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. The EPO is Doing Great, Says EPO-Connected 'News' Site

    IAM 'magazine', a longtime ally of the EPO, gives people the impression that all is fine and dandy at the EPO even though that's clearly not the case



  2. Microsoft Has Killed Nokia (and Its Own Mobile Ambitions), But Watch What it Does With Patents

    Microsoft announces many more layoffs, having already caused tremendous damage to the Finnish economy, and patents are left astray for Microsoft's favourite patent trolls to pick



  3. EPO Management Under Growing Stress From Croatian Law Enforcement Authorities, German Politicians, Italian Media

    Things are not as rosy as the relative calm may suggest, and in the coming weeks we expect some major events other than the protest at all EPO sites across Europe



  4. Microsoft, a Dead Company Walking, Resorts to Malware Tactics, Now Truly Indistinguishable From Crackers

    Microsoft is essentially taking over people's PCs and installing on them a large piece of malware, complete with keyloggers, against the will of these PCs' owners



  5. Links 26/5/2016: CentOS Linux 6.8, Ansible 2.1

    Links for the day



  6. The Latest EPO Victim Card (Played by Željko Topić) Should be Treated as Seriously as Those Bogus Claims of Violence by a Judge (Updatedx3)

    In its desperate pursuit of a narrative wherein the staff of the EPO is violent and aggressive the management of the EPO, renowned for institutional aggression, finds (or claims to have found) a little tampering with a bicycle



  7. Links 25/5/2016: Nginx 1.11, F1 2015 Coming to GNU/Linux Tomorrow

    Links for the day



  8. The Media Starts Informing the European Public About the Downsides of UPC While EPO Accelerates Its Lobbying for Ratification

    The EPO's shameless UPC promotion takes another step forward as the European press outlets (even television channels) begin to explore the secret deal that's negotiated by patent lawyers (with corporate clients) and patent offices, not the public or any public interest groups



  9. Some Details About How the EPO's President is Rumoured to be 'Buying' Votes and Why It's Grounds/Basis for “Immediate Dismissal”

    Some background information and a detailed explanation of the systemic financial dependency, created by Battistelli at the cost of €13 million or more, which prevents effective oversight of Battistelli



  10. How the Patent Lawyers' Microcosm Continues to Boost Software Patents Filth by Misdirecting Readers, Relying on Highly Selective Coverage

    Under the guise of reporting/analysis/advice the community of patent lawyers is effectively lobbying to make software patents popular and widely-accepted again, based on one single case which they wish to make 'the' precedent



  11. Documents Show Zagreb Police Department in Investigation of Vice-President of the European Patent Office

    Željko Topić's troubles in Croatia, where he faces many criminal charges, may soon become an extraordinary burden for the EPO, which distances itself from it all mostly by attacking staff that 'dares' to bring up the subject



  12. [ES] Interrumpiendo la Propagánda Distractante de Battistelli: los Empleados de la EPO Protestará de Nuevo en una Quincena

    La exágerada extravagancia (desperdicio de dinero) en la Ceremonia de Premiación al Inventor Europeo de la EPO tendrá que competir por atención de los medios con miles de empleados de la EPO (en todaslas sedes de la EPO) marchándo en las calles para protestar por los abusos de la EPO



  13. Windows and Microsoft's Other 'Burning Platforms'

    It's not just Windows for phones that's reaching minuscule market share levels but also Windows, but Microsoft is skilled at hiding this (cannibalising Windows using something people do not even want, then counting that cannibal, Vista 10)



  14. Links 24/5/2016: CRYENGINE Source Code is Out on GitHub, Jono Bacon Leaves GitHub

    Links for the day



  15. Links 23/5/2016: GNOME 3.22, Calculate Linux 15.17

    Links for the day



  16. 'Celebrity' Patent Trolls and the Elusive Battle Against Patent Trolls (or Eastern District of Texas Courts) Rather Than Software Patents

    Some of last week's more important reports, which serve to demonstrate how the system is attempting to tackle a side-effect of software patents rather than the patents themselves (their irrational scope)



  17. The Circus of Patent 'Reporting' (by Omission) on the Subject of Software Patents in the US and USPTO Bias

    look at some of the latest oddities in the US patent system and much of the reporting about software patenting (more or less monopolised by those who profit from it, not harmed by it)



  18. IP3 Demonstrates That Today's Patent Systems Devolve Into a Conglomerates' Game, Won't Protect the Mythical Small Inventor

    Multinational corporations bring together their shared interests and steer the increasingly-inseparable patent systems according to their needs and goals, but has anyone even noticed?



  19. Disrupting Battistelli's Distracting Propaganda: EPO Staff to Protest Again in About a Fortnight

    The overly extravagant (waste of money) EPO European Inventor Award will have to compete for media attention with thousands of EPO staff (in all EPO sites) marching in the streets to protest against the EPO's abuses



  20. Corrupting Democracy? Growing Frequency of Rumours That the EPO's President Battistelli is 'Buying' Votes of Small Member States

    Several sources suggest that rather than appease the Administrative Council by taking corrective action Battistelli and his notorious 'circle' now work hard to remove opposition from the Administrative Council, especially where this is easier a task to accomplish (politically or economically)



  21. [ES] Los Mitos de la EPO ‘Calidad’ de Patentes y de ‘Creación’ de Patentes: Basados en Ventas de Cafe y Trauma

    La carrera hacia el fondo, o la ridícula asumpción de Battistelli de que otorgar más y más patentenes más rápidamente (e.g. usando PACE) sería beneficióso a largo término, puede guíar al final colapse del valor de la EPO y la pérdida de su lárgamente ganada reputación a nivel mundial



  22. Links 22/5/2016: Systemd 230, Debian Installer Alpha 6

    Links for the day



  23. EPO Patent 'Quality' and 'Patent Creation' Myth: Capsule-Based Coffee Sales and Trauma

    The race to the bottom, or Battistelli's ludicrous assumption that granting more and more patents faster (e.g. using PACE) would be beneficial in the long run, may lead to the ultimate collapse of the EPO's value and demise of its long-earned reputation worldwide



  24. Guest Post: How Vista 10 Imposes Itself on Users of Windows

    A reader's experience being nagged by Microsoft, as documented and explained by this reader



  25. [ES] El Notorio Tirano de la EPO, Benoît Battistelli, Se Reune Con Otros Tiranos, Reportes de Que ‘Limpia’ el Consejo Administrativo

    El régimen de Battistelli, talvez la fuente de verguénza más grande, alegadamente está “cortejándo países pequeños/corruptos para asegurárse de que los delegados que votarón contra él serán remplazados”



  26. [ES] Comentadores Anónimos Debaten Si la EPO de Battistelli Puede Revocar las Pensiones de Empleados Que Se Atreveen — GASP — a Buscar Empleo Alternativo

    Una mirada a las causas de desesperación e imensa presión en la EPO, donde las pensiónes pueden ser cortadas como medio de represália y la gente puede ser negada empleo aún después de dejar la Oficina Europea de Patentes (EPO)



  27. [ES] Otra Casi Vacía Presentación de la EPO en La Hague

    El propagandístico “estudio social” de Battistelli (básicamente un montón de engañosas afirmacionesdisfrazadas como ‘investigación’) ayuda a demostrar que los empleados de la EPO no tiene absolutamente fe en la gerencia



  28. Links 21/5/2016: Manjaro Linux RC, Flock 2016 Schedule

    Links for the day



  29. USPTO Ignores a Lot of Cases Against Software Patents to Justify Resumption of More Software Patenting

    The US patent system (USPTO) is so obsessed with granting as many patents as possible -- even bogus patents in areas that are no longer patent-eligible -- that its guidelines are further perturbed and whose appeals board is massively overwhelmed/overworked/understaffed



  30. Notorious EPO Tyrant, Benoît Battistelli, Meets Other Tyrants, Reportedly 'Cleanses' the Administrative Council

    The Battistelli regime, perhaps the biggest embarrassment of Europe right now, is allegedly "courting smaller countries to make sure the delegates who voted against him will be replaced"


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