Difference between revisions of "Raising examination standards"
(Deleted external link claiming erroneously that the 2010 guidelines represent lowered standards. The 2010 guidelines are an update, not a replacement.) |
(added text explaining that the MPEG example is not generalizable and represents a 'worst case') |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
If these numbers are reduced by 10%, 50%, or even 95%, there will be no change to the fact that implementing that format requires permission from MPEG LA. | If these numbers are reduced by 10%, 50%, or even 95%, there will be no change to the fact that implementing that format requires permission from MPEG LA. | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, a reduction in the number of patents covering MPEG would allow competing formats to use the features that would otherwise have been patented. Furthermore, in cases where only a single patent (as opposed to a patent pool) covers a feature or format, eliminating that patent would allow the feature or format to be used freely. A format like MPEG that is covered by a large number of interlocking patents is a worst case scenario. | ||
==Slight benefit== | ==Slight benefit== |
Revision as of 12:49, 7 November 2010
What this entry documents is not a solution.
This practice may be ineffective or useless in the long term.
ESP's position is that abolition of software patents is the only solution.
Raising examination standards would reduce the total number of software patents granted, but given that most patent problems involve multiple patents, and given that one patent is enough to block development, a reduction would not solve many problems.
Contents
Standards example: MPEG
MPEG LA represents a pool of over 1,000 patents which it claims are essential for an implementation of the H.264 video format.[1] Many of these are duplicates (one for each country), so maybe there are 100 patents (each with around 20 claims).
If these numbers are reduced by 10%, 50%, or even 95%, there will be no change to the fact that implementing that format requires permission from MPEG LA.
However, a reduction in the number of patents covering MPEG would allow competing formats to use the features that would otherwise have been patented. Furthermore, in cases where only a single patent (as opposed to a patent pool) covers a feature or format, eliminating that patent would allow the feature or format to be used freely. A format like MPEG that is covered by a large number of interlocking patents is a worst case scenario.
Slight benefit
The result would be to reduce the number of software patents granted. This should reduce the problems caused by patent trolls.
When encouraging the raising of patent examination standards, it's very important that your work is not misunderstood as showing support for "high quality" software patents. Always phrase your support like: "Raising the standards is a step in the right direction, but even 'high quality' software patents are harmful to society. The right thing to do is get rid of software patents entirely".
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Duds and non-solutions
- Quality of software patents is particularly bad
- Patent standards here are higher than in the USA - a myth for most countries
- Patent review by the public
- RSA patent
- (USA) The Patent Reform Act
- Applicants paying for patent review
External links
- Patent Reform Is Not Enough, gnu.org