Why Bill Gates wants 3,000 new patents
The New York Times
"EXCITING," "uninteresting" and "not exciting" don't seem like technical terms, but they show up a lot in United States patent application No. 20,050,160,457, titled "Annotating Programs for Automatic Summary Generation."
It seems to be about baseball. The inventors have apparently come up with software that can detect the portions of a baseball broadcast that contain what they call "excited speech," as well as hits (what I call "excited ball") and automatically compile those portions into a highlights reel.
If the patent is granted, after a review process that is likely to take three years, it will be assigned to the inventors' employer, Microsoft.
For the latest breaking news, visit NYTimes.com
Sign up to receive top headlines
Get Dealbook, a daily corporate finance email briefing
Search the jobs listings at NYTimes.com
It must feel like a bit of a stretch to come up with 60 fresh, nonobvious patentable ideas week in, week out. Perhaps that is why this summer's crop includes titles like "System and Method for Creating a Note Related to a Phone Call " and "Adding and Removing White Space From a Document."
I have not seen the software in use. But if I were in a position to make a ruling, and even if I accepted the originality claim on its face, I would process these swiftly: Rejected.
Microsoft's other pending applications--3,368 at last count--should receive the same treatment. And while tidying up, let's also toss out the 3,955 patents that Microsoft has already been issued.
Perhaps that is going too far. Certainly, we should go through the lot and reinstate the occasional invention embodied in hardware. But patent protection for software? No. Not for Microsoft, nor for anyone else.
Others share this conviction. "Abolishing software patents would be a very good thing," says Daniel Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, a nonprofit group in New York that challenges what it calls "wrongly issued" patents. Ravicher, a patent lawyer himself, says he believes that the current system actually impedes the advance of software technology, at the same time that it works quite nicely to enrich patent holders. That's not what the framers of the Constitution wanted, he said.
Earlier this month, the European Parliament rejected a measure, nicknamed the "software patent directive," that would have uniformly removed restrictions on those patents among European Union members.
All software published in the United States is protected by strong copyright and trademark protection. Microsoft Excel, for example, cannot be copied, nor can its association with Microsoft be removed. But a patent goes well beyond this. It protects even the underlying concepts from being used by others--for 20 years.
As recently as the 1970s, software developers relied solely upon copyrights and trademarks to protect their work. This turned out rather well for Microsoft. Had Dan Bricklin, the creator of VisiCalc, the spreadsheet that gave people a reason to buy a personal computer, obtained a patent covering the program in 1979, Microsoft would not have been able to bring out Excel until 1999. Nor would Word or PowerPoint have appeared if the companies that had brought out predecessors obtained patent protection for their programs.
Bricklin, who has started several software companies and defensively acquired a few software patents along the way, says he, too, would cheer the abolition of software patents, which he sees as the bane of small software companies. "The number of patents you can run into with a small product is immense," he said. As for Microsoft's aggressive accumulation in recent years, he asked, "Isn't Microsoft the poster child of success without software patents?"
So why didn't Bricklin file for a patent for VisiCalc in 1979? Patents for software alone were not an option then. He consulted a patent attorney who said that the application would have to present the software within a machine and that the odds were long that the ploy would succeed. The courts regarded software as merely a collection of mathematical algorithms, tiny revelations of nature's secrets--not as an invention, and thus not patentable.
The legal environment changed not because of new legislation, but by accident. One important ruling here and another there, and without anyone fully realizing it, a new intellectual-property reality had evolved by the end of the 1980s. Now software could enjoy the extraordinary protection of a patent, protection so powerful that Thomas Jefferson believed that it should be granted in only a few
Amazon clears bondholder, patent suits
July 29, 2005
Google tries to patent Web syndication ads
July 29, 2005
Staking a claim in the patent gold mine
July 20, 2005
Patent spat costs RIM millions
June 29, 2005
Patent litigants target DVRs
April 8, 2005
Gates wants patent power
July 29, 2004
IBM retains patent crown
January 12, 2004
From News.com Extra
Click on a comment to explore replies (33 total replies - 0 NEW )
|Somebody in the Patenet Office.... Earl Benser -- Jul 31|
|Specialized civil system Edd Notyourbusiness -- Jul 31|
|Impeding SciTech Advancement Victor Mosehla -- Jul 31|
|Gotta love politics eh? Paul Taylor -- Jul 31|
|USPTO levels IT Giants- About Time At Alishtari -- Jul 31|
|Software not a machine? Matt Warren -- Jul 31|
|Ah ha good way to eliminate the competition Ian Deal -- Jul 31|
|Abolish software patents Hugh Trudeau -- Jul 31|
|Only 3000 Patents per year? Yin Young -- Aug 1|
|What is a machine? Rex Marzke -- Aug 1|
|Flawed logic William Volterman -- Aug 1|
|but you can! J O0o -- Aug 1|
|lets hear from STEVE JOBS!!! J O0o -- Aug 1|
|Bill The Borg King Llib Setag -- Aug 1|
|Fight Fire with Fire Gabriel Wong -- Aug 1|
|Too many patents Zaz.net Zaz.net -- Aug 2|
|Patent = Blowing Nose John Bill -- Aug 2|
|Lack of understanding of patents Phat Tran -- Aug 2|
|I may be imagining... Edmundo Mendiola -- Aug 3|
|Patent Siddhant Kumar -- Aug 3|
|more patent nonsense Don Hall -- Aug 4|