Re: [Patents] myths & lies

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> No, everything changed with the State Street decision in 1998. You don't
> even have the Freeman-Walter-Abele criterion anymore and since then the
> USPTO is flooded with patent applications.

Are you sure about that?

Swpat have been granted for quite a long time, and many very broad and
ridiculous ones (e.g. hyperlink) are not new.  Yet there has been an
explosion in the last few years, especially since the mid nineties.

My impression is rather that the importance of State Street is often
exaggerated.  On the other hand, the State Street judge's attempt to
portray this as "just a confirmation of the status quo" because "business
methods have been patentable in the US since over 100 years" is
reminiscent of frequently heard bullshit from the same group of people
that at other occasions (e.g. in Europe) will exaggerate the importance of
the State Street decision.

But when a decision is hyped like that (as either having changed nothing
or changed everything), it may have the effect of inciting a gold rush.
State Street came at the time of the internet bubble and perhaps became a
symbol.

In Europe even in the 60s swpat were granted.  Yet it is as misleading to
say that "we have had swpat since the 60s and are therefore just
confirming this practise" as it is to say that the US has had business
method patents since the 19th century.

The problem here is that people tend to think that the burden of proof is
on those who advocate change, so everybody tries his best to show that he
is advocating conservatism.  That is ridiculous.  As if the burden of
proof couldn't just as well be on conservatives.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
120,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/