

Tim Berners-Lee Takes the Stand to Keep the Web Free - charlie_joslin
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/tim-berners-lee-patent/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

======
noonespecial
What we really need is to find a way to stop patents from being granted for
the implications of a technology. Connecting computers together into a network
is hard, figuring out that once they are connected together, they might
interact with each other is not. It is novel in that they couldn't interact
that way before, and now they can, but that novel behavior isn't an
_invention_ its merely an _implication_ enabled by the real work of doing the
connecting. Its like patenting the idea of driving your car to Grandma's.

Letting trolls steal the implications from the inventors (and from society at
large) with noting more inventive than little bits of paper with use cases on
them is almost a crime against future humanity.

Of course the web is interactive, that's why the _real_ inventors made the
damn thing in the first place.

~~~
ohyes
> It is novel in that they couldn't interact that way before, and now they
> can, but that novel behavior isn't an invention its merely an implication
> enabled by the real work of doing the connecting. Its like patenting the
> idea of driving your car to Grandma's.

I'd say the proper term for it is 'discovery'.

Connecting computers together in a network and creating the infrastructure
(ethernet, routers, DNS servers, stuff like that) is all actual invention. If
someone creates an ethernet that is 200x better than what we currently have,
or a much better way of routing packets etc, they should get credit for that
invention and be able to patent it.

Once you have the physical infrastructure, anything else that you do with it
is just discovering a neat property of a system which has already been
created.

It is like patenting gravity, the Pythagorean theorem, or a certain chord
progression. (Imagine if someone had patented IV-V-I, we wouldn't have had
nearly 60 years worth of music!)

In this way, I would say that Berners-Lee didn't invent the web, he discovered
an extremely interesting and useful property of combining computer networks
and hypertext.

~~~
eridius
Inventing hard things is worth patenting. Discovering emergent phenomena is
not.

~~~
jaekwon
If it's so hard, do you really need a monopoly enforced by statute? The harder
it is, the more natural temporary monopoly you get until others start copying
you.

I say, nothing is worth infringing upon a creator's right to create. Please
correct me if I'm wrong.

Even if there are some cases where a patent might have been beneficial
overall, you still have to weigh the benefits against the costs of having a
patent system at all. How much GDP is spent on patents in general?

~~~
eridius
Inventing hard things is hard, but copying other people's inventions is
significantly easier. Don't forget, part of the point of the patent system is
to encourage inventors to publicly document how their invention works so other
people can use it (with licensing), instead of keeping it secret and possibly
having the knowledge lost over time.

It seems to me that if someone can describe superficially what an invention
does and you can build it on the spot, then it probably doesn't deserve a
patent. For example, if you were to describe the appearance of an engine block
to me, I wouldn't be able to replicate the combustion engine, and it's
probably worth patenting. But if you tell me that the user clicks on one
button to purchase an item without going through a checkout phase, I can
easily replicate that without any knowledge of how it works. Although come to
think of it, that basically negates all business method patents.

~~~
hexagonc
_Inventing hard things is hard, but copying other people's inventions is
significantly easier_

Copying is only easier if you can reverse-engineer what they did. Sometimes,
just seeing the invention brought to fruition provides enough clues for any
skilled tradesman to reproduce the parts that are unrevealed. Well if that's
true, then the patent should not have been granted in the first place, like
you said! Remember, ideas by themselves aren't supposed to be patentable, only
implementations of ideas. You see, the patent doesn't become violated just by
writing or communicating about it. The violation occurs when you build
something that _really starts doing_ what the patents describes. The problem
with software patents are precisely how fuzzy this distinction can become.

Software is special precisely because it is so general and flexible. Take the
'one-click' patent that you cited above. Suppose web browsers were built with
macros so that you could script them to automatically verify shipping address
and payment info upon clicking "buy" and confirm the order. To the end-user,
this would be functionally equivalent to the "one-click". Should this macro
behavior be blocked? What if an e-commerce site distributes a script for
implementing one-click functionality that can be installed by customers? Would
this violate the patent? I'm not sure.

~~~
eridius
_Copying is only easier if you can reverse-engineer what they did._

Sure, you can't always copy something just by inspecting it. For example, if I
invent a way to laminate baseball cards _extremely well_ , you're not going to
be able to inspect the laminated card and figure out how I did it, all you're
going to see is that it's a really great lamination. And this is where the
other aspect of patenting comes into play. If I never tell anyone how I did
it, and I die, then my invention is lost. But if I patent it, then I've
publicly documented for the world what my invention is, and anyone that wants
to use it can license it from me (and, eventually, it will pass into public
domain). So basically, the patent system works quite well for physical
products or processes.

But, as you say, when you're talking about software patents (or really,
business method patents in general), everything becomes really fuzzy. What's
the difference between a business method and an idea? Why is one patentable
and the other isn't? The more I think about this sort of thing, the more I'm
convinced that all software patents should be invalid, period. If I write an
instruction manual, I can't patent that. Copyright is what covers me there. So
if I write instructions for the computer (i.e. software), why is that suddenly
patentable? The fact that all software patents need to describe a computer
executing the operations (which is what turns it from an idea into a
patentable process) just shows how absurd the whole idea is.

------
akumpf
Tim Berners-Lee's view of patents doesn't really seem to matter here (and it's
surprising to me that the court/lawyers would entertain that as being
important). What does matter is prior art, first-to-invent, novelty,
uniqueness, and non-obviousness; all of which the Eolas patents seem to be
lacking.

Long live the open web; it belongs to all of us.

~~~
wvenable
It's a question of whether the jury should trust his testimony. The lawyer
wanted to show that Tim Berners-Lee was biased against patents, in general,
and therefore his testimony on this matter is suspect.

~~~
hexagonc
But what difference would his personal beliefs on software patents make toward
his credibility in this matter? Whether the patents are valid or not is a
matter of fact, as it would have to be in order for the patent and trade
office to issue the patents in the first place. What are you supposed to
conclude by knowing that TBL is against software patents? That he's lying
about what happened at CERN and Pei Wei's browser? This looked like a smear
campaign and I'm surprised the defendant's lawyers didn't object to it (maybe
they did but I didn't read it in the article).

On an unrelated note, scientists often don't do well in debate type situations
like a courtroom because scientists are often more concerned about truth then
winning an argument. Thus, they'll often concede a small point from the
opposing argument that is trumped up as a major victory by the opposition. The
point may have little impact toward the truth of the matter but is perceived
as important by an ignorant audience because the opposition is touting it as
such.

------
barret907k
Its nice to see successful tech companies actually fighting some patents. It
makes me sad to see Apple Microsoft IBM etc just pay patent trolls because it
is cheaper to do so than defeating the patents.

~~~
lnguyen
It's not only that it might be cheaper, it's because it takes out the
uncertainty that would be involved in trying to defeat a patent. You have no
idea how long the fight will take to wind it's way through the courts or even
if you'll ultimately get a ruling in your favor.

~~~
bwarp
Which is why the legal system is an utter failure.

Patent trolls play the probability game which usually results in a net gain
because the legal system is failing.

I would say that there should be laws against this but that will result in
another loophole or way of making money.

Perhaps I'm a socialist wierdo, but I'd favour scrapping the entire patent
process for something which rewards positive contributions to society as a
whole rather than who can screw who first. People should be creating things
that improve the human condition, not enslave it.

------
EGreg
Actually, I wonder about a more extreme scenario.

Suppose Eolas' patents are upheld. And Eolas sues all the large websites for
an INJUNCTION to PREVENT them from using "interactive elements". Suppose they
don't want to license it. Or if they do, they demand $10 BILLION DOLLARS from
each company.

What can anyone do about it at that point? Patent law in the US does not have
a compulsory licensing provision.

If the eolas patent gets upheld, this could very well have extreme effects for
several years on the whole world.

~~~
mattmanser
Do you not remember the absurd scenario about 5 years about with click-to-
activate Active X controls. MS found a way round it, but eventually caved to
licensing because it was such a mess.

~~~
EGreg
Yes, but suppose it was worse, suppose it was the idea of plugins in browsers.
Or something like that.

What if someone right now goes ahead and patents the idea of apps for ... self
driving cars? Or the idea of them using traffic maps?

