Anything Under the Sun Made by Man

Techlawyer has an excellent article entitled TechLawyer: open source v. proprietary — is there a winner?

This is a thoughtful ramble through the various quandries of the Open Source Software model verses the Proprietary Software model, emphasizing many problems of OSS and offering several solutions.

You have to appreciate anyone who spent several years trudging through the hallowed halls of dear old RPI, even if he doesn’t have a shift key on his keyboard.

My personal experience in industry leads me to believe that intellectual property, and patents in particular, are widely misunderstood if they are understood at all.

The engineers tend to know that patents are a great achievement that go on the resume, but cannot articulate which ideas are patentable, especially with regard to what is not obvious and unique. Often, the gifted engineer might think that his elegant solution to a complex problem is ‘obvious’ after he created it, but he does not realize what a breakthrough it truly is.

The business managers, and even some of them assigned to the patent review committees, sometimes do not fully appreciate the business uses for patents. Because they don’t know how to use them, they cannot identify or classify an innovative idea. I witnessed several of my own inventions go down the drain by untrained and uninformed patent reviewers who didn’t know what to make of the ideas.

As part of my practice, I spend a great deal of time educating my clients so that they can make good business decisions and identify and describe the best inventions to protect their business.

Debunking the Software Patent Myths is an excellent, painstakingly detailed paper discussing several ways that software patents encourage commercialization and innovation.

One of the more interesting passages discusses the difference between the Marxist doctrines of no property rights (advocated by those trying to strip software patent owners of their rights) and Capitalistic system of protecting property rights, including IP.

A posting on Groklaw says:

I was hoping they would appeal, but no doubt they are thinking of the bottom line, not the big picture, and that is exactly the problem with patents on software. No one can afford to lose a patent lawsuit, so everything is slowly shutting down.

This underscores the point that patents are a business tool, created for a business purpose and wielded with business sense.

Some practitioners file provisional patent applications that are skimpy in order to get a filing date for a client. I have often wondered if this borders on malpractice.

In an example where a skimpy provisional application is filed and a full non-provisional application is filed a year later, there are two filing dates: one for the skimpy material and one for the rest of the information, which is a year later. If the provisional is filed in order to beat a statutory bar date (e.g., one year from public use or disclosure in the US or before divulgation in Europe), the information in the subsequent non-provisional application would be outside the bar date and could thereby invalidate the patent.