Cédric, On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 07:18 -0800, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > OK so let's have a data point. Exhibit A. > http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=26aJAAAAEBAJ&dq=linked > +list > > > How is that an exhibit, though? This is a patent that's obviously (at > least to us, software engineers) way too far reaching, but it has 1) > neither been tested in court and 2) nor been used to collect > settlements (as far as we know).
You point out exactly what is most obviously wrong with the USPTO system of issuing patents. USPTO do not check for obviousness, nor prior art. They grant the patent if it is presented properly and abdicate everything to the courts. > Something a bit more convincing would be: when was the last time you > heard about someone receiving crazy amounts of money for a patent that > obviously should never have been accepted by the USPTO, much less > confirmed as valid by a judge? Sorry, but this is a spurious attempt to deflect focus. The USPTO way of working is totally broken even if you are a proponent of software patents, exactly for the points you make above. It should be a part of the process of grant that obviousness and prior art are checked. It should not be a matter of going to court after the grant to have these issues decided. Software patents, like patents on mathematics and ideas, are currently not legal in the UK and EU, though the EPO muddies the waters under pressure from some large organizations. I certainly hope it stays that way since the threat of legal costs prohibit innovative software developments by small organizations -- the UK government has data on this via the register of companies. Also I have some personal experience. Moreover, the tax and business culture in the UK and EU is already barrier enough. NB We need to distinguish here software and firmware. At least in the UK and EU, a machine which depends on software for its function can be patented. Thus an instance of a software system or application can be an integral component of a patented thing. What is wrong, and not currently allowed in the UK or EU, is for a software technique or idiom, e.g. linked list, event loop, to be patentable. These things are just ideas, and ideas are not patentable. Except in the USA. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
