ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Software patent quality worse than all other fields"

(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
 
 
Quality problems can happen in any category of patents, but the quality of [[software patents]] is particularly bad.  This is probably a fundamental problem that can't be avoided in a domain as abstract as software.
 
Quality problems can happen in any category of patents, but the quality of [[software patents]] is particularly bad.  This is probably a fundamental problem that can't be avoided in a domain as abstract as software.
  
==The ideas are too abstract==
+
The main cause is probably that '''[[software is too abstract]]''', making and applying examination rules is just too difficult.
  
In chemistry, ideas are described concretely, such as ''Trans-6-[2-(3- or 4-carboxamido- substituted pyrrol-1-yl)alkyl]-4-hydroxypyran-2-ones''.<ref>http://www.researchoninnovation.org/swconf/bessenslides.pdf</ref>
+
==Evidenced in Allison's 2010 study==
 +
{{also|Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants}}
  
In software, ideas are described as "''point of sale location''", "''material object''", or "''information manufacturing machine''".
+
Page 28 (pdf page 29):
 +
<blockquote>
 +
If we consider just patent owner wins and defendant wins on the merits, non‐software patent win 37.1% of their cases across both the most‐litigated and once‐litigated data sets, owners while software patentees win only 12.9%.  If we include default judgments, non‐software patent owners win 51.1% of their cases, while software patentees win only 12.9%.  Each of these results is highly statistically significant.
 +
(...)
 +
Once settlements are included, non‐software patent companies win judgments in 4.0% of their suits, while software patentees win judgments in only 1.4% of their suits.  Adding default judgments changes these numbers to 7.2% for non‐software patent owners and 1.4% for software patentees.
 +
</blockquote>
  
 
==Possible reasons==
 
==Possible reasons==
  
# Abstract algorithms can be described in so many ways
+
# Abstract algorithms can be described in so many ways.
# Jargon and lack of tangible components can make a mundane software idea sound technical
+
# Jargon and lack of tangible components can make a mundane software idea sound technical.
# Professionals working in the patents industry only see the ideas submitted for patenting, and therefore fail to realise that they are not qualitatively different from the ideas that good software engineers come up with every day of the week, most of which are considered too obvious to write up and publish
+
# It's impossible for a patent examiner to judge obviousness.  Software developers use so many ideas during their work, only a tiny percent ever get submitted to the patent office or otherwise published.
  
 
==Examples==
 
==Examples==
Line 21: Line 26:
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
* [[Raising standards is not our goal]]
+
 
* [[The disclosure is useless]]
+
* [[Raising examination standards wouldn't fix much]]
 
* [[Silly patents]]
 
* [[Silly patents]]
* [[Software patents are unreadable]]
 
 
* [[How to read patents]]
 
* [[How to read patents]]
 
* [[Why software is different]]
 
* [[Why software is different]]
 +
* [[Software patents produce legal uncertainty]]
 +
* [[The disclosure is useless]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==

Revision as of 15:11, 11 January 2013

Quality problems can happen in any category of patents, but the quality of software patents is particularly bad. This is probably a fundamental problem that can't be avoided in a domain as abstract as software.

The main cause is probably that software is too abstract, making and applying examination rules is just too difficult.

Evidenced in Allison's 2010 study

See also: Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants

Page 28 (pdf page 29):

If we consider just patent owner wins and defendant wins on the merits, non‐software patent win 37.1% of their cases across both the most‐litigated and once‐litigated data sets, owners while software patentees win only 12.9%. If we include default judgments, non‐software patent owners win 51.1% of their cases, while software patentees win only 12.9%. Each of these results is highly statistically significant. (...) Once settlements are included, non‐software patent companies win judgments in 4.0% of their suits, while software patentees win judgments in only 1.4% of their suits. Adding default judgments changes these numbers to 7.2% for non‐software patent owners and 1.4% for software patentees.

Possible reasons

  1. Abstract algorithms can be described in so many ways.
  2. Jargon and lack of tangible components can make a mundane software idea sound technical.
  3. It's impossible for a patent examiner to judge obviousness. Software developers use so many ideas during their work, only a tiny percent ever get submitted to the patent office or otherwise published.

Examples

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References