "independent invention" where other companies come up with the same idea to solve the same problem.
Besides this, any real-world application is far more than a single solution to a problem. If a big company is motivated (and agile) enough to try and crush the small company, they can probably figure out a way to achieve similar results with a different process (and remember that a Patent is on a process, not a result)
But in reality, large companies tend to have software development processes that are anything but agile, and so while they may have far more manpower to throw at a project, they are going to be so much more inefficient that the small company can probably out develop them anyway.
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Jan 11, 2012 22:06 UTC (Wed) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> It takes years to get a patent, by that time the small company is either thriving, or dead.
Really? Most places offer accelerated procedure, and even without that I normally get a final decision about 18 months after filing. I see Google had one such process for US8078349: filed May 11, 2011 and granted December 13, 2011.
> If such ideas really were frequently a basis for software, you would have far fewer cases of "independent invention" where other companies come up with the same idea to solve the same problem.
How often are these independent inventions? To be relevant these would have to occur about the same time, after 18 months the applications are (normally) published, at which point one could argue that the publishing or the use of the first inventor was somehow communicated to the second. Independent inventions do occur, it is just the frequency I ask about.
> If a big company is motivated (and agile) enough to try and crush the small company, they can probably figure out a way to achieve similar results with a different process (and remember that a Patent is on a process, not a result)
Perhaps they can. Then again it is part of the intention of the patenting system that by publishing rather than using trade secrets you make it possible for others to build on what others have achieved.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by a patent "is on a process, not a result". You can have method claims and you can have apparatus claims in many places and you can also have protection for product by process.
> But in reality, large companies tend to have software development processes that are anything but agile
True, I have experienced such places. Then again they don't have to deliver anything close to a perfect product, time and time again we see cost trumping quality and heavy handed marketing keeping dire product in the market.
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Dec 30, 2011 10:28 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] How do you propose small startups should protect themselves from being steamrolled by big established software companies re-implementing inventions? Can you actually show me a small software startup that verifiably got steamrolled because one of the "big boys" saw their idea and copied it with entirely post-facto development, rather than because their management's business plan resembled that of the underpants gnomes or because the "big boy" either was already well on the way to implementing the idea, or had it lying around on someone's hard drive / brain / whatever but hadn't seen an application for it?
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Dec 30, 2011 18:44 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
you could argue that Microsoft has done this sort of thing by 'integrating' features into windows that eliminated the need for third party software (and I believe they have several times done so by first licensing said software from the third parties), but even in that case it took years for microsoft to do so, which gave the small companies a chance to diversify, some did so, many did not.
Microsoft also didn't limit this to small software companies (see the current lawsuit over Wordperfect and Windows 95 as an example)
But if you exclude Microsoft's Monopoly abuse, I can't think of any examples.
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Dec 30, 2011 19:24 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
On the other hand would Microsoft be able to stop any startup from doing anything, using their patent arsenal, so it's not like a startup getting a patent or two were safe...
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Jan 1, 2012 11:34 UTC (Sun) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Patents don't "protect smaller companies" anyway. The minute you as a small company wave your patent in the face of one of the big boys, they wave their thousands of patents in your face and say: "this is gonna be a messy fight, are you sure you can even afford to fight it?"
The answer to that is always no, unless you're a patent-troll, a company that produces nothing and does nothing - and is thus immune to a counter-suit.
The only small companies that can sue big companies over patents, are small companies that do nothing except for owning a patent-portfolio.
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Jan 8, 2012 22:41 UTC (Sun) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
Really? I have assisted a small company facing large competitors copying an invention, and while the big companies played the ""this is gonna be a messy fight, are you sure you can even afford to fight it?"-card my client won through. Undoubtedly there are many similar cases.
Why do you think all these patent applications are filed if they would not provide the protection intended? The alternative would be a switch to use of trade secret laws.
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Jan 9, 2012 9:05 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] I have assisted a small company facing large competitors copying an invention, and while the big companies played the ""this is gonna be a messy fight, are you sure you can even afford to fight it?"-card my client won through. Can you provide more details here? I'd think that if a small company says to a big company, »You're infringing on our patent X«, a reply along the lines of »So? You're infringing on our patents A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, among others« would be fairly effective. I'd be interested in finding out what approach the small company could take to counter this. Why do you think all these patent applications are filed if they would not provide the protection intended? Many software patents that are granted can only be charitably described as silly, but a patent is a patent. It may be worth having a patent on something silly (like having a text editor window and a calculator window open on the same screen at the same time, a revolutionary and unobvious invention if there ever was one, which AFAIR used to be patented by IBM) simply to counter other people's patents on other silly things that one might inadvertently infringe upon, when it comes to a »mine is bigger than yours« patent portfolio battle.
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Jan 9, 2012 19:54 UTC (Mon) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> I'd be interested in finding out what approach the small company could take to counter this.
Well, there is no fixed pattern to this but typically the party warms up with accusations and, as you say, counter accusations. Some times this goes to the press but while hard figures are hard to find my impression is that in the majority of cases the whole thing is kept low key. After rain comes the sun and after war one would hope for peace so there is no point in engaging in bridge burnings. There is a cultural aspect here too, some fields are a bit like the wild west while others are operating by gentlemen's agreements where you open by almost apologising for inconveniencing the infringing party with your patent while they in turn apologise for the mistake and it is all sorted out in a day or two.
In most cases you end up with claim construction: patent claims are broken down into features and you have to show where you find all features of at least one claim. The other party argues how this is all a mistake (mostly your mistake, supposedly) and it goes back and forth a few times. There will be lots of discussions and hopefully it will be solved at management levels. If not it goes to court, which is expensive for all involved and preferably to be avoided. Often you get an out of court settlement, the details of which trend to be confidential.
While there are examples of the opposite, innovations tend to be found in small companies so it is advantageous for the big company to get a proper license and possibly exclusivity for the invention and nurture a more productive relationship. The process itself is fairly similar for small and for large companies.
I could write a lot more about it but it is getting big already.
> Many software patents that are granted can only be charitably described as silly, but a patent is a patent.
Arthur Pedrick filed some bizarre applications but in the field of software I have not seen any silly patents myself. Mostly these are fare narrower than most people realise, protecting some very specific applications that can be avoided by most people. For instance all the first GSM mobile phone related patents have expired and you could use that technology. You could get by but you would miss out on improvements relating to reception, sound quality, battery lifetime and more
> (like having a text editor window and a calculator window open on the same screen at the same time, a revolutionary and unobvious invention if there ever was one, which AFAIR used to be patented by IBM)
Well, if it is in the US you get the frequent confusion with design patents (protecting visual appearances of the calculator) with utility patent (protecting how it works). If we are talking about a utility patent I would expect it protected how they were able to have both programs on the screen, not just the fact that both could be shown.
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Jan 9, 2012 10:41 UTC (Mon) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Patents are filed for many reasons. One of which is that some people consider it of value, i.e. you can use them as marketing towards both consumers and investors. Also, against similar-sized competitors they can be used both offensively and as deterrents.
A switch to trade-secret law would be very much preferable for software-patents, especially for user-interface-patents. These are by nature public, the patent-disclosure has zero value over a trade-secret. (having how to implement one-click shopping be a trade-secret, doesn't at all make it harder to re-implement it)
|
|||||||||||||