Difference between revisions of "Invalidating harmful patents"
m (business methods) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
# 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 other of its 10,000 patents to continue the menace. | # 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 other of its 10,000 patents to continue the menace. | ||
| − | == | + | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== |
| + | * [[Palliatives and failed remedies]] | ||
* [[Prior art database]] - this is one method that can be targeted at invalidating specific patents | * [[Prior art database]] - this is one method that can be targeted at invalidating specific patents | ||
| Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
* [http://www.post-issue.org/ Post-Issue Peer To Patent] | * [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://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/viewArticle/9/6 Collaborative approach: Peer-to-Patent and the Open Source movement] | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:Minor ways to also fight software patents]] | [[Category:Minor ways to also fight software patents]] | ||
| + | {{page footer}} | ||
Revision as of 06:19, 8 October 2009
(Note: Risks of supporting partial solutions)
By invalidating the most harmful software patents, we can reduce some harm being done by software patents. However, this almost always relies on questing the obviousness or the newness of patents and thus the invalidations don't create any precedent which would reduce the scope for the patent office to grant software in future. To do that, we need to invalidate patents based on subject matter.
This is usually done by finding prior art or by arguing that an idea was too obvious. In this case, the limits below apply, however, if it is argued that the patent was granted for something that's not patentable (software, business methods, math), then the precedent will be very significant because it will narrow the scope for the granting and enforcement of software patents.
Limits to effectiveness
- Patents can only be invalidated if they are invalid to begin with.
- We can only invalidate a small number of patents. This can never solve the problem caused by the existence of tens of thousands of patents.
- Some software patent pests have a large collection of annoying patents they could use instead if their favourite patents were invalidated. For example, 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 other of its 10,000 patents to continue the menace.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Palliatives and failed remedies
- Prior art database - this is one method that can be targeted at invalidating specific patents
