eWeek Supports W3C Software Patents Stand!

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Patents] eWeek editorial
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:05:23 +0100
From: James Heald <j.heald at ucl.ac.uk>
Reply-To: j.heald at ucl.ac.uk
To: patents at aful.org

The editorial in eWeek this week is fairly strongly anti-swpat, quoting
Gerald Cohen, veteran head of I-Builders in New York:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1122081,00.asp


Opinion
June 9, 2003
Patent Progress

There's a reason for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It was created to
foster invention by rewarding inventors for their time and trouble by
granting temporary monopoly protection for the fruits of their labor. The
net result is a benefit to society: Rewarding inventors tends to bring about
more invention and economic productivity.

Because patent applications mandate disclosure, the patent process has
social advantages over trade-secret alternatives. However, if a given law or
enforcement pattern of a law—including patent law—results in harm to
society, then it's time to change the laws. Patents on software carry the
potential of harm to the software industry and thereby to the economy.
Equally problematic are the so-called method patents, or patents on
application behavior, such as Amazon's famous—or infamous—one-click patent.

How dangerous are software patents? Information Builders President and CEO
Gerald Cohen warned eWEEK editors that the presence of patents is a scourge
to the industry. Cohen has seen much innovation in a patent-free climate.
Now he and other software leaders are being threatened with lawsuits.
Software companies need to create software, which, after all, often has a
short shelf life. They do not need to spend precious resources hiring
expensive attorneys. Copyright protection should be enough. A copyright
protects original expression; its existence encourages software developers
to seek new ways of presenting function to users and of streamlining
integration behind the scenes.

If patents for software are generally not a good idea, patents are out of
bounds when it comes to standard protocols, such as those that underpin the
World Wide Web. Keeping the Web patent-free prevents it from becoming a
hunting ground for those seeking royalties on some of the most widely used
software.

There are encouraging developments, however. The World Wide Web Consortium's
forthright stand on the issue sets an excellent example. The W3C's intent
has been known for a while, but only last month did the organization issue a
formal policy statement banning patented technologies from its standards.

In addition, some unjustified patents have been thrown out. For example,
British Telecom claimed every organization using Web hyperlinks would need
to license a patent the U.S. PTO issued it in 1989. Last year, it lost its
test lawsuit against Prodigy Communications when U.S. District Judge Colleen
McMahon ruled that the patent didn't apply to hyperlinks. In addition, three
patents covering client/server computing as a whole were ruled invalid by
the courts in mid-2002 because the technology described was in public use
before the patent application was filed.

Thus, there are signs that a rational approach to software patents is
gaining momentum. Still, the PTO needs to do more to raise the bar for
software patents. If they are to be granted, software patents ought to be
extremely rare indeed.