I was reading that programmers rarely, if ever, actually pay any attention to software patents. The reason being that if they do read about some patented process, they would be much more likely to use it, even accidently, and this would also put them in a different legal category, should they be sued, because they knowingly used the patented algorithm -ignorance being a legal defence, in this case.

Which then raises the very obvious question (no pun intended) that if a programmer can, on their own, without any knowledge of a patented process, develop the same type of computer coding, then the process must be fairly obvious and not the result of any special, individual creative effort on the part of the person who patented it.

So basically, if other programmers can stumble on the patented process all on their own, then the process is clearly an obvious one and the patent isn’t valid.

I think it also calls into question other non-software patents, which were granted on the basis that the applicant was the first to file for a patent (and therefore the originator), when, with time, it was shown that others subsequently discovered the same “innovation” thereby proving that the original innovation was obvious to anyone working in that area of expertise and clearly not the result of any special or unique insight.

Of course, a very long and complicated process, like the LZW algorithm in the GIF image format, I don’t believe was ever disputed because it’s clearly not obvious and no one else ever “stumbled” on it and therefore anyone using it must have copied it from original.

There, now we’ve got 4 cents.

Hi Tim,
Exactly. MS running around telling everyone that Linux violates 235 patents is hogwash. They know it isn’t so and that it is just more FUD. I would love to see how many patents they have stepped on.

I think what the Supremes are saying is just because a patent was issued doesn’t make it valid.

Ron

I hope so. It is a wonder that no one has tried to patent “I got ya!”

Hi Mike,
Thanks for the comment.
Ron

I think Anthony Kennedy got it right. Patents are for encouraging people to develop ideas in which they and society may personally benefit. It should not be used as a license for a company or an individual to enrich themselves just because they filed some paper work. Unfortunately, the patent office, in some cases, is doing this.

Personally, I don’t care if someone gets rich on an idea or invention they develop. I am interested in encouraging people to develop ideas that will make our lives richer and I think people that invent things or develop ideas that accomplish this should be compensated for their efforts.

I suppose this will increase the number of cases about intellectual property. People will have to demonstrate that it was their idea and not an “obvious” finding… Still, when something is discovered for the very first time in many cases it becomes obvious as it is discovered, despite it was hard to realize it… So, I believe this is unfair.
Does Microsoft credits its programmers, the ones that come up with the ideas? I don’t think so, if you are paid for it, you loose the right to make money of it, but you may also lose the right to use your ideas the way you created them…
Anyway, I believe that this will lead big companies to steal more ideas from GNU and other sources, and lawyers earning more money.
So for me obvious and ordinary course will be on top lawyer firms dictionaries.
I am appreciate you posted this comment.

Some posters have it wrong. Patents are to advance SOCIETIES interests–not the patent creator. There is a mix here in that society has an interest in protecting innovation so that creators can be economically motivated to innovate. Our system has gone off track allowing patents to become a market in and of themselves.

As the instant case intimates “most” software patents should not be granted on the basis of obviousness. Same in many other fields. This is just another area where “the market place” should provide the rewards rather than the legal system.

Hello Tom, Bobbo and Carmen,
Thank you all for your comments and insight. It is appreciated.
Regards, Ron

I think I have to side with the Supreme Court on this one.

For years companies like Microsoft have used bogus patents to try and limit development by competitors. I think that they should be made to justify their patents and the claims of uniqueness and invention that are part and parcel of the process.

Hello Zack,
I tend to agree. I think the US Patent Office has been unknowingly used to issues patents on some dubious software technology by large firms that have dazzled them with their footwork. Oh, and a bunch of heavy handed lawyers doesn’t hurt either.

I think the Supremes might bust a few chops if some patents end up in front of them.

Thanks for the comment, Ron

The principle is simple. You can patent revolution, not evolution.

Hi Mike,
That does make it simple. Thanks for your comment,
Ron

None of the patents Microsoft quotes actually “exist”, yet. In the law, a patent needs to be defended in Court, and none have been challenged and proven in a Court of law.

They are not named, which is a required legality to press charges in a Court.

It is all FUD against the individual customer in the User Base. This FUD separates out the Enterprise/Corporate/Government purchaser for special protections from threats in a class struggle in the media.

Hey, one more lie from the multiple convicted criminal felon pirate Microsoft Corporation, as they face impending doom from the huge grassroots Open Source movement, worldwide.

None of the 800+ ‘Nix Operating Systems (*BSD/Mac OS X; GNU/Linux; Solaris, et al) are susceptible to the “114,000 Microsoft Virus and Malware Definitions” ! All are exempt from the ‘Microsoft Trusted Partner” cartel in the Protection Racket of Trial ware, nagscreens, excess profit taking in the new computer system market!

A Dell with Ubuntu costs $200.00 LESS at RETAIL!

That is the exemption from both the “Microsoft Tax” and then, the “Microsoft Stupid Tax”! Hey, the industry and the ‘Trusted Partners” invented both terms to apply to consumers of their products, most of which are sub-standard and often fail to perform.

Options:
Get a Dell, with Ubuntu
Get any Dell, install Mepis
Get a Mac, install an “Open” ‘Nix!