Patenting Software

Today's blog is about the article below, from the Harvard Office of Technology Development. Specifically, I'll try to simplify the section on "Patenting of Computer Software."

http://www.techtransfer.harvard.edu/inventions/ip/patents/

The USPTO won't grant patents on items of "…pure scientific discovery, or a method of doing business, or a process which does not require hardware, or one that simply duplicated the "mental steps" of a human being." Essentially, the USPTO won't allow abstract ideas to be patented. Whether software can be patented or not depends on three categories.

1) "A computer or other programmable apparatus whose actions are directed by a computer program or other form of software may be considered a 'machine.'"

2) "A computer-readable memory that can be used to direct a computer to function in a particular manner when used by the computer is presumed to be an 'article of manufacture.'"

3) "A series of specific operational steps to be performed on, or with the aid, of a computer is deemed a "process.'"

These guidelines for patenting software opens up debate debate among software engineers, lawyers, USPTO examiners, and scholars. Matters of software patents are currently reviewed on a case by case basis rather than a set of concrete rules. For that reason, I think software patents should be a high priority in the effort to reform and optimize IP regulations. Any gray zone in the legal system in a lucrative area like IP will be exploited by trolls. In the case of software patents, the lack of rules and precedents opens up opportunities for bad/dangerous patents to be created and exploited.

Going forward, it'll be interesting to see whether the USPTO can keep up with the growth in IT industries. As technology gets more complicated and interconnected, it'll be necessary to adapt regulations so that new problems can be addressed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-EpaHbRKL0

Detecting obviousness in the midst of complex technical rhetoric

The article linked below, titled "A Patent on Seven Simple Lines of Code," discusses the problem of obvious and abstract ideas being patented through the use of lengthy text and complicated jargon.

Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (also linked below) deals with patents on third party escrow, which is just a fancy way of saying "two parties exchanging money through a third party." It's an abstract concept of trade that's been used throughout history, between parties seeking to exchange currency through a mutually trusted party. What's concerning is that a claim involved in the case describes a computer, linked to a data storage unit and a communications controller, to:

"electronically adjust said first account and said third account in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction between said first party and said second party after ensuring that said first party and/or said second party have adequate value in said first account and/or said third account, respectively."

In short, the claim addresses a computerized system of third party escrow. Despite the lengthy rhetoric and an impressive array of technical jargon, the patents involved point to an abstract idea, which is nothing more than 7 lines of BASIC code. If one account has enough money to transfer to another, then  the transfer happens, and "inadequate value" is returned otherwise. Simple.

10 LET account1 = 200.00
20 LET account3 = 300.00
30 INPUT “Value to exchange for transaction”; exchange
40 IF account1 < exchange THEN PRINT “Inadequate value”: STOP
50 account1 = account1 – exchange
60 account3 = account3 + exchange
70 PRINT “Instruction to 1st institution: adjust 2nd account by ”; -exchange

An abstract trade concept, used throughout history, was patented because obviousness wasn't properly detected. Amidst the complicated technical jargon and lengthy text, 7 lines of code were able to slip through. In the future, I think we'll be seeing more abstract ideas being patented, under the guise of being sophisticated technical concepts. For this reason, we should be vigilant of skillful lawyers who write dangerous patents and keep our patent workers and regulations updated on this kind of problem.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank-international/

http://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/a-patent-on-seven-simple-lines-of-code

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5APIZLCrKy8

Google, Samsung strike patent cross-licensing deal - CNET

Google and Samsung filed a 10-year agreement for cross-licensing patents, in an attempt to benefit both parties through cooperation. This is in stark contrast to the prevailing mentality of the mobile patent war, in which corporations seek to slow each other down through litigation. Google and Samsung's cooperation marks a new and positive step for intellectual property, in which patents are enforced and respected without slowing down technological progress.

An underlying question, though, is whether Google and Samsung have an ulterior motive. Because they're both major corporations in the mobile device space, their collaboration/alliance could be bad news for competitors like Apple.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57617807-94/google-samsung-strike-patent-cross-licensing-deal/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7l3Obj3Wvk

Qualcomm buys major mobile patent portfolio from HP, including Palm patents - gigaom.com

This week's post is about an article on gigaom.com, that addresses Qualcomm's purchase of HP's patent portfolio, which includes both issued and pending patents. The benefit for HP was that their $1.2 billion purchase of Palm was somewhat justified by Qualcomm's purchase of relevant patents. For Qualcomm, the newly acquired patent portfolio is an opportunity to assert themselves in the world of mobile devices, which calls into question whether Qualcomm will use HP's patents to attack other companies.

The way I see it, Qualcomm made the right move, whether they plan to use HP's patents offensively or not. By possessing the patent portfolio, Qualcomm has a better defensive position. Also, considering that every patent is an intellectual monopoly, Qualcomm is in a better position.

http://gigaom.com/2014/01/23/qualcomm-buys-major-mobile-patent-portfolio-including-palm-patents/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr5hJFA81bs