Re: [Patents] myths & lies

[Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>]

It was very much in the air in the public consciousness,
both in the legal and technological press, as far as the
reasonableness, ethicality (as well as legal standing) of
software patents, up until the State Street decision.  State
Street is generally regarded as having shut up the
naysayers.  If you go back to articles printed beforehand,
you find a lot of querulousness that's not expressed so much
afterwards.  All of the points you now make in the fight
against SW patents in Europe, were aired with great credence
before State Street in America.

The "confirmation of the status quo" regarding business
methods patents was stunning, because it cut to the core of
a lot of people's beliefs about how far exclusive rights
could be upheld.

Seth Johnson

PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> 
> > 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.

-- 

[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html