[mattrp]

If someone invests resources inventing something, why shouldn't that entity be entitled to participate in the on-going monetization of that invention? If we presume the prior statement is simply a straw man, do you agree partially with this statement and it simply needs reform or would you propose to throw it out altogether? If the former, how would you propose to reform it?

[urthen]

The problem is so many software patents just cover "do a thing on a computer," which becomes so broad nobody else can ever do that thing without infringing on the patent. Even if I have an objectively different, even better, way of doing it, software patents are used far too broadly because they tend to protect the act of doing a thing as opposed to specifically how to do the thing.

This is in contrast to something like a hardware patent, where if you patent a tool, and I build a better tool that does the same thing, the mere fact it does the same thing is not infringing unless I copy specific aspects of your patented physical design.

The reform is that an ideal implementation of software patents is largely the same as an ideal implementation of software copyright. I can't just copy what you did, but if I figure out a different way to do it, that's perfectly fine. That's why so many people say scrap software patents altogether and work on improving software copyright instead.

[Keverw]

Also, some things are commonly recommended to do someone could have the patent to. There was a virtual world I was into a lot in the past and would follow the news on it, and some company was suing them and like 4 or 5 other companies for password hashing. So a method for retrieving a user's account and hashing their password comparing to a stored password hash... Can't find much on it though as was probably about 10 years ago.

Sounds like even patents on implementing two factors or blocking common/weak passwords... Even password resets through email...

Seems like you are likely to step on someone's patent without even reading it or just importing some open source code... unknowingly too. I guess not a huge risk until you are big enough where they'd get a good stream of income from licensing or you fight them off. Like Cloudflare had to deal with a patent troll. Some of these patents are so vague and I noticed some patent trolls use patents that are expiring in a few years since they get traded around. Then some company I heard sued a few companies before their patent expired by only a day or two since I guess even though the patent is expired they couldn't sue new projects using it, but existing stuff filed before it expired in court can still be litigated I guess. Well I guess not suing for current use then, but more the prior use of it infringing over a certain number of years might be another way to put it?

I know some companies tell employees to not read patents, but even if you don't read them might end up getting a patent owner who thinks their patent covers your functions to go after you. I think even someone has a patent on shopping sites where you can select from multiple colors for a shirt or phone, storage options, etc.

Maybe you start a company, get a patent to use to try to protect yourself but not actively going after companies. Then maybe your company isn't doing so well so the investors want you to sell off assets. So maybe a patent troll or shell company buys it up when you never planned on using the patent in that way.

Plus big companies like patents as it's like insurance, I guess there's the nuclear option. So if Apple sued Google over a feature of Android, Google could take a closer look at Apple Maps and say it infringes. So a large patent portfolio could discourage others from suing you. Not sure if that works in all industries but Google and Apple is a good example since a lot of overlapping stuff. I guess Microsoft could also be a good example, if they wanted to sue Google over Google Docs being similar to Microsoft Office maybe over a certain feature they believe they have a patent to then Google could turn around and say Bing infringes on something possibly. Then I think some tech companies rather sue OEMs like HTC and Samsung maybe instead of directly going after each other.

[freejazz]

The software patents you described are consistently knocked-out on §101 eligibility grounds for being an "abstract concept".

IMO people who advocate scrapping software patents are disingenuous - look at what Google is trying to do software copyright at the same time. Essentially, if you take Google up on software patents and copyright, there will be no protection left for software.

[retSava]

Patents are granted, then if challenged, can be invalidated in court. It should be the other way around, they shouldn't be granted in the first case.

Not all can handle being taken to court for a claimed patent infringement of a crappy patent. It's expensive, time-consuming, and difficult. Did I mention wasteful?

[mattrp]

I’m not trying to be argumentative and someone who is a lawyer can correct me here but generally speaking a company like ibm is only going to seek licensing from a party where the commercial impact is sufficient to merit the use of their resources to secure a licensing deal. Even in the case of Airbnb, it’s clear in the article ibm is suing only after attempting to exhaust other remedies. Again, I don’t think it’s necessarily bullet proof legal policy to advise companies to fly under the radar but de facto I don’t think ibm is spending a lot of time chasing companies who can’t afford a legal defense.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> Essentially, if you take Google up on software patents and copyright, there will be no protection left for software.

... and this is a bad thing?

[freejazz]

I was not commenting on that, simply informing the poster about the issue.

[snarf21]

I think software patents are okay but should have shorter lengths, like 3 years. They also shouldn't be transferrable. IBM could license it from Jane Inventor but not roll it up as a weapon. We also need to have trained people in the USTPO so that we can have patents researched and not just rubber stamped. I also think that patent enforcement should force a review of prior art.