Feb 25
My long time friend (from high school in London) Dave Coleman, has written about patents, claiming that they are useful :)
I agree that they are useful in general, but I think the key could be:
Actually, in Europe software isn
February 26th, 2005 at 6:32 am
Dion. I do think that open sourcing and patenting can go together.
If you’ve sweated blood and tears in overcoming a real difficulty to come up with a fantastic AND NOVEL product which solves a problem, then you should be able to obtain patent protection. However, it may be that certain components that you’ve used to come up with the solution have other applications and/or might well be best developed and improved through open sourcing. This may well be the case for computer implemented inventions.
The problem comes when you’re claiming an invention on which you’re claiming (or overemphasising) the novelty has come from the software/algorithms you’ve used. I don’t think that the patent offices around the world necessarily have enough patent examiners/experts that can work out whether there truly is novelty. If somehow, once the applications are published, there can be a managed and time limited forum to discuss these issues, that would be a great help. Obviously, this has to be carefully thought through – you’re competitors may try anything to claim that you’re invention isn’t novel! Any patent examiners out there, with any thoughts on this?
There are also some quirks in the US:. 1. you can claim patents on business methods; 2. you don’t have to be the first to file an application, you just need to be the first to invent (which can be very difficult/costly to prove) and 3. you have a 12 month grace period (if you’re only worried about US protection). I had to laugh when I saw Alan Green’s comments on your dream (”Those who coded, also coded)… you might have told the world, but if you can prove that you were the first to invent (and that its really novel) you can probably still go for a US only patent!!
February 26th, 2005 at 6:32 am
Dion. I do think that open sourcing and patenting can go together.
If you’ve sweated blood and tears in overcoming a real difficulty to come up with a fantastic AND NOVEL product which solves a problem, then you should be able to obtain patent protection. However, it may be that certain components that you’ve used to come up with the solution have other applications and/or might well be best developed and improved through open sourcing. This may well be the case for computer implemented inventions.
The problem comes when you’re claiming an invention on which you’re claiming (or overemphasising) the novelty has come from the software/algorithms you’ve used. I don’t think that the patent offices around the world necessarily have enough patent examiners/experts that can work out whether there truly is novelty. If somehow, once the applications are published, there can be a managed and time limited forum to discuss these issues, that would be a great help. Obviously, this has to be carefully thought through – you’re competitors may try anything to claim that you’re invention isn’t novel! Any patent examiners out there, with any thoughts on this?
There are also some quirks in the US:. 1. you can claim patents on business methods; 2. you don’t have to be the first to file an application, you just need to be the first to invent (which can be very difficult/costly to prove) and 3. you have a 12 month grace period (if you’re only worried about US protection). I had to laugh when I saw Alan Green’s comments on your dream (”Those who coded, also coded)… you might have told the world, but if you can prove that you were the first to invent (and that its really novel) you can probably still go for a US only patent!!