The chilling effect of software patents

[Joe Buck]

This started in gnu.misc.discuss.

This is also going to comp.org.usenix; you'll see why below.  If your
followup is appropriate to only one group, please edit the Newsgroups
line.

In article <3735:Feb822:24:5991 at kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd at kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
|> In article <b0hp2o.e8d at wang.com> lee at wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
|> > (1) Challenge the patents or copyrights.  This probably should be open
|> >     to all, not just those with the deepest pockets, but is it?
|> 
|> There are two basic ways to challenge a patent.
|> 
|> 1. Send $2000 to the Office of Patents and Trademarks with a challenge.
|> The challenge typically goes through each claim of the patent and points
|> out where that claim appeared in the prior art. Occasionally a claim may
|> be declared invalid for other reasons (such as ``it describes a
|> mathematical algorithm,'' not that I know of this ever succeeding).

I hadn't known about way #1.  I was just thinking this morning about the
problems certain software patents pose and the need for overturning
some of them, and decided that we (the software communitity) need
something in addition to the LPF approach of lobbying against software
patents and user interface copyrights.  Even if this succeeds, we need
to overturn certain patents already on the books.  Perhaps a foundation
can be founded to fight patents that are generally recognized to be
evil.  Example #1, the recently granted include-file patent, which
puts every C, C++, and Fortran compiler in violation.

Possibly Usenix can get into the act.  I have a mailing from them in
front of me that says the following (as part of a membership survey):

Software Patents

The US Patent Office has recently issued patents on some disturbing things --
like the concept of an include file.  Originally they ruled that a mathematical
theorem could not be patented.  In the transition from theorem to algorithm
to implementation, the ruling was reversed.  The patent on an include file,
applied for over 15 years ago, was just recently issued.

11.  Please check all the roles, if any, that you feel USENIX should play in
software patent issues.

[ They list four alternatives ]

	Pro-active: help contest software patent applications
	Informative: produce patent "snitch" reports
	No software patent activities
	Do not care.

I checked "pro-active".  If Usenix doesn't want to take this job on, it
seems to me that it's time to form a foundation to collect the $2000,
get a good writeup on the prior art on include files which goes back
a lot longer than 15 years, and blow this idiot patent away.

Then we can take on Hayes' "+++" patent.  Seems those guys have gotten
rid of their good engineers (they recently hired a consultant to teach
Hayes employees how modems are designed, and I'm not kidding) and decided
to hire good lawyers instead.

--
Joe Buck
jbuck at galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck