ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Software patent quality worse than all other fields"
(→Expert evaluations: syntax) |
m (moved Software patent quality is terrible to Software patent quality worse than all other fields: too long, but I didn't like "terrible") |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
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 main cause is probably that '''[[software is too abstract]]''', making and applying examination rules is just too difficult. | |
| − | + | ==Evidenced in Allison's 2010 study== | |
| + | {{also|Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants}} | ||
| − | + | 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== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 18: | ||
# 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. | ||
# 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. | # 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 37: | Line 26: | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
| − | * [[Raising standards | + | |
| + | * [[Raising examination standards wouldn't fix much]] | ||
* [[Silly patents]] | * [[Silly patents]] | ||
* [[How to read patents]] | * [[How to read patents]] | ||
* [[Why software is different]] | * [[Why software is different]] | ||
* [[Software patents produce legal uncertainty]] | * [[Software patents produce legal uncertainty]] | ||
| − | |||
* [[The disclosure is useless]] | * [[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.
Contents
Evidenced in Allison's 2010 study
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
- Abstract algorithms can be described in so many ways.
- Jargon and lack of tangible components can make a mundane software idea sound technical.
- 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
- Unbelievable software patents
- FFII's webshop which uses 20 ideas patented in the EU
- Microsoft developer's internal comments about his own patents indecipherable by anyone but a patent attorney
- Some Kodak patents
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Raising examination standards wouldn't fix much
- Silly patents
- How to read patents
- Why software is different
- Software patents produce legal uncertainty
- The disclosure is useless
External links
- Why are Software Patents so Trivial? other version (possibly identical), by FFII
- Is software too abstract to be patented?, 18 Nov 2010, Rob Tiller (Red Hat)
- Why Software is Abstract, by PolR, 7 Oct 2010, Groklaw
- An Open Response to the USPTO — Physical Aspects of Mathematics, 26 Sep 2010, Groklaw
