Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groupsit will be full of lawyers and special interest groupsPosted Jan 5, 2013 11:45 UTC (Sat) by krake (subscriber, #55996)In reply to: it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups by amtota Parent article: The USPTO Would Like to Partner with the Software Community ... Wait. What? Really? (Groklaw)
I think the problem is that the different groups, while hearing the same words, actually get different questions.
For the first group the interpretation is more along the lines of "do we need software patents to protect our innovation/investment" which we know we don't.
For the second group the interpretation is probably more along the lines of "given the current situation where ideas can be owned (intelectual property), do we software patents to cover previously incovered aspects" which to them is almost certainly true (there is always some holes or inconsistencies they rather have fixed).
I am not ruling out that some lawers are in it for profiteering, but for those who are not it might be a simple matter of closing a hole in an existing framework.
Something that engineers can relate to but fortunately for us we are sometimes given the option of replacing a broken framework. Something that lawers almost never get due to the lack of political will to change something established.
(Log in to post comments)
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 5, 2013 13:36 UTC (Sat) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
I think it is more a question of how the different groups see their roles.
The corporate lawyers see their role as "protecting their company" - that's their job. And to do that effectively (the way they know how) they feel they need the "tool" of software patents.
Problem is of course, they never have to deal with the idea of "creating new shit". The engineers have to worry about that.
Indeed I think the only way of these meetings being effective is to ask anyone who doesn't touch code every day to leave the room.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 5, 2013 23:15 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yes. I am sure that any of you have met people who want to "protect their ideas" because they feel they are valuable, and there is some innate entitlement as to "I thought this one out, I should be the one profiting from it". The parallel with industrial patents is too strong. And yet anyone that has some real experience with software should realize that any kind of protection beyond copyright is even immoral, since it does not even benefit the real inventors -- but only the patent trolls.It is a hard battle to fight: we should somehow convince the general population that protecting ideas is not a good idea in itself.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 6, 2013 1:50 UTC (Sun) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] People who want to protect their ideas are usually those who hire programmers. They don't realize that the programmers they hire may violate other software patents simply by doing their jobs.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 7, 2013 20:39 UTC (Mon) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> They don't realize that the programmers they hire may violate other software patents simply by doing their jobs.
If they want to protect their inventions by patenting it is likely they will get a patent attorney or a patent agent who in turn will point out the possibility of infringing rights held by others. The first Official Action in the patent prosecution can indicate a problem but to be more sure it is normal to conduct a freedom to operate analysis.
Around here we do not expect our clients to be familiar with IPR and if necessary it is customary to give an introduction to how IPR and in particular patenting works and thus inform them of the importance of rights held by others.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 8, 2013 8:32 UTC (Tue) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
> they will get a patent attorney or a patent agent who in turn will point out the possibility of infringing rights held by others
Sure, but you don't need a patent agent for that, as soon as you do something mor ecomplex than a "for loop", you know you're infringing. Well, maybe even the for loop for all I (and anyone) know.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 8, 2013 12:38 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> as you do something mor ecomplex than a "for loop", you know you're infringing.
A bit stretched, but essentially correct. It's very difficult to design applications that work as users expect (using established file formats, algorithms and UI patterns) without violating patents left and right. The paradigmatic example is MP3. This seriously hinders interoperability, and thus is a great prejudice for users.
In my opinion, at the very least, patents should be banned outright from standards, or alternatively mandating that all patents be free to use for interoperability and information exchange purposes.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 8, 2013 21:36 UTC (Tue) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
OK, so in a couple of days we have progressed from
[proski] > They don't realize that the programmers they hire may violate other software patents simply by doing their jobs.
to
[micka] > as soon as you do something mor ecomplex than a "for loop", you know you're infringing
That was quick.
Who knows Posted Jan 8, 2013 21:45 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Given that patents are a minefield that may or may not explode under your feet, depending on what you do and how deep your pockets are, both statements may or may not be true simultaneously. Apparently in the US you don't even need to develop code, you are infringing just by using a scanner. So yes, any developer may be infringing and may be violating some patents. Or not.Not the ideal situation in any legal framework.
Who knows Posted Jan 8, 2013 21:51 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
It is a pretty ideal situation for lawyers.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 9, 2013 8:03 UTC (Wed) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
I don't understand your comment (genuinely). What do you mean ?
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 22, 2013 18:16 UTC (Tue) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
I meant that the transition from not realising one might infringe a patent to assuming one practically always assumes to infringe patents was rather quick.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 6, 2013 5:54 UTC (Sun) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
> I am sure that any of you have met people who want to "protect their ideas" because they feel they are valuable, and there is some innate entitlement as to "I thought this one out, I should be the one profiting from it".
Absolutely. So make a product people want and profit from it, or go away and leave people who make products alone.
A quote I've seen many places, without attribution: "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Patents are a tool for doing the 1%, waiting for someone else to do the 99%, and then suing them."
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 6, 2013 7:09 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>"Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Patents are a tool for doing the 1%, waiting for someone else to do the 99%, and then suing them."
That's Thomas Edison.
And Tesla's reply famously is: "If Mr. Edison had worked smarter, he wouldn't have sweat so much"
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 6, 2013 12:26 UTC (Sun) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
> That's Thomas Edison.
Only the first half, not the second.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 6, 2013 16:56 UTC (Sun) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Indeed, Edison loved patents and happily abused them to keep the whole development of technology back so he could profit just a little more. Patents have helped block innovations all over history - from steam and electricity to modern day computing. I wonder if there are any examples where they had actual benefits for innovation and technology...
Patent number 1 Posted Jan 7, 2013 19:01 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Actually, while it wasn't technology, I believe patent no 1 actually DID do as it was meant to do, advancing medicine and saving thousands of lives of mothers and babies.
A family of doctors invented the "paddle", the predecessor of the suction cup they put on babies heads to pull them out if they have to. They kept it as a trade secret, blindfolding the labouring mum, and sending everybody else out of the room.
The patent got it into the hands of physicians everywhere and saved many lives.
That said, it could easily be the last patent that worked as intended, too ...
Cheers,
Patent number 1 Posted Jan 7, 2013 19:07 UTC (Mon) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
"patent no 1"
Perhaps patent no 1 in the US.
The first patent (in the concept of patents) was probably granted in 5th century Italy.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 7, 2013 20:32 UTC (Mon) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> I am sure that any of you have met people who want to "protect their ideas" because they feel they are valuable, and there is some innate entitlement as to "I thought this one out, I should be the one profiting from it".
My experience with inventors and entrepreneurs is that those that believe they will get rich from an idea rarely succeed. Most spend years to develop a prototype, getting regulatory permissions (where applicable) and building the market. Rags to riches overnight smells like Hollywood, the people I work with often work on the invention for more then 5 years before becoming successful. Sense of entitlement usually come from the work done.
> And yet anyone that has some real experience with software should realize that any kind of protection beyond copyright is even immoral
Really? Any kind?
> since it does not even benefit the real inventors -- but only the patent trolls.
Considering I know of counterexamples from my own clients who use their patents to avoid being overrun by established companies I find this is stretching things beyond the breaking point.
Software protection Posted Jan 7, 2013 21:26 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Sense of entitlement usually come from the work done.That is very reasonable indeed. Indeed. The other protection mechanisms are patents, trade marks and industrial secrets (this last point is not even considered by WIPO). Trade marks do not relate to software itself: it is not "I trade under this brand in software" but "I trade under this brand". The same holds for secrets: it does not matter if the secret algorithm is done by a computer or by a very fast accountant. And patents are what is under dispute here.any kind of protection beyond copyright is even immoralReally? Any kind? The only valid protection for software is copyright, and even that is not universal: APIs for instance are not held to be copyrightable in the US, and APIs are an integral part of software. Also, seeing the wild success of software that forfeits the protections afforded by copyright, and how huge corporations often embrace it and profit from it, a case can be made against copyright for software. But let us not get into radical states of mind. Considering I know of counterexamples from my own clients who use their patents to avoid being overrun by established companies I find this is stretching things beyond the breaking point.Please cite a public example. All we hear from the US is precisely established companies that crush their smaller competitors with their puny patent holdings; it would be good to see the reverse side.
Software protection Posted Jan 8, 2013 21:58 UTC (Tue) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> Please cite a public example.
I hope you understand I cannot name my own clients. As for success histories WIPO has a collection here:
> All we hear from the US is precisely established companies that crush their smaller competitors with their puny patent holdings; it would be good to see the reverse side.
There have been a few ugly stories but some times the underdog wins, such as for the inventor of the intermittent wiper who nearly was steamrolled by Ford and others:
Sadly, even today many large companies believe they can crush all small competitors with impunity. They are wrong.
Software protection Posted Jan 9, 2013 8:32 UTC (Wed) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
> As for success histories WIPO has a collection here
WIPO is funded by patent registration fees. Everybody that sells something has a success story or two to provide. Moreover, in the examples I read, there wasn't evidence that patents helped (like "if patents weren't here, it would never have been done").
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
From what I read in this article, the guy spend 10 millions dollar in legal fees to win against two "infringers". Sure he was the underdog, but
And for the record, I don't even find this invention to be that inventive in the first place.
Software protection Posted Jan 9, 2013 16:10 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] I hope you understand I cannot name my own clients. We always get fed this line after the other one about plucky inventors standing their ground. Meanwhile, it looks like the example fed me by one of my MEPs back in 2004 (or so) to justify software patents may have referred to a company whose business model appears to be litigating other companies into bankruptcy using patented ideas from their failed product. So excuse our skepticism when we also see the more typical outcome for small companies trying to ship real products.
Software protection Posted Jan 12, 2013 0:55 UTC (Sat) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
> I hope you understand I cannot name my own clients.
The pro-patent folks like you always tell us that patents are there to publish the information to the public, to be used for the greater good. That's what patents are for, right?
If it's about publishing information to the public, why are you not allowed to name public cases? After all, court cases are public, too.
And Robert Kearns is not a good example at all, as others have noted. Spending 10 mils on ligitation? Give me a break.
Joachim
Software protection Posted Jan 22, 2013 18:37 UTC (Tue) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> The pro-patent folks like you always tell us that patents are there to publish the information to the public, to be used for the greater good. That's what patents are for, right?
Yes. Patent law is always in a tension with competition law, each with their own proponents. If it can be shown that patents do not promote the greater good I am sure the patent system would be radically changed. I see some make comments about the system being ideal to patent attorneys and agents. The view from within the profession is different, you can read through patents blogs such as PatentlyO to get an inside view.
> If it's about publishing information to the public, why are you not allowed to name public cases? After all, court cases are public, too.
I write here to provide some information how the system works in practice and, hopefully, balance some of the views expressed. If I were to state my name this could be seen by some as advertising and that is not my purpose. Secondly it is true that court cases are to some extent public, that is the information that a court case is being held and who the parties are will be public but the actual proceedings is not always public. Moreover if an out of court settlement is agreed upon the contents of that is normally kept confidential.
> And Robert Kearns is not a good example at all, as others have noted. Spending 10 mils on ligitation? Give me a break.
The inventiveness of his invention has been debated before with no conclusion. As for the money spent the article states he got large sums in settlement. Not using an attorney is probably not a good idea, my guess is that a sense of revenge was a part here. The most well known case of revenge is Steve Jobs wanting to go thermonuclear against Google. Kearns had the money and it was his choice how to spend it. Would you have preferred if he folded after 1 million dollars instead?
Software protection Posted Jan 22, 2013 19:04 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Well, more money is spent on patent litigation then on licensing patents. That definitely qualifies as an abject failure.
Software protection Posted Jan 26, 2013 16:21 UTC (Sat) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> Well, more money is spent on patent litigation then on licensing patents.
There are many studies on this, which one do you refer to?
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 7, 2013 21:01 UTC (Mon) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> Problem is of course, they never have to deal with the idea of "creating new shit". The engineers have to worry about that.
You mention corporate lawyers but I am not sure if you also include patent attorneys and patent agents. The latter definitely have to deal with the process of inventing things. Just to give some real life examples from my experience:
First off the problem with a process is that it is a "process" which means you get a lot of management process gurus to go into Powerpoint overload mode and produce an orgy of diagrams to document the process. In one company this process had the side effect of killing all ideas leaving nothing patentable, which in turn was deemed a management success so they closed down the whole IPR department. Today they have nothing to bargain with in cross licensing negotiations and that costs them dearly.
A surprising large number of companies hold their technical department in contempt and management want to see their names added to the list of inventors and preferable see the real inventors deleted. This is fraud on the patent office and implications are grave. Many places the inventors have a right to a reasonable compensation or assigning the invention to the applicant (their employer) and again too often the inventors are steamrolled. This too can be costly.
A patent attorney/agent must deal with this.
Strangely management gurus see a conflict between inventors and innovators, just like some bizarrely see a conflict between ethics and aesthetics. They appear ignorant that their hero Steve Jobs also had patents to his name.
it will be full of lawyers and special interest groups Posted Jan 8, 2013 12:51 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> You mention corporate lawyers but I am not sure if you also include patent attorneys and patent agents. The latter definitely have to deal with the process of inventing things.
No, they have to do with the process of navigating in the (artificial) patent trap.
Your first example is clear. The company would be in no trouble without the patent system, something they do not benefit from. If anything, your example shows how the patent system helps those more focused in extorsion (sorry, licensing) and deep enough pockets than the ones solving real problems for users and customers.
Also crystal clear is that the troubles experienced by inventors in your second example are a consequence of the patent system itself. Management can trick the patent system, but they cannot trick an inventor into keeping their process secret unless they pay for it.
|
|||||||||||||