Software Patents: Fresh Idiocy

[Cartollomew]

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/08/1 ... lling-word

Patenting software ideas is way out of hand - here's (part of the reason) why:

Just about every interface component you can see on your PC is patented by someone. Probably IBM, Microsoft or Sun Microsystems (now owned by Oracle).
I'm not talking about a "browser" or a file "explorer" or something. Little things - the minimise button. Check boxes.

This does not equate to the way we patent physical designs - just because a minimise button makes the window disappear to the task bar doesn't mean that the way one OS does it is the same as another. The end is the same, but the means to do so is different. If this were a patent in the real world, it would be recognised that the two are different designs.

In software, partly because of obfuscation (or protection of trade secrets) and partly because of its intangibility, it seems the patent authorities and courts are unable to see that this is the case.

Patents are already misused - usually by the 3 big companies above - as a kind of "M.A.D" system. One agrees to let the patent for check boxes slide, if the other will grant them the same immunity with their minimise buttons. Now bear in mind that this happens for almost every single component.

What we have in the article is a slightly different scenario, but it still illustrates how ill equipped patents and the legal systems are to handle software scenarios.

This ruling will be overturned in an appeal - mark my words - but the fact that some snotty company can waltz in and claim that because Word automatically interacts with XML documents, it infringes their "idea" is utterly ricockulous.

[midi]

The big companies cross license. It's a no-cost "we won't sue you if you won't sue us" kind of deal.

The sad thing is that the original intent of patents was to protect the little guy from the rich and wealthy stealing from the little guy before he could build the resources to market the idea himself. That still holds true with patents on physical entities but it's the complete reverse when it comes to the intangible. The big boys can abuse their patent portfolio to make the smaller guy bend because 1) The chances of you not infringing one of their patents is low 2) Compounded by vague patents 3) Money to burn to get precedents in their favour.

While a lot of people would no doubt cheer at M$ being hit with their own tactics for once (they only just recently got their own vague XML patent approved), it's really pretty sad as it shows much the patent system has degenerated. Patents are meant to promote innovation but all you hear about in today's age is how they're used to stifle innovation unless you pay a patent troll-house royalties on an overly-vague patent that should never of been granted in the first place. Getting a patent removed can takes years, cost $$$, and makes lawyers very happy.

I'd hate to try and break into the software market today as it's too much of a minefield. Get too popular and watch the vultures swoop in.