Supreme Court to Address Software Patent Law

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
In what could be a monumental decision within the software industry, the United States Supreme Court agreed to take up the issues surrounding the legality of software patents.

One final thing to note is that patents and copyrights are two entirely different things. If software can’t be patented, Microsoft still retains a coypright on the code of Windows, Oracle still has a copyright on Java, and it would still be illegal to copy a program without an appropriate license.
 
Something that I've always wondered: if you do not copy a program's code, but inadvertently generate the same code yourself (possible if you are assuming that there is a specific efficiency in coding a certain way) or generate a portion of the same code (again, possible) then how does that work?

This is an area where the models of companies that distribute their software (the code, albeit compiled) for free, but charge a fee for maintenance, has always made the most logical sense to me.

It will be interesting to see if this decision will have any affect on patent trolling as the author implies...
 
Something that I've always wondered: if you do not copy a program's code, but inadvertently generate the same code yourself (possible if you are assuming that there is a specific efficiency in coding a certain way) or generate a portion of the same code (again, possible) then how does that work?

This is an area where the models of companies that distribute their software (the code, albeit compiled) for free, but charge a fee for maintenance, has always made the most logical sense to me.

It will be interesting to see if this decision will have any affect on patent trolling as the author implies...
In that case, if someone holds a patent for that item, you'd be violating their patent rights. Patent law doesn't care if infringements are knowing or unknowing, or intentional or unintentional. I don't think it has an impact on any of the recent patent troll stuff.
 
In that case, if someone holds a patent for that item, you'd be violating their patent rights. Patent law doesn't care if infringements are knowing or unknowing, or intentional or unintentional. I don't think it has an impact on any of the recent patent troll stuff.

See, that there is what gets me about this whole patent/copyright thing. There are chances where a completely similar or identical product can be produced without any interaction with the patent/copyright being infringed upon. And this has happened or similar cases of it. Hell, I remember one of my teachers telling me that the Newton 3 laws were also discovered by another guy a bit later than Newton himself in another country. But I'm very hazy on that memory, and can't remember in exact detail.

Now, that case is unlikely to happen in our times, with the internet basically instantly telling the world, but it can happen. Seems unfair to me.
 
See, that there is what gets me about this whole patent/copyright thing. There are chances where a completely similar or identical product can be produced without any interaction with the patent/copyright being infringed upon. And this has happened or similar cases of it. Hell, I remember one of my teachers telling me that the Newton 3 laws were also discovered by another guy a bit later than Newton himself in another country. But I'm very hazy on that memory, and can't remember in exact detail.

Now, that case is unlikely to happen in our times, with the internet basically instantly telling the world, but it can happen. Seems unfair to me.
Yeah. That's why inventors are fast to file patent applications, to protect the time and money they've invested. But you're right, someone else could create the same thing coincidentally, and they're out of luck. That's also why there's so much evaluation of patents before a company decides to pursue an invention; in case it's already been done.
 
But see, I think it's unfair that people can be punished for actually doing work but not able to get it out as fast as the other guy. Which is doubly bad these days with broad patents covering a phone design being a rectangle with rounded edges. (Can't help but bring this up since it's one of the most retarded thing ever patented that I know of)
 
I am not sure how the Supreme Court will rule, but it is my understanding that code itself can be copyrighted but not patented. The project for what the code is intended for can be patented. At least that is how our legal department explains it to us when we develop stuff.
 
But see, I think it's unfair that people can be punished for actually doing work but not able to get it out as fast as the other guy. Which is doubly bad these days with broad patents covering a phone design being a rectangle with rounded edges. (Can't help but bring this up since it's one of the most retarded thing ever patented that I know of)
Yeah, but that's why you have to do due diligence for inventions and ideas. Everyone plays by the same rules.
 
See, that there is what gets me about this whole patent/copyright thing. There are chances where a completely similar or identical product can be produced without any interaction with the patent/copyright being infringed upon. And this has happened or similar cases of it. Hell, I remember one of my teachers telling me that the Newton 3 laws were also discovered by another guy a bit later than Newton himself in another country. But I'm very hazy on that memory, and can't remember in exact detail.

Now, that case is unlikely to happen in our times, with the internet basically instantly telling the world, but it can happen. Seems unfair to me.

You're probably thinking of how Newton and Leibniz independently formulated the foundations of calculus. Thats one of the best examples of independent discovery in the history of science.
 
Something that I've always wondered: if you do not copy a program's code, but inadvertently generate the same code yourself (possible if you are assuming that there is a specific efficiency in coding a certain way) or generate a portion of the same code (again, possible) then how does that work?

This is an area where the models of companies that distribute their software (the code, albeit compiled) for free, but charge a fee for maintenance, has always made the most logical sense to me.

It will be interesting to see if this decision will have any affect on patent trolling as the author implies...

In that case, if someone holds a patent for that item, you'd be violating their patent rights. Patent law doesn't care if infringements are knowing or unknowing, or intentional or unintentional. I don't think it has an impact on any of the recent patent troll stuff.

Let's see if I can reword this.
Let's say an engineer somewhere in the US invents the gravity gun in Spring 2018 and patents it. The gun is later used extensively in field trials in City 17.

Thousands of miles away in a remote location in the middle of Russia near Chernobyl, another engineer claims to have built and invented the gravity gun in Summer of 2018. He has no idea that an engineer all the way in the US has already built and patented it.

Both gravity guns look physically different but perform functionally the same way.

Is the Russian engineer violating the American engineer's patent when he built his own gravity gun?

In this case, the Russian engineer has infringed on the patent of the original patent holder. Patent laws only see black or white, not gray. You either violated it or not.
Now, the problem here is: Can you patent a non-physical object such as the basic functions of the gravity gun?

Let's take another example: If Apple clams to have come out as the very first company with the functions and software code for multi-touch on a touchscreen LCD, does a company like Samsung or LG with multi-touch functions on their own devices violate Apple's patent?

Again, two physically different products like the gravity guns in the above example, but functionally similar in every way.

It's a good question to ask especially if the Supreme Court is going to make a decision on this.
 
This is why patents where there's a patent simply on a way to do something is extremely flawed, whether or not it's something physical or software based.
 
Software should be protected under copyright, CODE IS WRITTEN.
You don't patent a book!
Patents should only be given for PHYSICAL items, not concepts but proven working items.
If John and Bob both invent a left handed widgit at the same time, but only Bob has a working prototype and John has a drawing on a napkin with arrows pointing to functions of said widgit who should get the patent?
For that matter anyone with an idea shouldn't be able to patent it without proving function with a working model.
The system needs a serious overhaul, its about time this is happening.
If Apple can patent the concept of wireless recharging after Nicolas Tesla already had a patent on it, under the current system why should Apple own such a patent? Neither have or had working models, no reason to grant it.
 
This is why patents where there's a patent simply on a way to do something is extremely flawed, whether or not it's something physical or software based.

Software should be protected under copyright, CODE IS WRITTEN.
You don't patent a book!
Patents should only be given for PHYSICAL items, not concepts but proven working items.
If John and Bob both invent a left handed widgit at the same time, but only Bob has a working prototype and John has a drawing on a napkin with arrows pointing to functions of said widgit who should get the patent?
For that matter anyone with an idea shouldn't be able to patent it without proving function with a working model.
The system needs a serious overhaul, its about time this is happening.
If Apple can patent the concept of wireless recharging after Nicolas Tesla already had a patent on it, under the current system why should Apple own such a patent? Neither have or had working models, no reason to grant it.

Exactly.

Patents should be on physical, working products that will be produced and will be brought to market-- regardless if the market is educational, corporate, government/public, or private. It should not be based on theories. Theories are for scientific journals and Nobel Laureates and Nobel Prize candidates. It should also not be used for physical designs (*cough*Apple*cough*), functions, and forms.

If you're going to invent the aeroplane in 1910, your theory of flight should be published in an established scientific journal or publication.

If you're going to be the first to build that fancy-schmancy aeroplane in 1910 and built a physical working prototype that can be brought to market, then you should patent it.

If you're going to write the BIOS for the ENIAC, then you must copyright those hundreds of lines of code.

If you have a theory on the workings of the first vacuum tube computer, then publish that theory in a scientific journal or publication.

If you have the first code on how to control a multi-touch touchscreen display, then copyright that code. (... and not sue the fuck out of every competitor you know of. *cough*Apple*cough*)

However, patents and copyrights must allow open-competition and open-licensing without prosecution. If someone wishes to use your patent or copyright in their product, they should do so without prosecution. Give the original patent and copyright holder a 5 or 10 year grace period for which they MUST produce that patented product or produce a product that uses that copyrighted code, and bring it to market. After the grace period is over, the patent and copyright either A) becomes public knowledge, and/or B) open to licensing with licensing/royalties paid to the original copyright/patent holder. After a set time or grace period of let's say 10 or 15 years of collecting royalties or licensing fees, the patent/copyright becomes freely available to use by anyone.

TL;DR:
5 to 10 year grace period - Patent/copyrighted item must be produced

10 to 15 year grace period - Post-initial market production, allow open-licensing/paid royalty of said patent/copyright

Post 10-15 year licensing/royalty period - Freely available to use by anyone without paying licensing/royalty fees and without prosecution.
 
The sad thing is the patent office originally only allowed proven designs and you needed a working model at the very least.
 
This is why patents where there's a patent simply on a way to do something is extremely flawed, whether or not it's something physical or software based.

"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 USC § 101
 
Back
Top