Anything Under the Sun Made by Man

Software that is patented and open source software both accomplish many of the same goals. The patent, however, satisfies these goals better in three ways.

Whether a patent is “obvious” is a legal definition, based on the state of the art at the time of the invention.

Remember back when the net was young and e-commerce was in its infancy. Buying something on line was a tedious task, where page after page of questions needed to be answered perfectly before a sale could be finalized. There were repeated concerns about sending credit card numbers over the internet that sent doubts in the minds of buyers, and the complexities at that time were a big impediment to e-commerce in general.

The $1 Billion damage award sought by Kodak against Sun has been hitting the newslines.

A posting by Marc Goldberg, a French venture capitalist, contains this quote: “Opponents of software patents claim that this verdict demonstrates that software patents can cause unforeseen problems and will lead to a chilling effect on technology innovation.”

A “chilling effect?” I think the exact opposite is true.

When developing a patent strategy for an emerging technology, I look at three specific layers of coverage from both the technology and business aspects of a client. The first layer is the “nuts and bolts” layer, describing the basic underpinnings of the new technology. The second layer is the “tool” layer, covering the tools required to use the technology, and the third layer is the “application” layer, detailing new uses and application of the technology.

There is much ballyhoo in this week’s announcement that a reexamination proceeding against a Microsoft patent has produced a rejection of the claims.

As a patent agent and patent owner, I have a vested interest in seeing that patents are well respected. One of the ways of “enhancing the respect for patents” is the reexamination proceeding.