EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

12.10.08

The Patent System is Broken.. and How NOT to Fix It

Posted in Finance, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, OIN, Patents at 7:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Mathematics

On Maths You Can’t use

I‘LL be doing an interview with the CEO of OIN following this umbrella’s announcement of an initiative called “Linux Defenders”. Groklaw has the details.

The Open Invention Network, the Software Freedom Law Center, and the Linux Foundation have teamed up to create another tool to defend Linux from patents. It will be hosted by the NYU Peer to Patent folks, where Mark Webbink is now. It is called Linux Defenders, and that would be you, in that they are asking folks to provide prior art to block anyone else from patenting it. Over time, this could be very significant as a protective wall. Essentially, as I understand it, it works like this: Since it costs a prohibitive amount of money to file for patents, the workaround is defensive publication. That results in prior art which can then block patents on that prior art. Brilliant, my dear Watson. No kidding.

In an article that relates to this previous one from Monday, some more details are made available. (subscription is required though) and Slashdot has this summary:

An anonymous reader lets us know about a new initiative designed to help shield the open source software community from threats posed by patent trolls. The initiative, called Linux Defenders (the website is slated to go live tomorrow, Dec. 9), is sponsored by a consortium of technology companies including IBM.

This initiative still fails to properly address the issue of patent trolls, the solution to which is only a serious reform or elimination of software patents. Over at TechDirt, Mike explains part of the issue at hand:

[M]any patent holders bring lawsuits on technologies that are pretty far from what’s in the claims — usually hoping that the accused will settle rather than take the issue to court.

This is why even poor patents are difficult to defeat. Having them reexamined is expensive (c.f. Firestar for details [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]).

As to OIN’s approach, this old interview with Jerry Rosenthal (previous CEO of OIN) highlighted a flaw:

Glyn Moody said: “Typically, patent trolls don’t have any products, so they are unlikely to be infringing on any of your patents. Isn’t that a problem for the OIN approach?”

The reply from OIN was sincere: “Very clearly there’s not much we can do with regard to patent trolls.”

We will hopefully have some more reassuring answers from the current CEO. One person suggested that we ask:

You said in an interview to LinuxJournal that “there is clearly not much we can do with regard to patent trolls”. You are also supporting high quality patents. Does OIN’s defensive approach work with a patent troll suing Linux with a portfolio of multiple high quality patents?

We are not alone in our skepticism of patent pools and ‘umbrellas’ of portfolios. They fail to tackle some of the worst villains out there, some of whom can operate on behalf of companies like Microsoft. Here is what Radu wrote in his latest rant about this subject:

RE: A no-fly zone to protect Linux from patent trolls, where the OIN CEO says: «We’re not anti-patent by any stretch of the imagination. More patents is fine with me, as long as they’re high quality. Quality is the drum we beat.» This is 100% bullshit. If it’s about “quality software patents”, then the OIN is favoring software patents! (But I knew that Linux is suicidal.) OTOH, I personally believe that not only software patents should be voided, but all kind of patents. We’re having too many patents — idiotic and obvious or not —, so that any inventor should probably pay too much just to check if his work can be considered as original or if he has to pay royalties to someone else! This is severely discouraging innovation IMNSHO. Heck, even the straw dispenser at McDonalds has a patent number on its top cover! In the 21st century, one would expect that ideas that could come to a 3-y.o. kid are not covered by patents, but they are.

Intellectual Monopolies in General

The rant above extends dissatisfaction beyond just software; this is not something new and many even consider this point of view rather conventional. One of our readers points to this new article which challenges or at least questions the effects of excessive restriction.

There are plenty of good ideas that we read about every day that will substantially increase the quality of our lives. Imagine for a moment that we find out we can easily harness Solar Energy for our energy requirements. In order to make it technologically feasible, considerable research needs to go into it. This research needs money. I can imagine Oil Companies being very interested in this research. Not in order to further it, but to throttle it. Nothing could be simpler for them, than to talk to one person, buy his or her patent for their latest invention, and let it collect dust on the shelves.

[...]

Another example is how major corporations like the RIAA are trying to throttle p2p. The RIAA would be exceedingly happy if the entire Bittorrent technology was scrapped, along with all the good that comes of it. But why go so far? The RIAA claims that even ripping CD’s to your harddisk is illegal. They would be happy if that technology was scrapped as well.

Here is another discussion about this subject in light of the deep recession.

Can the business practices of the 1930s yield useful lessons for executives setting priorities in today’s uncertain and evolving environment? For investments to promote innovation, the answer may be yes. Executives are often told to maintain investment during downturns. It’s easy to question this countercyclical advice, however, in times like the Depression or the present, when the volatility of financial markets (an indicator of uncertainty) reaches historic highs. Is the typical behavior of executives—act cautiously and delay investment projects until confidence returns—the wiser course?

Many companies hesitated to innovate during the 1930s. Consider, for example, patent applications as a proxy for resources devoted to innovation.

As the existing crisis was created mostly due to imaginary property, the last thing the economy needs is more of it.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

17 Comments

  1. Shane Coyle said,

    December 10, 2008 at 9:17 am

    Gravatar

    Stockpiling spurious patents isn’t okay, regardless of espoused intent or if it’s on ‘our side’; Software patents and method patents are not valid, any actions other than their wholesale repudiation is unacceptable and counterproductive, imo.

  2. Jo Shields said,

    December 10, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Gravatar

    But given the USPTO doesn’t care about prior art, doesn’t the current system invite being sued by trolls if you *don’t* file things left right & center?

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 10, 2008 at 9:27 am

    Gravatar

    Filing patents wouldn’t help you against trolls. They have no products.

  4. AlexH said,

    December 10, 2008 at 10:09 am

    Gravatar

    Nothing helps against the “trolls” though. Because you can’t defend yourself against them doesn’t mean you should leave yourself defenseless against everyone else.

    “Troll” cases make the most noise, but they’re not the most numerous by a fair way, since most patents are in the hands of actual product-producing businesses.

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 10, 2008 at 10:13 am

    Gravatar

    Never forget that trolls sometimes operate (secretly) on behalf of larger companies that target “product removal” or grievance for competitors.

  6. Shane Coyle said,

    December 10, 2008 at 10:36 am

    Gravatar

    Let me be clear, I haven’t any problem with valid patents on devices, just software patents which aren’t.

    Also, it’s important to properly establish this ‘intellectual property’ that many of these large software companies claim to own is worth nothing, kinda like those mortgage-backed-securities the US financials were claiming as tremendous assets and turned out to be junk.

  7. AlexH said,

    December 10, 2008 at 11:02 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: I think that’s mostly an unjustified fear.

    Patents have holders, and only the holder of the patent can prosecute it. If a large company transferred those patents (and shareholders don’t like that, as a rule!), they would no longer be in control of them. If they were still in control, they can still be bargained with. Trolls hold only a very small proportion of the overall patent pool, no matter how they got the patent.

    @Shane: things, physical or not, are only worth what people will pay for them. You can make the same argument about practically any good. A car is no more worth $10,000 than a software patent or deed to a plot of land on the moon.

  8. Shane Coyle said,

    December 10, 2008 at 11:14 am

    Gravatar

    Some folks invest in these companies because of their supposed ‘ip’ portfolios, it will be instructive to see how these companies should fare if it were to be widely known that much of their ‘assets’ are worthless – then, all of a sudden, folks look harder at profitability and innovation and sound management and perhaps invest elsewhere…

  9. Shane Coyle said,

    December 10, 2008 at 11:17 am

    Gravatar

    Oh, and a car is a valid car and can be used as such, a software patent isn’t a valid patent and can only be used to heat your office if you print it out and burn it.

  10. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 10, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Gravatar

    A car is no more worth $10,000 than a software patent or deed to a plot of land on the moon.

    You’re totally ignoring issues of duplication and scarcity. Why limit human knowledge?

  11. AlexH said,

    December 10, 2008 at 11:31 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: I’m not ignoring them at all, it’s irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that the value of something isn’t intrinsic in any way, for any good.

    @Shane: sure, that’s a value a car has to you. That’s nothing to do with the value it has for other people, though.

  12. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 10, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Gravatar

    AlexH,

    It sure is relevant. Think about how the RIAA tries encouraging the perception that no music is free and nothing but copyrights exists in the arts.

    Knowledge monopolies have centuries in a history of suppression.

  13. AlexH said,

    December 10, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    Gravatar

    @Roy: no, it’s not relevant, it’s completely and utterly beside the point.

    Shane said they have no value. I’m pointing out that nothing has any intrinsic monetary value. You’re making some argument about knowledge scarcity which is irrelevant; value and scarcity are completely different concepts (example: people buy bottled water particularly in urban areas, where fresh water is about the least scarce thing available).

    Things are (only) worth what people are willing to pay. If you want to argue about another point go ahead, but it’s not related to anything I’m discussing.

  14. Shane Coyle said,

    December 10, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Gravatar

    As usual, I think we agree mostly. My point is that software patents aren’t valid, and are therefore worthless. Once that knowledge becomes more commonplace, market forces will set the value, so to speak.

  15. AlexH said,

    December 10, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Gravatar

    Oh, absolutely, and I think In Re Bilski (to cite it properly ;) ) is doing that already to a large extent.

  16. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 10, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Gravatar

    There are companies that still resist change. Take IBM for example.

    IBM is well aware that its investment in software patents is an investment in a bubble that won’t necessarily generate any profits, but there is still a battle out there for perception among the public.

    Some of the seniors at IBM continue to defend software patents (or escape the questions from critics altogether) and later on they ‘contribute’ imaginary assets in what they call a “pledge” or a “promise”. It’s like the MAFIAA taking people’s rights away and then selling them back.

    IBM is unlikely to be the company that will ‘turn the table’ so to speak or let people know that it has just two 2′s, 3′s and a 5. It keeps its poker face, so it won’t come out with a confession. If you can make people believe something is worth a lot (much like branding, a la Coca Cola), then respect remains.

    Patents are also mechanisms for price-fixing and artificial elevation of cost. We don’t need that applied to mere thought.

  17. An Examiner said,

    December 12, 2008 at 4:17 am

    Gravatar

    As an examiner, I always get a kick out of folks who rail software patents. Then you ask them for the definition of a software patent and they can’t tell you, or say it’s a patent that ‘claims software’. And then you politely inform them that nothing that ‘claims software’ is ever issued.

    What you mean to say, instead of ‘software patent’, is ‘functionally claimed patent’. Back in the stone age, people defined inventions by their structure, because structure determined functionality. So patents made claims to structurally different inventions. By doing this they got coverage over any extra functionality the structurally novel object performed.

    Now that we’re out of the stone age, however, people define inventions by their functionality. Why? Because with a computer related invention, structure doesn’t define anything. So patents make claims to functionality, because a) structure doesn’t matter for general enablement, and b) any variation in structure would be obvious. And now they get coverage over any structure that their functionally novel object can be enabled with.

    If you’re against functionally claimed patents, then you need to step back and rethink how you view the patent system and why it exists. It’s designed to promote innovation via disclosure while providing protection to the inventor. The fact that so many patents are filed nowadays with functionally claimed computer related inventions means that it is, in fact, promoting innovation via disclosure.

    As far as protecting open source Linux material, publications are the route to go. Create one standardized group that publishes every new feature about Linux. Patent trolling is a function of patent quality. Patent quality is a function of the examiner having easy access to the prior art directly relating to the claimed invention.

What Else is New


  1. Team UPC Has Been Reduced to Rubble and Misinformation

    A roundup of the latest falsehoods about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and those who are peddling such falsehoods for personal gain



  2. CRISPR Patent Debacle Demonstrated That Opposition Divisions Do Their Job, But Also Highlighted Serious Deficiency in Patent-Granting Process

    While it is reassuring that EPO staff managed to squash a very controversial patent, it remains to be explained why such patent applications/applicants were even notified of intention to grant (in spite of the EPC, common sense and so on)



  3. Links 23/1/2018: Castle Game Engine 6.4, Qt 5.9.4, SQLite 3.22.0

    Links for the day



  4. Confidence in European Patents (EPs) is Eroding and Stakeholders Are Already Suffering

    The rush to grant lots and lots of patents at the EPO is already taking its toll; quality is declining, decisions to grant are being overturned, and the already-overburdened appeal boards are unable to catch up



  5. Even More Uncertain a Future for the Independence of the EPO Boards of Appeal as Judge Corcoran Too Gets Sent to 'Exile'

    The attack on supposedly independent judges at the EPO escalates further; the judge whom the EPO was ordered to reinstate (by ILO) is being constantly pushed around, not just legally bullied



  6. The Response to Accusations of Censorship by Team UPC? Yet More Censorship to Shield UPC From Criticism

    The Empire of Lies upon which the Unified Patent Court (UPC) was conceived is being exposed for its lies; The Empire Strikes Back with yet more censorship



  7. Links 22/1/2018: Linux 4.15 Delayed Again, Libinput 1.9.901

    Links for the day



  8. Team UPC Calls Critics of the UPC Idiots, Deletes Their Comments, and Blocks Them

    A new low for Team UPC, which is unable to cope with reality and has begun literally mocking and deleting comments of people who speak out truths



  9. How the Opposition to CRISPR Patents at the EPO Sent Shockwaves Through the Industry

    Additional reports/coverage on the EPO (European Patent Office) revoking Broad Institute's CRISPR patent show that the issue at hand isn't just one sole patent but the whole class/family of patents



  10. Unified Patents Says That RPX, Which Might Soon be Owned by Patent Trolls, Paid Patent Trolls Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

    Unified Patents, which helps crush software patents, takes note of RPX’s financial statements, which reveal the great extent to which RPX actually helped trolls rather than stop them



  11. IAM Together With Its Partner, IIPCC, is Lobbying the USPTO to Crush PTAB and Restore Patent Chaos

    Having handled over 8,000 petitions (according to Professor Lemley's Lex Machina), PTAB champions patent quality at the USPTO, so front groups of the litigation 'industry' creep in and attempt to lobby the likely next Director of the USPTO (inciting him against PTAB, as usual)



  12. Software Patents Are Still Dropping Like Flies in 2018, Thanks to Alice v CLS Bank (SCOTUS, 2014) and Section 101 (USPTO)

    Section 101 (§ 101) is thriving in the sense that it belatedly throws thousands of patents -- and frivolous lawsuits that depend on them -- down the chute; the patent trolls and their allies in the patent microcosm are very furious and they blame PTAB for actually doing its job (enforcing Section 101 when petitioned to do so)



  13. Patent Troll Finjan Looks Like It's About to Collapse, But Patent Maximalists Exploit It for Software Patents Promotion

    Patent trolls are struggling in their use of software patents; few (if any) of their patents are upheld as valid and those that miraculously remain in tact become the subject of fascination if not obsession among trolls' advocates



  14. The Attacks on PTAB Are Slowing Down and Attempts to Shield Oneself From Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) Are Failing

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reapplies patent eligibility tests/guidelines in order to squash likely invalid patents; The litigation 'industry' is not happy about it, but its opposition to PTAB is also losing steam



  15. Links 21/1/2018: Wine 3.0 Coverage, KaOS 2018.01, Red Hat Among 'Admired Companies'

    Links for the day



  16. Blockchain Patents Are a Catastrophe in the Making as Trolls and Aggressors Accumulate Them

    As patents pertaining to blockchains continue to be granted -- even in defiance of Alice/Section 101 -- it seems likely that patent wars will sooner or later erupt, involving some large banks, IBM, and patent trolls associated with the notorious Erich Spangenberg



  17. Qualcomm/Broadcom/NXP Combination Would Become a Disastrous Patent Thicket Which Benefits Nobody

    Worried by the prospect of mega-mergers and takeovers which would put far too much market power (and monopoly through patents) in one place, governments and corporations speak out



  18. Patent Litigation in East Asia: Huawei, Samsung, HTC, Nintendo and COLOPL

    A quick look at some high-profile cases in which large Asian firms are embroiled; it seems clear that litigation activities have shifted eastwards (where actual production is done)



  19. Patent Litigation in the US is Down Sharply and Patent Trolls' Demise Has Much to Do With It

    Docket Navigator and Lex Machina both show a significant decline in litigation -- a trend which is likely to carry on now that TC Heartland is in tact (not for just half a year but a whole year) and PTAB completes another record year



  20. Cheating the US Patent System is a Lot Harder After TC Heartland

    Some new examples of tricks (and sometimes cheats) attempted by patent claimants and their representatives; it does not go as well as they hoped



  21. RPX Might Soon be Owned by Patent Troll Erich Spangenberg

    RPX, whose top executives are leaving and business is gradually dying, might end up as another 'asset' of patent trolls



  22. Patent Quality (Not Numbers) as an Asset: Oppositions, Appeals and Rejections at the EPO

    Benoît Battistelli wants a rubber-stamping operation (like INPI) rather than a functional patent office, but oppositions at the Office prove to be fruitful and many erroneously-granted patents are -- by extrapolation -- already being revoked (affecting, in retrospect, Battistelli's so-called 'results')



  23. Links 19/1/2018: Linux Journalism Fund, Grsecurity is SLAPPing Again

    Links for the day



  24. The EPO Ignores This Week's Decision Which Demonstrates Patent Scope Gone Awry; Software Patents Brought Up Again

    The worrisome growth of European Patents (EPs) — a 40% jump in one year in spite of decline in the number of patent applications — is a symptom of the poor judgment, induced largely by bad policies that impede examiners’ activities for the sake of so-called ‘production’; this week's decision regarding CRISPR is another wake-up call and software patents too need to be abolished (as a whole), in lieu with the European Patent Convention (EPC)



  25. WesternGeco v ION Geophysical (at the US Supreme Court) Won't Affect Patent Scope

    As WesternGeco v ION Geophysical is the main if not sole ‘major’ patent case that the US Supreme Court will deal with, it seems safe to say that nothing substantial will change for patent scope in the United States this year



  26. Links 18/1/2018: MenuLibre 2.1.4, Git 2.16 Released

    Links for the day



  27. Microsoft, Masking/Hiding Itself Behind Patent Trolls, is Still Engaging in Patent Extortion

    A review of Microsoft's ugly tactics, which involve coercion and extortion (for businesses to move to Azure and/or for OEMs to preload Microsoft software) while Microsoft-connected patent trolls help hide the "enforcement" element in this whole racket



  28. Patent Prosecution Highway: Low-Quality Patents for High-Frequency Patent Aggressors

    The EPO's race to the bottom of patent quality, combined with a "need for speed", is a recipe for disaster (except for litigation firms, patent bullies, and patent trolls)



  29. Press Coverage About the EPO Board Revoking Broad's CRISPR Patent

    Even though there's some decent coverage about yesterday's decision (e.g. from The Scientist), the patent microcosm googlebombs the news with stuff that serves to distract from or distort the outcome



  30. Links 17/1/2018: HHVM 3.24, WordPress 4.9.2

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts