Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Business Process Patents

   

   Beck, Sep 2nd, 2003 @ 11:00am

   
   

   Why is this just now becoming an issue? Were business process patents and software patents not allowed before? What would happen if the first person to computerize a manual task was granted a patent? What if IBM had patented computerized accounts receivable, accounts payable or inventory tracking? What if someone had patented the process of logging into a web site? What if someone patented an Internet system whereby a moderator posts news stories and readers post comments about those stories?
   Just because you computerize a manual process you should not receive a patent. At most you should receive a copyright so that your competitors have to write the code from scratch instead of copying yours.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Ed Halley, Sep 2nd, 2003 @ 11:21am

   
   

   Furthermore, just because someone applies for a patent on something obvious, and just because they are granted the patent, doesn't mean doom for everyone.
   
   Amazon caught a lot of PR flak when they wielded their one-click patent as an offensive weapon. If they did that with every patent, or if their CEO never noticed the negative reaction to their maneuver, then I'd have a big problem with it.
   
   However, many companies file for patents on as many things as possible, as a defense. Microsoft, for all the acrimony against them, has been pretty good about their patent holdings. IBM is wielding patents as a defensive countersuit to the SCO idiocy.
   
   If the USPTO is going to grant stupid patents on obvious things, and if the courts are going to assume validity on stupid patents, then the companies have to protect themselves somehow.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Zonker, Sep 2nd, 2003 @ 1:27pm

   
   

   If the USPTO is going to grant stupid patents on obvious things, and if the courts are going to assume validity on stupid patents, then the companies have to protect themselves somehow.

   How about by channeling some of that lobbyist money into reforming the patent system so that software and business processes aren't patentable.

   IBM can stave off Microsoft with a patent arsenal. Amazon can stave off eBay, or whatever -- but all of these companies are vulnerable to suits from "companies" that are nothing more than a front for patent suits. Microsoft, Amazon and eBay have each been bitten recently by patents that are absurd -- for millions of dollars each.

   It's time to reform the system, not just shrug it off like it's not a big deal.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Defensive Patents

   

   Brandon, Sep 2nd, 2003 @ 4:05pm

   
   

   Bezos has often said that Amazon intends to acquire a large patent portfolio for defensive purposes. However, I still cannot acquiesce to a patent being granted for something that clearly does not meet the standard of patentability (i.e. non-obvious extension to prior art).
   Bezos's intentions could be all well and good, but his patents could easily outlast him as CEO. Is Amazon's next CEO going to be so benevolent? What if Amazon gets in deep trouble financially? The primary duty of a CEO is to serve the shareholders. Right now, enforcing the patents arguably does not serve the shareholders, because of the ill-will that would be a product of enforcement. However, if a day came when Amazon had no other way of making money, then the CEO has no choice but to enforce the patents, or potentially worse, assign them to someone else in a bankruptcy sale.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Derisive patents

   

   Jean-Luc Delatre, Sep 2nd, 2003 @ 9:31pm

   
   

   Why not applying for a really stupid "business process" patent for something like holding one own's dick while peeing?
   Of course this will have to be carefully choosen and orchestrated so that the case runs for a while before being dismissed.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   using patents defensively

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2003 @ 12:32am

   
   

   .. is a laughable statement from someone who obviously was born yesterday.
   
   At the very least, the person making such a statement wasn't around in the last decade, before a certain company's vandalism and advertising-rewritten-as-linux-development somehow caused the dope smoking linux-heads to forget what an 800-lb gorilla smells like.
   
   The destruction, when the dragon wakes up again, will be bittersweet.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Gene, Sep 4th, 2003 @ 2:52pm

   
   

   Agreed. But note also that patent licensing is increasingly viewed as a strategic and highly profitable business by the major technology companies. IBM's patent licensing revenue is estimated at $1B per year, and the margins are really attractive compared to say, selling PCs.
   
   So the financial incentives to amass and wield a large patent portfolio are great, and I expect we'll see more companies becoming more aggressive in pursuing license revenue to support their weaker, increasingly commoditized business models.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment