Pharmaceutical patents are sort of the poster child for Why Patents Are Good For Us. Here the patent system IS effective at encouraging investment:
Some specific drugs:
cancer monoclonal-antibody drugs
These protein compoundss are antibodies that are highly specific to a certain substrate; they have very narrow targets. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cancer_chemotherapy:
None of these drugs would exist in the US marketplace if it were not for pharmaceutical patents.
On the other hand, the US Food and Drug Administration, which
regulates new drugs, is arguably a massive government intrusion into
the free market. Why shouldn't patent law intrude as well? However, not
all drug development costs are related to the FDA approval process.
Another, broader, way to look at this is that industrialized
societies allegedly cannot compete unless they can provide some
protection for "intellectual property": inventions, software, and
creative works. Unless the inventors/creators can recoup their development costs, development will not continue.
In 1984, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. This allowed generic drug makers to use a patented drug in their own
FDA application, so that approval would be in place as soon as the
original patent expired (normally after 20 years). However, it also
gave pharmaceutical developers a chance at a patent extension for up to five extra years, subject to the following:
Basically, if a country is too poor to afford to treat all its
citizens with a new drug, many may die. This has definitely been the
case with some HIV drugs. As a result, the Third World has long argued
that it should be exempt from pharmaceutical patents.
In the mid-1990's, the WTO basically agreed, and allowed (I'm not
sure of the exact terms) third-world countries to manufacture generic
equivalents of first-world drugs for use within their own borders only.
The manufacturing must be for the government's own use (eg in
distributing to its people; the manufacturing can't be a for-profit
initiative of a private company in that country). Also, a good-faith
attempt must have been made first to negotiate for a reduced-rate
license to manufacture the drug, and such profits as are made must be
given to the patent holder. In practice, large US pharmaceutical
companies often enter into vastly-reduced-price licensing arrangements
with third-world companies.
In 2005, the WTO relaxed this rule to allow poorer nations to import generics that would otherwise be covered by a patent. This is sometimes described as a "compulsory license". The manufacturer would not be prosecuted.
This is perhaps the foremost third-world patent issue.
A classic "broad" patent is the Wright brothers patent on "wing-warping" to control flight (to the Wrights, the wings were the "aero-planes", planing the air, the rest of it was the "flying machine"). The Wright brothers actually twisted the whole biplane structure -- using cables -- to bank in a turn. This later led to the development by others of ailerons, which achieve the same effect but which mechanically are entirely different. A court ruled the Wright patent still applied: what mattered was the concept of adjusting wing angles to tilt the craft.
This is a classic "broad patent" for a major new innovation. The
courts have traditionally recognized "broad" patents, but somehow in
software this distinction is often lost.
History of software patents
For a long time, software was held to be unpatentable,
as mathematical algorithms are unpatentable. Any fundamental mathematical or physical laws are unpatentable.
1972: Gottschalk v Benson (wikipedia): can't patent a mathematical algorithm (in this case a number-format-conversion algorithm)
1973: ATT somehow manages to patent the setuid bit, claiming it's
hardware. This patent was dedicated to the public domain in 1979. This
patent is certainly a deep idea: if a certain bit is set in the
filesystem information node for a file (not in the file itself), then
when the file is executed,
it runs with the privileges of its owner and not the user. Before then
(and after; see what Windows does), there were complex ad-hoc methods
for running selected programs with elevated (or alternative) privileges.
1981: Diamond v Diehr: computer + machine IS patentable. For a
long time after, software patents always described the software in
combination with some hardware device. This patent dealt with the
curing of rubber, using a computer to guide the process.
Diamond v Diehr: SCOTUS says that an invention isn't automatically unpatentable just because it contains an algorithm But PTO & lower courts read in the converse: algorithms are patentable
Note that the current business-world baseline thus rests on USPTO policy and lower-court case law, NOT congress or SCOTUS.
Problem of "non-obviousness" the rules state that it's not enough to prove it's obvious today. Uh oh. That becomes an extremely difficult burden.
To be patentable, an invention must be "novel". Novelty is usually challenged by the presentation of "prior art":
did someone else discover it first? Often there are arguments about this.
If prior art is published,
it can invalidate a patent. However, if it was used privately, those
users can continue to use their idea without paying royalties to the
owner of the patent, but the patent may still stand. The patent can be challenged on the grounds of not being novel, but this is harder.
Broad patents for fundamental new ideas, narrow patents for improvements
compatibility issues: What if the default, standard implementation
is patented? Two cases where there was at least some movement away from a patented format:
GIF => PNG
MP3 => ogg vorbis
software patent v copyright
Supreme-court cases limit the word "process" in USC Title 35, Chapter 10, §101:
Inventions Patentable: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Here the "process" claim is so abstract and sweeping as to cover both known and unknown uses of the BCD to pure binary conversion. The end use may (1) vary from the operation of a train to verification of drivers' licenses to researching the law books for precedents and (2) be performed through any existing machinery or future-devised machinery or without any apparatus.
Applications of computer algorithms may indeed be general. In retrospect, should this be an issue?
You can look them up online. Follow uspto.gov -> patents ->
patft (uspto.gov/patft). Or go directly to the search-by-patent-number
page:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm
Here's an interesting list of some software patents, supposedly "random" though some particularly famous ones are sprinkled in:
http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/hotlist/free/licence/patents.html
Another list can be found at: http://www.textfiles.com/law/softpat.txt
xor cursor, patent 4197590 (below)
Method for dynamically viewing image elements stored in a random access
memory array
cpu Stack Pointer register, patent 3794980, to George Cogar,
1971. Supposedly, though I can't find the source, this was purchased by
DEC [?] and eventually placed in the public domain. Or not enforced
ATT setuid-bit patent, # 4,135,240, invented by Dennis Ritchie,
applied for in 1972 and later placed by AT&T in the public domain.
Using an xml document to describe the grammar of another xml document (Part of Scientigo's patent suite on xml)
British Telecom patent on the hyperlink, files 1976, granted 1989.
Patent number 4,873,662. In 2000 they attempted to sue a large number
of websites. The
patent itself apparently refers to a system in which multiple remote
users can access "blocks" of data on a central computer.
Altavista patents on "web searching". Altavista did have several
such patents on basic web "crawling". Most were predated by the
"archie" archive-searcher for ftp sites, developed by Alan Emtage in
1989. Altavista was purchased by CMGI, which some claim is a patent troll.
RSA encryption: patent 4405829
RSA uses standard high-precision arithmetic in its calculations; the underlying number theory has been well-known for centuries. The patent was for the APPLICATION of these standard methods to encryption. That application was certainly novel.
The RSA patents finally expired, after much controversy. Part of
that controversy was self-induced; the patent owner at one point appeared to grant a general license for noncommercial use, but then backed away from that.
Compton 1989 patent on multimedia, despite Apple Hypercard in ~1987.
Steir's patent 5,060,171 on artificially adding hair to a person's image [Garfinkel article]
Eolas v Microsoft:
About a way for running "applets" in a browser window. See below.
NTP v RIM: the blackberry patent
mp3: lots of development went into this
Lempel-Ziv / LZW compression, patents 4464650 [?], 4558302
This is the compression scheme in GIF file formats. The gif format was
developed by CompuServe in 1987. A year later, they noticed that the
algorithm was patented, and that the patent was currently held by
Unisys. Allegedly, Unisys told Compuserve at that time that they would
not need to pay royalties.
In 1999, Unisys demanded that some noncommercial websites pay a
$5000 fee for hosting files in the gif format (an interesting strategy,
given that the sites were not themselves rendering the images). Some
commercial sites
were asked for even more. It's not clear whether anyone paid it; most
affected sites rapidly switched to .jpeg or .png. Some observers were
especially offended by the fact that Unisys allowed the use of the GIF
format as a free standard until it became well-established, and then demanded fees.
There's some question as to whether this was the only or even the
dominant reason for the shift to PNG format; the latter does offer more
features (especially alpha and gamma) than GIF, and is a lossless
format unlike JPEG.
Natural-order recalculation in spreadsheets:
More below.
Rene K. Pardo and Remy Landau filed for a patent in 1971: U.S. Patent 4,398,249. This was an important case in allowing software patents (initially their request was denied as an "algorithm")
Spreadsheets were a brilliant idea (Dan Bricklin, VisiCalc?), but not order of recalculation.
MS has tried to patent FAT disk format. Their request was turned down.
A few compatibility issues where a patented file format (or file-creation algorithm) has led to a new non-patented standard:
GIF => PNG
MP3 => ogg vorbis
PTO (Patent & Trademark Office) problems:
ignorance is no defense: "submarine" patents
The entire process is secret: you can be making good-faith effort
to be noninfringing and get hit with a huge verdict.
Infringement is considered willful if you had advance notice of infringing. Your belief that the patent was invalid is NOT a defense. Damages automatically triple.
Three groups of stakeholders:
Where do we fit in?
How large corporations manage:
small inventors:
Open source: voip
Legal advantage of small inventor: somewhat diminished with rise in legal fees & increased ambiguity
But small inventors can still sell to patent-holding companies.
Legal situation of large corporations:
Eolas v Microsoft
Patent 5838906: Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external
application providing interaction and display of embedded objects
within a hypermedia document, filed in 1994.
The alleged invention is about a way for running "applets" in a browser window.
Is this really an "invention" at all?
Back in 1992, browsers just displayed images and static text.
However, it was clear by then that applications could display content in
windows created and "owned" by other applications; for example, MS Word could at that time display an Excel subwindow.
What was not foreseen was that browsers would become universal viewers of just about everything.
Microsoft v Eolas (+ Univ of California, as part of UCSF):
MS lost this case in 2004; was ordered to pay $521 million.
They then won the right to a new trial, but settled in 2007 before the beginning of the new trial.
Patent covers
Patent filed 1994, granted 1998, USPTO review 2004, upheld 2005
See http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/software-patents/hypermedia.html
"Viola" prior art: may or may not be relevant: see http://www.viola.org
The Viola browser project was found by the district court to have been "abandoned", but the circuit court found that Viola version 1.0 was "abandoned" only in the sense that it was replaced with version 2.0.
Part of the technical issue was about the meaning of the term "executable application". The court allegedly gave this broad meaning. Microsoft claimed it only meant "standalone applications".
Eolas started by Michael Doyle, faculty member of UCSF.
UC Berkeley is apparently the owner of the patent.
Doyle certainly had some early ideas, that came before Java applets.
Had the Eolas patent been more aggressively enforced, it would have been a huge impediment to the world-wide web.
2007: MS has claim they invented it; this loses in Sept,
but Eolas & MS settle in August
October 2009: Eolas has launched a major lawsuit against just about everyone: press release. The list of defendants includes lots of sites that use web-embedded objects: amazon, apple, eBay, and youtube.
View 1: Eolas developed some early web-embedding technology, and got really lucky
View 2: Eolas patented Microsoft's 1990 Object Linking and Embedding idea, and got a 20-year license to fleece us
View 3: Eolas may control a "critical" piece of the web standards.
Exhibit A: Amazon "one-click" patent, # 5960411, granted 1999.
Twenty-three days later, Amazon got an injunction against Barnes &
Noble, and eventually won their case. BN had to stop using their
"ExpressLane" shopping method.
The essential feature of the 1-click patent appears to be that you
don't have to go through the usual multi-screen checkout process; you
can just click "send me this stuff the usual way", and it will remember
all your previous entries.
Paul Barton-Davis, one of Amazon's founding programmers, called the 1-Click patent "a cynical and ungrateful use of an extremely obvious
technology" [emphasis added]. By "ungrateful", Barton-Davis apparently
meant that Amazon had benefitted enormously from public-domain software
ideas.
Other examples:
Several more-mundane patents on online shopping carts
IBM[?]'s patent on suggesting new purchases based on past ones
Things MAY be reined in by the recent Bilski case.
Alcatel-Lucent v Microsoft: Alcatel-Lucent won $1,500 million in infringement suit about mp3 decoders Feb 22, 2007
MS countersued for other patents
The judge eventually set aside the damages, and the appellate court agreed.
Aug 6, 2007: MS won new trial
MS is now suing A-L for other patents.
check out mp3licensing.com (Thompson) Royalty Rates: basic mp3 decoder: $0.75/unit
mp3 was published in 1991. Will all US mp3 patents expire in 2011? Original holder: Thompson Consumer Electronics & Fraunhofer Institute. These still hold the "core" mp3 patents.
MP3 Patent claimants:
The mp3 compression algorithm is admittedly a deep idea. Part of it involves the use of wave decomposition to store the information more efficiently; part of it involves "psychoacoustics" to identify parts of a sound file that are "unhearable" and so can be deleted.
Note that patents are for the use of an idea in a specific context:
Patent problems:
submarine patents: you don't hear about them until too late!
prior art: hard to find, hard to document, trivial ideas
were never written down!
This problem, at least, will go away with the passage of time.
non-obviousness: difficult to contest many ideas go into one program! Technology evolves extremely rapidly Violates settled expectations (important part of law!) What's patented seems to be more a matter of chance than anything else.
ignorance is no defense: "submarine" patents entire process is secret: you can be making good-faith effort to be noninfringing and get hit with a huge verdict.
wilful: you had advance notice of infringing. Your belief that the patent was invalid may NOT be a defense, although it has been accepted as a defense in some cases. Damages automatically triple.
Is software legitimately a special case? Or is it just that there are lots of small-time whiners in software who want to profit from the work of others without paying?
software issues:
Who are the stakeholders in software patents?
Are we stakeholders? Compare pharmaceuticals.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2005/pulpit_20050818_000863.html: "Do you feel helped by patent reform?"
If the Eolas patent had succeeded earlier in the game, Firefox might
never have been started, and then Internet Explorer would still likely
lack tabs, plug-ins, and other core features.
WHY does the situation seem so different from pharmaceuticals?
Three groups:
small inventors:
market your invention yourself??
sell to a holding company
These are tricky places.
They produce nothing, they interfere with progress,
but they do produce a market for new patents.
Open source voip mp3 to date, some patent holders have announced that no action will be taken against open-source decoders.
Note that the established-company-versus-established-company defense of a "patent bank" is useless here.
Company A participates in creation of a standard; they suggest solution S for a particular issue. After the standard is widely adopted, company A announces that they have patented S, and that they will license it for a significant fee.
N-Data patent on ethernet speed autonegotiation:
Barriers to entry
Patent Trolls: companies that have no assets but patent claims, and don't attempt to produce anything but simply collect. Is this bad? Or are such companies just creating a market for small inventors to sell their inventions?
The open-source community is a STRONG proponent of eliminating software patents.
Is the open-source community entitled to:
Is the open-source community entitled to the asterisk phone switch?
Does MS intend to destroy or hobble or marginalize linux through patents?
It is very well documented that the patent process has a very NEGATIVE impact on open-source development, and on generally accepted software adoption.
So if the purpose of software patents is to aid technological process,
and it doesn't do that, are software patents a good idea?
What happens if the software in question is made available through a
site in Europe, which (as of now) doesn't have strong software-patent
laws? Should the site warn visitors from the US?
Is this at all like thepiratebay.org?
Patents: are the right ideas being patented? Or are patents being granted to trolls for peripheral ideas?