[A2k] "Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (Gibus): Re: US Federal Circuit to Consider Software Patentability

"Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (Gibus)" gibus at april.org
Sun Oct 28 05:49:32 PDT 2012


Le 27/10/2012 14:56, Erik Josefsson a écrit :
> Top me it seems Google is now promoting a completely schizophrenic
> policy on internal visavis external "Peer-to-Patent" practices.
> 
> Boldrin and Levine says in "The Case Against Patents" paper here
> published by the Research Division Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis:
> 
>     "More to the point, companies typically instruct their engineers
>     developing products to avoid studying existing patents so as to be
>     spared subsequent claims of willful infringement, which raises the
>     possibility of having to pay triple damages. Based on sworn
>     testimony by Google's chief of Android development in Oracle vs.
>     Google (see for example Niccolai [2012]) the engineers that
>     developed Android were unaware of Apple (or other) patents, and so
>     were unlikely to have been helped by them."
>     http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf
> 
> So Google asks its engineers not to read patents while they encourage
> volunteers to both read patents *and* to give a way the money they can
> make from selling prior art knowledge they find? And this in
> collaboration with the USPTO?? (see
> http://wiki.piug.org/display/PIUG/USPTO+Launches+Prior+Art+Crowdsourcing+Website,+AskPatents.com)
> 
> That is, if anything, patently absurd.
> 
> Btw, how much would this particular prior art knowledge be worth? David
> Martin (M-CAM) breaks the news in a Bloomberg interview that Apple's
> "rubber-banding patent" is invalid:
> 
>     *US Patent Office Rules Apple Patent Is Not Valid
>     *http://www.bloomberg.com/video/us-patent-office-rules-apple-patent-is-not-valid-w0nKRxCkRwGB33N29prROA.html
> 
> 
> (it's even invalidated by one of Apple's own patents...)
> 
> So far I have received some encouraging emails off list. Thanks!
> 
> But peer-to-patentists are still silent.

Sorry, I'm not a "peer-to-patentist", but let me answer clearly:

Peer-to-patent is a very bad idea. The goal is abolition of software
patents. We know software patent are bad and detrimental to software
innovation.

Software patents have been granted/legitimated by patent
offices/specialized patent courts, both in US and in Europe. Activists
who voluntary engage/promote peer-to-patent are just doing the job for
patent offices/specialized patent courts.

Moreover they are just doing the wrong job: invalidating software
patents because of non-novelty/obviousness, while the problem is a
(non-)patentable subject matter issue.

It can be understood that big firms like Google promote peer-to-patent
researches by volunteers: the latter help Google invalidating patents
that are attacking Google. It also can be understood that big firms like
Google ask their engineer to not look at patents: this prevent Google
from being charged with treble damages of willful patent infringement.

But it cannot be understood that voluntary activists engage/promote in
peer-to-patent research. Not only this distracts from the overall goal
to abolish software patent, but it also helps and gives some
justifications to the software patent system.

I've detailed on
<https://www.unitary-patent.eu/content/how-thermonuclear-patent-war-would-explode-europe-unitary-patent>
why opposing to "rubber-banding" patent by searching prior art is a bad
solution.

-- 
Gérald Sédrati-Dinet
http://www.unitary-patent.eu/      http://www.april.org/
http://www.brevet-unitaire.eu/     http://laquadrature.net/




More information about the A2k mailing list