Software Patents -- the end of Open Software ?
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
Software Patents -- the end of Open Software ?
Tobias Oetiker (oetiker -at- ee.ethz.ch) writes:
This could turn out to be a very serious issue, effectively allowing the "big boys" to put "competetion" out of business -- such "competetition" would include developers of open-source or free software for public benefit 
See swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html for more information.
Closed because of "Software-Patents"
On September 22nd, 2003 the European Parliament will decide about the legalisation and adoption of so-called "software patents" in Europe. Software Patents are already used by large companies in other countries (like the US) to put competitors out of business. This can lead to the termination of many software projects such as MRTG, at least within Europe.
In Europe, 30,000 "software patents" have already been granted. Currently without a legal foundation. But if the new law passes on the 22nd, the patent owners can claim exclusive rights and collect license fees for trivial things like "progress bars", "mouseclicks on online order forms" or "the concept of scrolling within a window".
Software developers will have to pay the "software-patentholders" for using these features, even in their own, self-developed applications. This has the potential of stalling the development of innovative software for small and medium companies. Because the matter is so complex every software author will have to get expensive legal aid to determine if his self-developed software is possibly violating some "software- patents". If he fails todo so, he risks expensive licensing fees being charged years after the release of the software, as a patent owner suddenly discovers that his invention of using "underlined text to markup a hyperlink" has been used without permisson.
Contrary to real patents, "software-patents" are, in the current draft, monopolization of business ideas and methods, even without any tangible technical implementation.
On September 22nd, 2003 the European Parliament will decide about the legalisation and adoption of so-called "software patents" in Europe. Software Patents are already used by large companies in other countries (like the US) to put competitors out of business. This can lead to the termination of many software projects such as MRTG, at least within Europe.
In Europe, 30,000 "software patents" have already been granted. Currently without a legal foundation. But if the new law passes on the 22nd, the patent owners can claim exclusive rights and collect license fees for trivial things like "progress bars", "mouseclicks on online order forms" or "the concept of scrolling within a window".
Software developers will have to pay the "software-patentholders" for using these features, even in their own, self-developed applications. This has the potential of stalling the development of innovative software for small and medium companies. Because the matter is so complex every software author will have to get expensive legal aid to determine if his self-developed software is possibly violating some "software- patents". If he fails todo so, he risks expensive licensing fees being charged years after the release of the software, as a patent owner suddenly discovers that his invention of using "underlined text to markup a hyperlink" has been used without permisson.
Contrary to real patents, "software-patents" are, in the current draft, monopolization of business ideas and methods, even without any tangible technical implementation.
See swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html for more information.
The Oracle
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,902
Likes: 0
From: Naples, Florida U.S.A.
RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike,
That does not sound right. It would be saying if Ford invented the car, then they could demand a licence fee from Ferrari because their car has 4 tires too.
They should be granted copyrights not patents.
Take Care,
Richard
That does not sound right. It would be saying if Ford invented the car, then they could demand a licence fee from Ferrari because their car has 4 tires too.
They should be granted copyrights not patents.
Take Care,
Richard
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
From: Chichester, UK
OK, I have to declare an interest - I work for a "large American company" and have filed a number of software patents. That probably puts me on the other side of the fence 
Anyway, I don't generally agree that software patents are a bad thing. Generally. Patent searches are not very good, and the fact that you have a patent doesn't mean a thing until you enforce it in court, when the prior art search will be much more careful (and quite often successful). There are many example of daft patents - the "progress bar" or "enter key" type - but many of these (or almost all?) would be impossible to enforce, e.g. BT's attempt to enforce a patent on hyperlinks.
Ignoring these, the main use for software patents is defensive. Say another "large American company" notices that my "large American company" has infringed one of their patents. The patent lawyers go off to look in our collection, find something they've infringed (there's always something ... that's why we collect all these patents) and we cross-licence. Happens all the time, and keeps every large software company in the world from fighting every other large software company in the courts all the time. Not such a bad thing. Small companies are different, and tend to get "acquired" by someone bigger in order to settle the dispute - which is usually a Good Thing for the owner and a Bad Thing for the staff, but that's another story.
There's another issue, rare but becoming more common. These are companies who hold patent portfolios but produce no products, so there is nothing to cross licence. These are generally the spurious type of patent, but not always. They wait until they see an infringement, and then sue - sometimes just in the hope of a settlement to avoid a court case, sometimes with a genuine infringement. Microsoft have recently got hit hard by one of these suits, and I expect there are more to come across the industry.
Hell, some software patents are a result of innovation, and the patent is being used for the purpose for which it was intended - to protect the investment in research made by the company. I'd like to think that mine come here
As some light relief after all that... http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html
Anyway, I don't generally agree that software patents are a bad thing. Generally. Patent searches are not very good, and the fact that you have a patent doesn't mean a thing until you enforce it in court, when the prior art search will be much more careful (and quite often successful). There are many example of daft patents - the "progress bar" or "enter key" type - but many of these (or almost all?) would be impossible to enforce, e.g. BT's attempt to enforce a patent on hyperlinks.
Ignoring these, the main use for software patents is defensive. Say another "large American company" notices that my "large American company" has infringed one of their patents. The patent lawyers go off to look in our collection, find something they've infringed (there's always something ... that's why we collect all these patents) and we cross-licence. Happens all the time, and keeps every large software company in the world from fighting every other large software company in the courts all the time. Not such a bad thing. Small companies are different, and tend to get "acquired" by someone bigger in order to settle the dispute - which is usually a Good Thing for the owner and a Bad Thing for the staff, but that's another story.
There's another issue, rare but becoming more common. These are companies who hold patent portfolios but produce no products, so there is nothing to cross licence. These are generally the spurious type of patent, but not always. They wait until they see an infringement, and then sue - sometimes just in the hope of a settlement to avoid a court case, sometimes with a genuine infringement. Microsoft have recently got hit hard by one of these suits, and I expect there are more to come across the industry.
Hell, some software patents are a result of innovation, and the patent is being used for the purpose for which it was intended - to protect the investment in research made by the company. I'd like to think that mine come here
As some light relief after all that... http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html
