Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jul 2011 17:09 UTC
Google For the first time, Google has opened its mouth against the patent trolling by Apple (and by proxy, Microsoft) against Android manufacturers. By way of Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman, the company took stand against the legal actions, and stated they aren't too worried. If need be, Google will ensure HTC doesn't lose the patent case against Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 481615
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: How can this be fixed?
by organgtool on Tue 19th Jul 2011 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How can this be fixed?"
organgtool
Member since:
2010-02-25

Only software specific to a "machine" or that is a transformative process is patentable.

In my entire career I don't believe I have ever come across software that doesn't run on a machine or wasn't transformative.
There have been much reasoned debate and with industry feedback that have generated real proposals to update and reform this area while maintaining protection from "free riders".

I haven't seen any good arguments for software patents nor have I ever witnessed "reasoned debate" on this subject. Regarding the "free riders", that sounds like a statement against patent trolls, but that doesn't change the fact that software patents grant monopolies on ideas.
You are impugning the motives of extremely overworked and underfunded people.

They choose to participate in a system that is fundamentally broken. While I don't blame them for the broken system, I don't have any sympathy for them either.
The primary issue (imho) in patent reform is that the fees collected are not utilized by the regulatory agency to fulfill its mandate. The revenue is "diverted" by Acts of Congress to other pet projects leaving the AJP of the USPTO extremely overwhelmed.

The fees are diverted because government agencies are not intended to be run like for-profit businesses. If the USPTO was allowed to keep these fees for themselves, there would be an incentive to rubber stamp everything that ended up in their mailbox so that they could maximize their earnings. However, under the current system they are still motivated to rubber stamp everything so that they encourage more patent applications and justify bigger budgets from Congress.
It is also part of the current patent reform legislation stalled in the Senate and House by the absurd "debt ceiling" crisis that has basically frozen any legislative debate on any topic.

I have not seen anything in the new legislation that dissolves software patents or discourages the USPTO from granting overly-broad hardware patents. The only thing in it that would seem to have a measurable effect in reality is the first-to-file clause, and that is an entirely separate debate.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: How can this be fixed?
by Not2Sure on Tue 19th Jul 2011 21:18 in reply to "RE[3]: How can this be fixed?"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

In my entire career I don't believe I have ever come across software that doesn't run on a machine or wasn't transformative.


Really, you have never come across state machines, or algorithms which are IDEAS and software that prolongs the life of a batter on a mobile phone operating in the bandwidth of xxx Hz which is software operating on phsyical hardware.

Seriously.


I haven't seen any good arguments for software patents nor have I ever witnessed "reasoned debate" on this subject. Regarding the "free riders", that sounds like a statement against patent trolls, but that doesn't change the fact that software patents grant monopolies on ideas.


Use Google. Avoid fanboi tech sites. Look for primary sources like the FTC 2003 report, the USPTO 2010-2015 strategic plan, the USPTO 21st century strategic plan, elements of which were adopted into proposed legislation that never made it to floor debate.

The fees are diverted because government agencies are not intended to be run like for-profit businesses. If the USPTO was allowed to keep these fees for themselves, there would be an incentive to rubber stamp everything that ended up in their mailbox so that they could maximize their earnings. However, under the current system they are still motivated to rubber stamp everything so that they encourage more patent applications and justify bigger budgets from Congress.


This is absurd. There are at most 2 or 3 profitable agencies in the US Govt. The agencies for regulating mining and oil licenses and the USPTO. Do you even have any idea about what you're talking? Do you understand the case load of adjudication that has increased by orders of magnitude in the last decades while funding has remained flat as fee revenue is siphoned away?

I have not seen anything in the new legislation that dissolves software patents or discourages the USPTO from granting overly-broad hardware patents. The only thing in it that would seem to have a measurable effect in reality is the first-to-file clause, and that is an entirely separate debate.


You are either entirely either without clue, or do not believe in a system of laws. Of course it doesn't dissolve software patents. Because that would be f-ing abusrd.

The reasons for overly broad patents in all areas not just software (aka non-quality patents) is that the workload and technological requirements have increased and the funding to accomplish the process review have not. Put it on a simple graph. I'm sure you will be able to see the problems with the curve.

But I guess in your world of "pure" ideas battling it out there aren't things like disputes in need of adjudication by actual people. Which is you know, how the law functions as a social institution. Two parties file patents to protect genuine intellectual property rights. One absurd, the other valid. Both receive very little time by qualified staff. Fine they are both granted. Oh no! Patent lititgation! Horrible costs of about, oh, 10-20k US starts an administrative review. Here is the problem. The caseload for AJP is astronomical and the staff has not grown appreciably in years. So it drags on for years and costs accumulate. It is a process problem not a problem of principle.

Making USPTO fee divertible is part and parcel of the current act. Go read it. kkthx.

Reply Parent Score: 1