Public Policy Blog

Updates on technology policy issues

Patent reform needed more than ever

Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Share on Google+ Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Google
Labels: Intellectual Property , Public Policy Blog

18 comments :

  1. Michael F. MartinMarch 3, 2009 at 12:54 PM

    The forum-shopping problems seem substantially solved by the VW, TS Tech cases.

    I wonder whether many of these issues aren't better addressed through common law rulemaking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  2. dnballMarch 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM

    Small businesses are the innovators of the American economy as they obtain many more patents per employee than larger firms, according to a study released by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.
    See < http://tinyurl.com/6og3ld >.
    Moreover, their patents outperform larger firms on a number of measurements, suggesting that small firm patents in general are more likely to be technologically important than those of larger firms.

    Yet small business did not have a seat at Sen. Leahy's table when patent reform was being negotiated. Where is our SBA Administrator?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  3. GuyMarch 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM

    Two of the large proponents of this so-called Patent Fairness are Google and Microsoft. Let's take a look at these companies financial situations:

    Google:
    -Profit margin=20%
    -Profits=$8billion per year
    -Cash=$15billion

    Microsoft:
    -Profit margin=28%
    -Profits=$20billion per year
    -Cash=$20billion

    Seems that the large software companies have had very little problems competing in today's environment. How much more profitable do they need to be? Or is this more a result of soul-less corporations relentless search of increasing their profits?

    These same large corporations love to throw around the term "patent trolls" but it is difficult buy their story that the small inventor is hurting or impeding them.

    In fact, the last time they tried patent reform many small inventors spoke up AGAINST such a reform citing that the world is already tilted against them - and such reforms would only increase the leverage the large companies already have. Many small inventors are unable to get any traction when approaching the large software companies in selling their innovation.

    In fact - small software inventors have found that their only chance to introduce their innovations to the marketplace is by trying to get a license deal rather than compete with a Google or Microsoft or even much smaller corporations. Many inventors ask for a small fee of almost always less than 1% but we don't hear Google's or Microsoft's point out how little the innovations actually cost.

    There is plenty of proof that innovation occurs at the small companies (in fact, the Google's of 10 years ago, and the Microsoft's of 30 years ago).

    Large companies would love nothing more than get rid of patents and then simply monitor competitors for the best innovations and then incorporate those into the next service pack or website update.


    Interesting how large companies like Google have the resources for people like Michelle Lee and "Head of Patent Strategy". You think the small inventor has time or resources for this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  4. DipuMarch 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM

    The only intention of a patent should be to motivate innovations. Patent reform act should figure out a way to reward the original inventor. Such rewards would be much smaller than what would be given to an enterprise or a team of lawyers. Companies employment terms should exclude rights to patentable inventions of employees. Employees should be able to file patents on their own or as a team. Employer would simply be the preferred licensee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  5. Ted LemonMarch 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM

    Dias, the fact is that in the software world, inventors are busy inventing, not patenting. The main driver of innovation in the software world is the problem, and the solution to that problem is usually obvious once you see the problem.

    So for serious programmers, patents are a nuisance - we may be asked by our employers to try to come up with things to patent for defensive purposes, even though we know that what we are patenting is neither novel nor non-obvious. This is a huge waste of time.

    The main value in a software product is in the quality of the implementation. Patents create monopolies that prevent us from doing quality implementations. I work for a small company, and we are no more in love with software patents than large companies like Google and Microsoft. This is not a case of the little guy versus the big guy - this is a case of the productive guy versus the leech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  6. zoobabMarch 5, 2009 at 11:42 AM

    Patent reform is still driven by the Patent department of Google.

    What should be done is to replace the decision makers at Google by the engineers, most of them hate software patents and wants to see them go away. They are a nuisance and a replacement for R&D.

    Lawyers says you have to comply with patent law, which means prior to writing wode you have to read and understand zillions of claims, which nobody in the software industry does.

    Unfortunately, the patent "reform" won't make patent trolls go away, especially when they are threatening products.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  7. Drew LeSueurMarch 9, 2009 at 5:06 PM

    I agree. There should be reform. What can we do to help?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  8. zoobabMarch 10, 2009 at 4:42 AM

    For the time being, it is important that soft patents, including patents covering non-inventions like software, business methods, games or mental acts are excluded from patentability.

    You have the opportunity to submit an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court for the Bilski case:

    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/bilski-v-doll-round-i-of-amicus-briefs.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  9. UnknownMarch 10, 2009 at 5:31 AM

    If a company is really against software patents, it should sign the European Petition against Software Patents

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  10. JonasMarch 10, 2009 at 6:33 AM

    Bilski is a good start. Next I'd like to see limits to information claims, like on publication of software.

    Patents should be about sharing knowledge, not locking Internet down using software claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  11. BotbotMarch 13, 2009 at 8:37 AM

    Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  12. UnknownSeptember 3, 2009 at 9:27 AM

    Is "patenting the look of Google's home page" the kind of reform you're talking about? God forbid anyone should "steal" the idea of "a search box on a white page with some buttons and links near it".

    http://valleywag.gawker.com/5350982/google-patents-worlds-simplest-home-page

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  13. zoobabSeptember 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM

    By patenting its homepage, Google should not complain about lawsuits for patent infringement.

    The patent departement of Google makes a bad image of Google by patenting such things, creating barriers of entry for other players such as small companies.

    Who read your claims by the way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  14. ChrisSeptember 3, 2009 at 12:40 PM

    Patent reform, indeed.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/03/1223207/Google-Patents-Its-Home-Page

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  15. David SundinSeptember 3, 2009 at 4:56 PM

    I came here to say what Spider has posted. The patenting of a search page gives a lie to Google's stated wish for patent reform.

    And I wish to take issue with the characterization of non-practicing entities as "patent trolls". I own a small chemical manufacturing company. I've developed several excellent products and reaction pathways that would require far more capital equipment than I could ever muster to build. So what should I do - simply forget that I had the idea because I can't afford 10 or 12 million dollars for the specialized distillation or reaction equipment needed? Of course not - I patent the product or process and try to sell it to a larger chemical firm. Patent troll, my ass...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  16. SentrySeptember 9, 2009 at 7:33 PM

    Consider this

    Google takes an opinion about patent law. But they themselves use a patent.

    Likewise if you were trapped in a room full of individuals presented with a challenge: escape from the room at all costs. You have a series of challenges ahead, each one requiring team work and cooperation. With one catch: everyone has a gun in hand at the onset of the challenge.

    When such cooperation is necessary, wouldn't the guns collectively be a hindrance? You may argue this. But would you throw away your own gun?

    Google may argue that patent law should be changed. This does not mean that google should never use patent law in its current state to its own advantage. To forfeit such options would be foolish. Like throwing away the only weapon you have in a room full of men with guns. As much as you may stand against the idea of the gun, to forfeit your defense unilaterally is impractical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  17. zoobabSeptember 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

    Large companies wants the advantage without the disadvantages of software patents.

    Software patents are like 'cold war' for large companies. Large companies view positively the potential to nuke competitors from the market. With cross-licensing deals they recreate a level playing field that resembles the situation without a patent system for members of the club. But weight in trolls, litigation costs, damages, royalties, product removal risks, and a shift of resources from the R&D (Research&Development) to the P&L (Patents&Litigation) department.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  18. AnonymousMarch 8, 2011 at 1:41 PM

    I assume it goes without saying that software patents are a destructive abomination. I want to point out that for individual developers who have a good idea but are- quite rightly- afraid that someone somewhere with a patent will take it all away from them, it's possible to simply elect not to sell software in jurisdictions which permit software patents.

    Those jurisdictions are always changing but right now the big ones are the US, South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia and probably some others I am leaving off.

    More to the point, the EU does not permit them and the EU by itself is a market quite large enough to sustain an independent software developer or any sized company. New Zealand is also distinguished as software patent free as is Canada and probably others.

    You don't HAVE to risk losing everything you worked for or diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars that would have otherwise gone into serving your customers, promotion and development.

    Software patents exist in order to line the pockets of IP lawyers and to protect large companies from having to compete on value with small innovative companies.

    Nothing is compelling anyone to participate in the software patent extortion regime, except perhaps a certain way of habitually framing the problem.

    It's not a new idea to prevent sales into certain countries. Every US company is currently compelled by law to NOT sell to North Korea, Iran Syria and a few other countries. It's not hard to write a EULA that prohibits downloading to target countries and to block such downloading by screening by IP address.

    No one needs to do business in jurisdictions which are fundamentally hostile to them. That includes you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
Add comment
Load more...

The comments on this blog belong only to the person who posted them. We do, however, reserve the right to remove off-topic or inappropriate comments.

  

Labels


  • Accessibility 5
  • Ad 2
  • Advertising 11
  • AdWords 2
  • Anti-defamation league 1
  • Book Search 16
  • Broadband 11
  • Business Issues 26
  • Buzz 1
  • buzzemail 1
  • Canada 1
  • Child Safety 18
  • Chrome 1
  • Cloud Computing 2
  • Competition 19
  • Congress 10
  • Constitute 1
  • copyright 7
  • Cuba 1
  • Cybersecurity 9
  • D.C. Talks 16
  • Digital Due Process 1
  • Digital Playbook 1
  • Economic Impact 5
  • Economy 13
  • ECPA 4
  • Elections 24
  • email 1
  • Energy Efficiency 29
  • Europe 2
  • FCC 7
  • fellowship 2
  • Fighting Human Trafficking 1
  • Free Expression 54
  • Geo 1
  • Gmail 1
  • GNI 2
  • Good to Know 5
  • Google Fellow 2
  • Google for Entrepreneurs 1
  • Google Ideas 2
  • Google Maps 1
  • Google Policy Fellowship 1
  • Google Tools 78
  • Government Transparency 33
  • Hate Speech 1
  • Health 5
  • How Google Fights Piracy 1
  • Human trafficking 1
  • Identity theft 1
  • Immigration 1
  • Intellectual Property 19
  • International 46
  • Journalists 1
  • Malware 1
  • Maps 1
  • National Consumer Protection Week 1
  • Net Neutrality 24
  • Patents 5
  • piracy. ad networks 2
  • Politicians at Google 11
  • Politics 23
  • Privacy 93
  • Public Policy 1
  • Public Policy Blog 806
  • Safe Browsing 3
  • scams 1
  • search 3
  • Security 17
  • Small Businesses 3
  • spectrum 4
  • State Issues 5
  • Surveillance 6
  • Technology for Good 1
  • Telecom 71
  • Trade 3
  • Transparency Report 4
  • White Spaces 23
  • WiFi Network 1
  • Workforce 5
  • Yahoo-Google Deal 5
  • YouTube 4
  • YouTube for Government 1


Archive


  •     2016
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
  •     2015
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2014
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2013
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2012
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2011
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2010
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2009
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2008
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr
    • Mar
    • Feb
    • Jan
  •     2007
    • Dec
    • Nov
    • Oct
    • Sep
    • Aug
    • Jul
    • Jun
    • May
    • Apr

Feed

Give us feedback in our Product Forums.

Company-wide

  • Official Google Blog
  • Europe Blog
  • Student Blog

Products

  • Android Blog
  • Chrome Blog
  • Lat Long Blog

Developers

  • Developers Blog
  • Ads Developer Blog
  • Android Developers Blog
  • Google
  • Privacy
  • Terms