http://www.news.com/Posted on 07/31/2005 4:08:56 PM PDT by rdb3
By Randall Stross
http://news.com.com/Why+Bill+Gates+wants+3%2C000+new+patents/2100-1008_3-5812318.html
Story last modified Sun Jul 31 08:15:00 PDT 2005
It seems to be about baseball. The inventors have apparently come up with software that can detect the portions of a baseball broadcast that contain what they call "excited speech," as well as hits (what I call "excited ball") and automatically compile those portions into a highlights reel.
If the patent is granted, after a review process that is likely to take three years, it will be assigned to the inventors' employer, Microsoft.
 |
||
|
|
|
 For the latest breaking news, visit NYTimes.com Sign up to receive top headlines Get Dealbook, a daily corporate finance email briefing Search the jobs listings at NYTimes.com Search NYTimes.com: |
||
|
||
|
||
The staff of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has been deluged with paperwork from Microsoft of late. It was one year ago that the company's chairman, Bill Gates, announced plans to pick up the pace, raising its goal of patent applications submitted annually to 3,000 from 2,000. The company is right on target.
It must feel like a bit of a stretch to come up with 60 fresh, nonobvious patentable ideas week in, week out. Perhaps that is why this summer's crop includes titles like "System and Method for Creating a Note Related to a Phone Call " and "Adding and Removing White Space From a Document."
I have not seen the software in use. But if I were in a position to make a ruling, and even if I accepted the originality claim on its face, I would process these swiftly: Rejected.
Microsoft's other pending applications--3,368 at last count--should receive the same treatment. And while tidying up, let's also toss out the 3,955 patents that Microsoft has already been issued.
Perhaps that is going too far. Certainly, we should go through the lot and reinstate the occasional invention embodied in hardware. But patent protection for software? No. Not for Microsoft, nor for anyone else.
Others share this conviction. "Abolishing software patents would be a very good thing," says Daniel Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, a nonprofit group in New York that challenges what it calls "wrongly issued" patents. Ravicher, a patent lawyer himself, says he believes that the current system actually impedes the advance of software technology, at the same time that it works quite nicely to enrich patent holders. That's not what the framers of the Constitution wanted, he said.
Earlier this month, the European Parliament rejected a measure, nicknamed the "software patent directive," that would have uniformly removed restrictions on those patents among European Union members.
All software published in the United States is protected by strong copyright and trademark protection. Microsoft Excel, for example, cannot be copied, nor can its association with Microsoft be removed. But a patent goes well beyond this. It protects even the underlying concepts from being used by others--for 20 years.
As recently as the 1970s, software developers relied solely upon copyrights and trademarks to protect their work. This turned out rather well for Microsoft. Had Dan Bricklin, the creator of VisiCalc, the spreadsheet that gave people a reason to buy a personal computer, obtained a patent covering the program in 1979, Microsoft would not have been able to bring out Excel until 1999. Nor would Word or PowerPoint have appeared if the companies that had brought out predecessors obtained patent protection for their programs.
Bricklin, who has started several software companies and defensively acquired a few software patents along the way, says he, too, would cheer the abolition of software patents, which he sees as the bane of small software companies. "The number of patents you can run into with a small product is immense," he said. As for Microsoft's aggressive accumulation in recent years, he asked, "Isn't Microsoft the poster child of success without software patents?"
So why didn't Bricklin file for a patent for VisiCalc in 1979? Patents for software alone were not an option then. He consulted a patent attorney who said that the application would have to present the software within a machine and that the odds were long that the ploy would succeed. The courts regarded software as merely a collection of mathematical algorithms, tiny revelations of nature's secrets--not as an invention, and thus not patentable.
The legal environment changed not because of new legislation, but by accident. One important ruling here and another there, and without anyone fully realizing it, a new intellectual-property reality had evolved by the end of the 1980s. Now software could enjoy the extraordinary protection of a patent, protection so powerful that Thomas Jefferson believed that it should be granted in only a few select cases.
Making the best possible argument for Microsoft's newly acquired passion for patents is a job that falls to Brad Smith, the company's senior vice president and general counsel. Last week, we discussed the changing legal landscape in the 1990s. Microsoft had not taken an interest in patents in its early years because, as Smith said, "We thought we could rely on copyright." The courts changed the rules, and Microsoft had to respond like everyone else.
Why did Microsoft increase its patent-application target so sharply just last year?
"We realized we were underpatenting," Smith explained. The company had seen studies showing that other information technology companies filed about two patents for every $1 million spent on research and development. If Microsoft was spending $6 billion to $7.5 billion annually on its R&D, it would need to file at least 3,000 applications to keep up with the Joneses.
That sounds perfectly innocuous. The really interesting comparisons, though, are found not among software companies, but between software companies and pharmaceutical companies. Pharma is lucky to land a single patent after placing a multihundred-million-dollar bet and waiting patiently 10 years for it to play out. Mark H. Webbink, the deputy general counsel of Red Hat, a Linux and open-source distributor, said it was ridiculous for a software company to grab identical protection for work entailing relatively minuscule investment and trivial claims. He said of current software patents, "To give 20 years of protection does not help innovation."
If Congress passed legislation that strengthened and expanded copyright protection to include design elements as well as software's source code, formalizing the way the courts interpreted the law in the 1970s, we could bring an end to software patents and this short, unhappy blip in our patent system's time line.
Eliminating software patents would give Microsoft another chance to repair its relationship with open-source users. Recently, the company has stooped to what can only be labeled fear-mongering, telling its customers who may be tempted to switch to open-source alternatives to think twice before leaving Microsoft's protective awning.
Last year at a public briefing, Kevin R. Johnson, Microsoft's group vice president for worldwide sales, spoke pointedly of "intellectual property risk" that corporate customers should take into account when comparing software vendors. On the one side, Microsoft has an overflowing war chest and bulging patent portfolio, ready to fight--or cross-license with--any plaintiff who accuses it of patent infringement. On the other are the open-source developers, without war chest, without patents of their own to use as bargaining chips and without the financial means to indemnify their customers.
What would Jefferson think if he were around to visit Microsoft's campus, seeing software patents stacked like pyramids of cannonballs?
Randall Stross is a historian and author based in Silicon Valley. E-mail: ddomain@nytimes.com.
Entire contents, Copyright © 2005 The New York Times. All rights reserved.
stuff like this ought to be like a multimedia automatic spell-checker event.
"telling its customers who may be tempted to switch to open-source alternatives to think twice before leaving Microsoft's protective awning."
Ok then. LOL!
I didn't know you could ger patents for clumsy, obfuscating and buggy software.
Why Bill Gates wants 3,000 new patents
So he can dance around naked while shouting that he's accumulated more money during his lifetime than anybody else in the history of the world?
You win, Bill.
Bill? Bill? Oh, right, I forgot that immortality isn't yet for sale. My mistake.
The HP Officjet 7410 is a train-wreck of problems on the software.
The patent system in the country needs serious reform.
What's the difference between patenting software and patenting recipes, blueprints, chemical formulas, or anything else? They're all the same thing. Sure, you run into the risk of getting a very broad algorithm approved, but the same risk applies for all other categories (such as the wheel). There's nothing special about software that should make it immune from copyrighting.
What's the difference between patenting software and patenting recipes, blueprints, chemical formulas, or anything else? They're all the same thing. Sure, you run into the risk of getting a very broad algorithm approved, but the same risk applies for all other categories (such as the wheel). There's nothing special about software that should make it immune from copyrighting.
That is why software patents are a bad idea. Copyright is the correct form of protection.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Intellectual property laws should be about promoting progress and to make sure that authors and inventors have the opportunity to be compensated for their work. It shouldn't be about providing an eternal source of income for the inventor and their progeny, destroying competition, or stifling progress. Capitalism without competition has many of the problems of socialism because many of the problems of socialism are caused by the lack of competition.
You're right and I agree. I'm not sure why I added the word "software".
LOL. There were times I caught myself SCREAMING at one of my Canon printers once (or twice) and picking it up and shaking it and slamming into my desk when no combination of commands, instructions, aborts or keys (even the "Any" key) would not stop it from spewing out endless copies.
The patent system in this country needs major overhaul. Although the existence of computer games played on a CRT should not have blocked Mr. Baer from receiving a patent on his home video game console and enforcing it against Atari and other makers of "pong"-style machines, such patent should not have been enforceable against microprocessor-based video game systems, since the use of computers to play games predated Mr. Baer's inventions even if the use of discrete circuitry did not.
I don't really see how patents promote technological development. Seems to me that they just make lawyers rich and allow big corporations to threaten the little guy or allow parking lot corporations and lawyers to persecute others. Apart from that, patents enrich the government and the applicant at the expense of everyone else.
Dude crash and reboot.
Unplug and reboot.
Empty printer casche/que.
Perform hardware uninstall reinstall.
But smashing it against the wall or shooting it with a shotgun will not solve your problem.
I have nothing against software patents (have several), my beef is with the USPTO granting patents for obvious things. What ends up happening is that large companies can knock out smaller ones simply by starting legal action. No attorney will defend a small company against infringement claims. They will happily attack a larger company for infringement of a smaller company's patent in exchange for part ownership (assuming there are mucho $$$ on the horizon).
Defending yourself against a larger company is extremely expensive. A patent infringement defense is $50,000-100,000, with no guarantee of winning. The only real defense is to patent your own algorithms and use them as bargaining chips if attacked. Attorneys charge $8,000-15,000 for a technical patent.
You have to be crazy these days to want to start your own business. I started a microscopic software company in a field that I later discovered was heavily patented. What an expensive mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.