Comments on: In re Bilski–Software Patents are Clear as Mud

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 08:23:40 +0000

From a business perspective, without patents protection, a Google with its innovations would not have had a prayer to exist as a company. Case and point, Explorer and Gecko engine = the death of Netscape. Google search PageRank would have been used freely by Yahoo and MSN without any consideration to its inventors. They would also take any other software innovation without any consideration to any inventor.

Without IP protection the only owners of innovation will be large corporations without exception.

Fighting all software patents is an innovation killer. Spending effort on advanced research and extensive engineering is worthless unless you are a giant corporation that owns a market. Any new software innovation will just assist that giant in maintaining its dominance and blocking any new comers.

By the way, if the Google (Stanford) PageRank patent is canceled, there will be no effect on Google’s business. It may protect Google against any smart innovator in a garage somewhere from ever having a chance to unseat it. That innovator/inventor cannot protect his, her or their IP and therefore Google can just take it and use it freely without consideration to the inventor, as would MSN, Yahoo and other giants.

Software patents don’t protect a Microsoft as much as it would a new Larry Page.

Thank you,

By: Mark McGuire

Mark McGuire — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:09:04 +0000

Thanks for the comments. I tend to agree with Brad that the PTO process in this area is hopelessly out of step. Case in point: we filed two biz method patents at Jellyfish that hadn’t even gotten their first examination at the PTO prior to our sale of the company to Microsoft. The current pace of business and innovation online simply can’t wait five years for a filing to make its way through the PTO. If the system is there to reward innovation, then give the innovators a tool at the start; not a mop-up right after the innovation has scaled its way up through the market.

And please don’t read my post as a complaint against patent attorneys. We all have to make a living, and you have to operate for your clients’ benefit with the system we have. I just wish it was a better system.

By: Brad in Milwaukee

Brad in Milwaukee — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:23:16 +0000

How is patent protection not a “reward” for innovation? The reward is an exclusive right to use a particular process, formulation, or product for a defined period of time. You can argue the inventor “earned” the patent, but now we quickly spiral into semantics. Regardless, the inventor has been issued a potentially extremely valuable right for coming up with something first.

Sure there are other ways to “skin a cat or click a mouse.” However, the process in which the end result is achieved can be more efficient, providing much more value. Enter process patents. I’m not an attorney, rather a simple, small business owner who understands the need for developing competitive advantages beyond price. Some method of protection is needed for those who want innovate through the internet.

In my humble opinion, the current methods and processes of the PTO are ill-equipped to handle these protection needs. Furthermore, the value/length of the exclusivity of most internet inventions exceeds the true value of the innovation itself. For example, which has more valuable…Google’s PageRank process/technology or the patent protection of Google’s process/technology? If the patent were to expire tomorrow, what’s the barrier to entry?

Something needs to be done to protect inventors in this space, but the protection should be a fair representation of the invention’s impact or innovative strength. Currently, the PTO is not designed to make these judgments.

By: step back

step back — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:39:51 +0000

“Why should they also be rewarded with close to two decades of monopoly power? ”

Firstly, it’s not a “reward”. And secondly it usually is not a grant of monopoly power. There’s more than way to skin a cat or click a mouse.

But hey, I’m biased. I’m one of those evil patent atty’s.

As for Bilski, aren’t you glad you now know what the new lay of the land is? Not knowing was more terrifying. A “particular” machine? I can live with that. How about one comprising at least 4 conductors for conducting electrical currents? That’s “particular” and doesn’t wholly preempt.