Re: [Patents] GregNews: Judge Posner attacks software/business patents

[Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>]

I wish I could patent stupidity and sue Greg for infringement.
Unfortunately it was invented long ago, and does not appear to be a
monopoly.

As usual, Greg misses a point ...  where is the evidence that patents,
and particularly software patents are useful ?  SHOW ME THE DATA!!!!


Because according to US Constitution, there is no other justification
for having them.
   Greg, do you piss only on the US Constitution, or do you do it also
on the stars and stripes ?

   And, BTW, who is paying you to write that junk, and/or for keeping
tabs on what goes on.  You are supposed to be busy.
   But GReg does not sleep ... I forgot ... he is a robot.

Bernard

On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 08:00:27PM +0100, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> GregNews throws the usual "not worse than in other industries" and
> "not proved by statistical data" argument at Judge Posner.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> !20021126  Judge Posner attacks software/business patents
> 
> U.S. Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner recently gave a talk in which he,
> while mostly criticizing copyright extension, also criticizes the Court
> of Appeal of the Federal Circuit and the PTO.  His patent observations are
> a bit naive.  For example, the article (fully listed below) has him saying:
> 
>       Posner said that disturbing growth in overly broad business
>       method patents is due both to the Patent and Trademark Office
>       and a special federal court that hears patent cases.  
> 
>       "A specialized court tends to see itself as a booster of its
>       speciality", Posner said. "Patents are clogging retail commerce
>       on the Internet, and software (patents) in particular are
>       apparently impediments to software development."  
> 
> Let's look at three naive/unsubstantiated assertions:
> 
> 1) ".... OVERLY BROAD BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS ...."
>     This comment reflects an complete misunderstanding of patent quality
> (will someone sponsor a judges seminar where people like me can present
> empirical data on patent quality - for too many years judges have been
> not provided with such data!!!!).  For the most part, business method
> patents are no more broader than software patents in general (probably a
> bit better with the PTO's double-eyeball program), especially since most
> are essentially software applications.  But this is part of a much larger
> problem with these subsets of electronics patents - 80% of all issued
> electronics patents cite no non-patent prior art from any of the world's
> engineering societies (IEEE/ACM/IEE/SPIE, etc.).  THAT is the statistic
> judges should be quoting if they are serious about patent quality. And
> if business patents are really that broad, they would be having a
> significant economic impact on business.  There is no economic data to
> support such an assertion.
> 
> 2) ".... PATENTS ARE CLOGGING RETAIL COMMERCE ON THE INTERNET ...."
>     Huh? Bad business models, idiotic investments, inconsistent state
> and federal tax policies, etc. - these are all plaguing the growth of
> electronic commerce on the Internet - NOT PATENTS.  Sure, there is the
> usual patent assertions and litigations going on with ecommerce patents,
> but the levels and positive/negative side effects are little different
> from levels and effects in other industries.  There is no economic data
> to support his clogging assertion.  Patents did not kill petfood.com.
> 
> 3) ".... SOFTWARE (PATENTS) IN PARTICULAR ARE APPARENTLY IMPEDIMENTS
>          TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ...."
>     Again - where is the data for such an assertion?  I look at the
> continual flow of new software ideas in journals, conference proceedings,
> books, new products, shareware/freeware, and see NO evidence that such
> efforts are being slowed down by anything other than general economic
> considerations (like the dotcom bubble burst, market downturn, etc.)
> Also again, there is the usual patent assertions and litigations going
> on with software patents, but the levels and positive/negative side
> effects are little different from levels and effects in other industries.
> There is no economic data to support his assertion.  And I don't like to
> see an influential judge using "apparently".   SHOW ME THE DATA!!!!
> 
> 
> There is nothing special or holy about software and business methods - 
> they are just the latest applied sciences (the technologies of mathematics
> and economics respectively) to be fit into the patent system, with the
> usual levels of licenses and litigation and problems with quality.
> Judge Newman's observations about business methods still stand - there
> are no lines to be drawn because that is not how businesses operate.
> 
> -- 
> Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608  
>  
> Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation             
> http://swpat.ffii.org/
> 130,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX