|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{navbox}}{{dud}}
| + | gU9b5b <a href="http://ahxqzgutzilt.com/">ahxqzgutzilt</a>, [url=http://nundxqqifvay.com/]nundxqqifvay[/url], [link=http://tdgnpaddmltq.com/]tdgnpaddmltq[/link], http://uhqmgnbcixye.com/ |
| − | By '''invalidating the most harmful software patents''', we can reduce some harm being done by software patents.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Limits to effectiveness==
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===There are too many===
| |
| − | | |
| − | We can only invalidate a small number of patents. Example: MPEG-LA represents dozens of organisations which hold 900 patents which they say are required to implement the [[MPEG video formats|h.264 video format]]. Freeing this format by invalidating every one of them is completely impractical.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Some can't be invalidated===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patents can only be invalidated if they are invalid to begin with. Take the [[RSA patent]] for example.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===We don't know when we've got them all===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some software patent pests have a large collection of annoying patents they could use instead if their favourite patents were invalidated. For example, [[Microsoft vs TomTom, 2008|Microsoft accused TomTom]] of violating eight patents. The patents look invalid, but if they are invalidated there's still the worry that [[Microsoft]] will choose some others from its portfolio of 10,000 patents and continue the menace.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Another example is the [[MPEG video formats|MPEG-LA]] situation. If, by a miracle, all of those 900 patents were invalidated, there is still the possibility that another patent holder (who did not submit his patents to MPEG-LA) could announce that he has patents required for MPEG video formats.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Takes years=== | |
| − | :''(See also: [[Incompatible delays and durations]])''
| |
| − | | |
| − | This can be difficult, expensive, and can take years. The [[Amazon's one-click shopping patent]] is an example where the review in the [[USA]] took 5 years and the patent wasn't even invalidated, only narrowed. In [[Canada]], Amazon applied for an equivalent patent in 1998, and in 2010 the court cases are still ongoing.<ref>http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202473474626</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | An example is [[Germany]] is this case of a patent on spam whitelists, the review of which took five years: {{translate de|url=http://blog.prevalent.de/?p=32|title=T-Mobile SPAM Patent ruled invalid}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Sometimes the good guys give up too soon===
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the case [[Trend Micro v. Barracuda (2008, USA)]], the [[Groklaw]] community helped gather prior art to help Barracuda fight Trend Micro's patent, but when it seemed that Barracuda would win, Trend Micro offered an out of court settlement and the invalidation never happened.<ref>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100603011319457</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Prior art or subject matter==
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is almost always done by presenting [[prior art]], thus claiming that the idea is not new. Sometimes it can be done by claiming the patented idea was too obvious. These invalidations don't create any useful precedent for reducing the scope for the patent office to grant [[software patents]] in future. To do that, we would need to [[invalidate patents based on subject matter]]. If it was argued that the patent was granted for something that's not patentable (software, [[business methods]], math), then the precedent would be very significant because it will narrow the scope for the granting and enforcement of software patents.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [[Duds and non-solutions]]
| |
| − | * [[Prior art database]] - this is one method that can be targeted at invalidating specific patents
| |
| − | * [[Amazon's one-click shopping patent]] - the review took five years and only narrowed the patent
| |
| − | * [[Buying harmful patents]]
| |
| − | * [[Invalidate patents based on subject matter]]
| |
| − | * [[How to read patents and gather prior art]]
| |
| − | * [[State of the art]] - what is "prior art"?
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==External links== | |
| − | | |
| − | * [http://w2.eff.org/patent/ EFF's project: "patent busting"]
| |
| − | * [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2009/apr/28/meantime-fighting-patents/ If We Can't End Software Patents Tomorrow, What Should We Do In the Meantime?], by [[Bradley M. Kuhn]]
| |
| − | * [http://www.post-issue.org/ Post-Issue Peer To Patent]
| |
| − | ** [http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/viewArticle/9/6 Collaborative approach: Peer-to-Patent and the Open Source movement]
| |
| − | * [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/20/205232/USPTOs-1-Click-Indecisiveness-Enters-5th-Year USPTO's 1-Click Indecisiveness Enters 5th Year]
| |
| − | * [http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents/ Transcript: Andrew Tridgell on Patent Defence], 2010
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | {{reflist}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{footer}}
| |
| − | [[Category:Minor ways to also fight software patents]]
| |
| − | [[Category:non-solutions]]
| |
