Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Global struggle over software patents

By | September 2, 2010, 5:31am PDT

Summary: Would society have benefited if Microsoft had to wait until the 21st century to deliver Windows, or something like it?

It is common currency in open source to say that patents are an American problem.

That’s not true. Software patents, or patents on what is expressed in software, are a global problem.

(Picture from our Apple Core blog, co-starring Jason O’Grady and David Morganstern. Always filled with Apple-flavored bloggy goodness.)

This is especially true in the case of Apple, which has sued HTC (and by extension Google) for violating its claimed rights to multitouch technology.

As Florian Mueller explained recently, Apple filed international patent applications for how it operates its touchscreen display in early 2007, and how you unlock the device with gestures on the locked image, in late 2006. It applied for patents on its touch screen interface late last year.

From this it’s clear Apple thinks it has a worldwide monopoly on how the iPhone works, one that could last until late in the next decade. The questions courts must ask are:

  1. Does this cover any portable touch screen system, as Apple contends, or just this particular system?
  2. Should the patents be considered valid, since Google asserts it was working on its own Android system before the iPhone patents were filed.

There is another important question. Does it respect and reward innovation to give Apple control of all portable touch screen devices, for as long as touch screens may be an interface of choice? Would society have benefited if Microsoft had to wait until the 21st century to deliver Windows, or something like it?

Patent suits are most commonly filed in the U.S., Mueller writes, because this is still the largest technology market, because lawyers are comfortable with the legal system here and because victory usually leads to quick negotiations on global rights.

This leads me to two further questions:

  1. If China creates a reasonable patent law framework, will its market eventually draw patent litigation there?
  2. If U.S. legislators do return to patent reform, how will that impact technology markets worldwide?

Discuss.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Talkback Most Recent of 25 Talkback(s)

  • Grrrr!!!
    Software patents must die!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    b.bob
    2nd Sep 2010
  • Not my problem
    Truth is, the software patents are the problem of multi-billion dollar companies and open source, niether of which has any effect on me.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    NoAxToGrind
    2nd Sep 2010
  • You lost me
    Interesting and important subject. You said however:

    "Would society have benefited if Microsoft had to wait until the 21st century to deliver Windows, or something like it?"

    I do not understand that statement. I agree that MS may have made a significant contribution to personal computing by imposing a standard of sorts on a very fragmented market. I do not understand why the absence of SW patents would have caused that kind of delay in what MS did. MS certainly would have made a lot less money, but maybe that is all.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Economister
    2nd Sep 2010
  • Re: Microsoft ...
    @Economister I *think* he is suggesting exactly the opposite. That is, if software patents as we know them today had existed when MS was a startup, Windows would have waited a LONG time for PARC and Apple software patents to expire or would have been a lot more expensive due to licensing fees and litigation. Bill Gates himself has often admitted that part of the rapid rise of Windows was due to the lack of IP restrictions in the earlier days of MS.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    George Mitchell
    2nd Sep 2010
  • RE: Global struggle over software patents
    @George Mitchell: That's very interesting. Do you have a source for that? I'd like to see Bill Gates's statement in context.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    masonwheeler
    2nd Sep 2010
  • Thx
    @George Mitchell

    Interesting. I guess I am not as familiar with intellectual property history as I should be. Certainly argues is favor of relaxation AFAIAK.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Economister
    2nd Sep 2010
  • The problem with software patents
    I'm sure if we looked at the sum total of all software patents now in effect, everything would be covered. There would be no way possible to write any new software programs without paying royalties on every single line of code (and that's only if the patent-owning company allows you to use their code). A software program, as a whole, should be patent-able (or copyright-able, I'm not an expert on the 2 terms), but individual processes (like one-click checkout) in a software program should not be.

    Can you imagine what would happen to the auto industry if one company got a patent on "a steering wheel" and another got a patent on "a brake pedal"?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Rexxrally
    2nd Sep 2010
  • RE: Global struggle over software patents
    @Rexxrally
    Thank you for pointing out the very obvious dilemma. In addition a EULA is not in accordance with ANY law. A company can write almost anything into an EndUserLicenceAgreement;-) Crazy
    ZDNet Gravatar
    IKE:)
    7th Sep 2010
  • RE: Global struggle over software patents
    Isn't trying to patent gestures and the entire concept of multitouch like attempting to patent "look & feel"?

    In general the patent office & courts do not support patents which allow one company to monopolize an industry. If Apple tries to license the tech to other manufacturers (at reasonable prices) then they would be much more likely to get a favorable ruling. A patent holder does deserve to be rewarded for innovation, however its counter productive when that patent is a barrier to innovation.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    gbryantiv
    2nd Sep 2010
  • RE: Global struggle over software patents
    @gbryantiv

    On what do you base this generalization? Remember what happened with the patents on the telephone, on the superhet receiver, or on FM radio? They DID grant patents that created monopolies. The companies that benefited from the monopolies are still with us today: AT&T, GE, RCA (well, independent until 1986).
    ZDNet Gravatar
    mejohnsn
    2nd Sep 2010
  • RE: Global struggle over software patents
    @mejohnsn Those are all patents granted or TECHNICAL innovation, and limited for 20 years... After that ANY company can use the technology. THAT is not possible with software, as it is based on (programming) language...
    ZDNet Gravatar
    IKE:)
    7th Sep 2010
  • RE: Global struggle over software patents
    I see a lot of misinformation and disinformation about intellectual property and patents in software. In order to try to clear some of this up, I am going to point out that Donald Knuth, the author of that magnum opus, "The Art of Computer Programming", has already expressed the definitive assessment of software patents: the US has issued far too many of them, most of them are groundless and flimsy, usually failing to meet the USPTO requirements for a valid patent.

    In fact, he even says that many of these patents specifically fail to mee the requirement that it be 'non-obvious' to a person versed in the state of the art, since they grant a patent to the kind of solution Knuth expected his undergraduate students to be able to solve in their homework!

    But don't take my word for it: read the master's words themselves at http://eupat.ffii.org/gasnu/knuth/index.en.html
    ZDNet Gravatar
    mejohnsn
    2nd Sep 2010
  • Gates quote
    @masonwheeler:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

    quoting a memo from 1991:
    "Microsoft sang a very different tune in 1991. In a memo to his senior executives, Bill Gates wrote, ?If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today?s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.? Mr. Gates worried that ?some large company will patent some obvious thing? and use the patent to ?take as much of our profits as they want.? "

    I can't easily find the original quote from 1991 but here's some more info (source may be biased):
    http://www.msversus.org/microsoft-patents.html
    ZDNet Gravatar
    dontfear
    3rd Sep 2010
  • RE: Global struggle over software patents
    Software patents kill inovation in small companies. Some small companies can't aford the costs of getting a patent and if they do scrape a bit of money togeather to get one and a big guy does violate their patent they can not aford to take them to court. Either way the patent system for a small company is a Loose, Loose option! The only people making money from the patents are the big guys and the patent trolls who purchase the patents from the small guys for next to nothing after they realise they are usless to them.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    NZJester
    4th Sep 2010
  • RE: Global struggle over software patents
    Software Patents result from an extension of the "Business Process" form of patents. The idea was that if you invented or discoverred a new process for building something, it was the process, not the machine which implemented the process which was new. For example, if you invent a process which turns lead into gold that does not require magic or nuclear bombardment, that process would be patentable and any device which used that process would need a license. This is why the supreme court has not yet struck down software patents. There is an underlying reason to the patents and broad decision would be "making law" instead of just interpreting it.

    The root problem is the difference between an invention and an innovation. Inventions are suppose to be something new, something which did not result from simply modifying something that came before. Inventions can be patented. Innovations are suppose to be a new and useful modification that improves on what came before, a natural growth of the technology. Innovations are not suppose to be patentable. The problem is that much of this is blurred. Since most inventions now result from combining and modifying older technologies, where does it cease to be innovation and become invention?

    With software, the problem is even more troublesome. As a programmer, most of the software out there results from ideas bouncing around in numerous people's heads, based on ideas which have been bouncing around the industry for decades. There is "prior art" for almost everything. Everything in software is derived and assembled from bits and pieces that came from all over. What this means is that the vast majority of software is innovative, sometimes even highly innovative, but rare would be the piece that was truly inventive.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    mheartwood
    4th Sep 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources