
Validity of software patents goes on trial today at Supreme Court  - manvsmachine
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20091109/patents09_st.art.htm
======
dantheman
"In a worst-case scenario for the high-tech industry, the ruling could
invalidate many existing software patents or at least make them more difficult
to defend in lawsuits. And it could make such patents harder to obtain in the
future because software is generally patented as a process for doing something
rather than as a physical invention."

I think that might be the best case scenario.

~~~
alain94040
I agree that the pendulum today is too strongly on the side of patent trolls.

But have you seriously thought about what a world without patents would look
like?

Actually, you can. Visit China. On Monday, the boss of a factory will give you
a tour and shows you how they manufacture the iPod case exclusively for Apple.
The next day, they offer you to manufacture the exact same design, just for
you, for very cheap. IP? What IP?

Personally, I'm hoping for a middle ground. Not all patents are bad, but too
many stupid patents is an abuse of the system.

 _(before you mod into oblivion, let me state that I have standing to discuss
this issue, having been sued for patent infringment myself - I know the pain)_

~~~
ArcticCelt
I think patent, copyright and many other things are all mixed up here. Can
someone tell me about a case of "software patent" (not software copyright, not
hardware patent) where it promoted innovation?

~~~
DenisM
Video compression - a lot of companies saw it fit to invest into
DVD,MPEG2,MPEG4 etc to rip benefits later. Of course if they hadn't done it we
would still have video codecs as demonstrated by DivX, XVid and various open-
source video codecs. I think the difference here is that the the patents
helped video codecs rich mass users faster than would be the case without
them, but became a huge drag after some point.

Pretty much like any other investment, if you think of it.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Maybe you've got a point, but you've not presented any evidence.

DivX and Xvid and most "open-source" video codecs infringe on the same basic
patents and so require patent licences from MPEG-LA.

The question at hand is whether the same amount of companies (or simply
enough) would have invested in video codecs without the ability to create
monopolies via patents.

------
hristov
Here is one of those rare stories in hacker news where I can claim special
expertise. But yeah, I am a patent lawyer, so everyone listen to me :)

I should point out that this case does not directly concern software patents.
The patent at question is not a software patent but a business method patent.
It was a patent for a commodity trading strategy that as claimed did not
require a computer or software to execute (i.e., it could have been executed
by a human without the aid of a computer).

Now why does everyone say that software patents are on trial? Well, many
people, especially those that want to see software patents invalidated, hope
that either (i) the supreme court will make an anti-patent ruling that is
broad enough to cover software patents or (ii) even if they do not invalidate
software patents, the supreme court will recite some kind of reasoning that
will be used thereafter to attack software patents.

But any effect on software patents from this case will be indirect. The
supreme court usually does not like to rule on things that are not properly in
front of it. So their decision here will not stray from the matter at hand
which is business method patents.

In my opinion, the supreme court should affirm the federal circuit in
rejecting business method patents. I think it is common sense that patents
should be limited to technology one way or another. But regarding to software
-- I agree with pg that there really isn't anything special about software
that is not applicable to hardware, and there is no reason to single software
out. When people complain about software patents, they usually complain about
obvious patents, and that is an issue sometimes. But the way to solve this is
make sure the patent office applies the obviousness laws better and not by
wholesale invalidation of all software patents.

~~~
a-priori
I want to share my views on this issue, because they're somewhat different
from the typical arguments I hear against software patents. I'd like feedback
from anyone willing to provide it.

I agree with you and PG that there's nothing fundamentally different about
software that should make it unpatentable, but I think that the policy should
be decided based on what will best stimulate innovation. For whatever reason,
right now patents are more of a hinderance. Innovation in software is
happening often despite patents, and rarely because of them.

Even though the industry is around a half-century old now, we still seem to be
in a sort of "exploratory phase" where there's no consensus on how software
should best be developed, or what the "best practices" and core techniques of
the industry are. I'm trying to come up with a good analogy, but I don't think
this has ever happened with another technology for such a long period of time.

Those of us in the industry try to pretend this is not the case by wrapping
what we do in lingo and titles from more developed fields, like engineering,
in order to appear more respectable. I, myself, have held the title of
"software engineer" before, but I'd be lying to say that what I do is anywhere
near as well understood as designing a bridge, a car, or a building's
electrical system.

The current problems with software patents, such as poor enforcement of the
obviousness test, all stem from this. There's no clear understanding right now
of what is "obvious".

While this exploratory phase lasts, software patents are a form of premature
optimization. Presumably, at some point, we'll enter a sort of "exploitation
phase" where the techniques and methods for developing software stabilize. The
spontaneous innovation we currently see will begin to slow, and it will make
sense to try to foster innovation with patents.

When that happens, the issue of software patents should be revisited, but for
the time being, I think that society would be better off without them.

------
jxcole
This article is good news, but unfortunately it is poorly written. I felt they
were very prejudiced in favor of software patents.

~~~
eli
Yeah, you would think the AP could have found someone at Google to present
another angle.

~~~
omouse
or the Software Freedom Law Center.

------
flashgordon
Jees could this article be any more biased towards the BSA?

------
ars
Is there anyone from the FSF (or similar) who might file an amicus brief?

It's the Patent Office that is fighting this? Is anyone from the open source
community helping them?

~~~
mikeryan
They have

<http://endsoftpatents.org/amicus-bilski-2009>

It seems that FSF, Google, Red Hat and the Software Freedom Law Center are
against the patent ideas.

IBM, Microsoft, Symantec and Philips are for patents according to this page.

<http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos_amicus_briefs>

------
mooneater
Anyone know how long we should expect to wait before they decide something and
it impacts the real world?

~~~
slapshot
All Supreme Court cases from this term will be decided by June. The average
time would probably be 3-4 months from when the case is argued (i.e., February
or March), but it could be faster or slower.

The ruling will basically go into effect immediately, even if the Patent
Office takes some time to make new rules.

~~~
mooneater
great answer, thx.

