Getting around a software patent

[sunama]

Hi,

I wish to ask questions regarding software patents.


Lets say someone patents a piece of software that performs 2 functions:
function 1; and
function 2.

Now lets say that I come along, write out a piece of software that performs function1 and function2. And I make this software available for free download, worldwide.

What can the patent holder, legally do to me?
At what point can the patent holder legally, take me to the cleaners?
What if I charged money for users to download this software?

Is there any way around this problem, eg. what if I add a new function, function3, to the software...what then?


Thanks

 

[sunama]

As far as I know the patent would be for how it performs the function rather that the function it performs.

OK. Lets say a programmer make Program1, which performs a certain function. The maker patents this.

Another programmer creates program2, which can do everything the older/other program could and more.

How on Earth would the patent holder of program1 take the programmer of program2, to court, bearing in mind that in order to prove that the patent has been infringed would require the source code of program2 to be handed over? And subsequently, it would take months or years for the source code to be made sense of, for the patent holder to prove that program2 works in exactly the same way as program1.

This would be a mindfield, yet I've heard that quite a few companies have been taken to court over patent infringement.

 

[sunama]

... with software it's the methodolgy you patent, not the result.

Hence why we have thousands of different web browsers, dvd burning apps etc.

Thats would make of sense.

But this leads me to say, what if I took someone's program. Looked up the patent (with all concept diagrams for their idea), studied them, and made a program which gave similar results, using exactly the same concept.

I then modified that concept, very slightly. Would this be enough to show that the concept used in my program was sufficiently different to the original, such that the patent has not been infringed?

Also, why dont other companies make internet browsers? Right now it seems that there are only a few around, which makes no sense to me. I thought maybe MS patented the idea of a web browser and few companies are willing to pay MS to use the idea of a web browser.

 

[sunama]

Stop there.

Read the link I provided, you can't "patent" a program as such because a patent is for an invention.

But just writing a computer program to do something will not get it a patent.

Would this stand true in the US also? The US loves a good lawsuit.

 

[sunama]

So, if:
program1 takes input1 and gives output1. program1 is patented.
program2, released at a later date, takes input1 and gives output1 (as well), however, uses a different process/algorithm/method.

Could the patent holders of program1 sue me, bearing in mind that although the final output was identical, but the process used by the 2 programs is actually different?

 

[sunama]

Good example, I'll try and give one back.

If Patent Holders 1 had a piece of software which showed a picture of a calculator and allowed you to add number together to give a result.

IF you came along and wrote something similar, but the way you got the result was in a method of, I dunno, say multiplying first number by 10, then adding the second number which was multiplied by 10, then dividing the result by 10 (y'know what I'm getting at), then I doubt you'd have a problem.

Well thats a relief. Otherwise, even bothering to write/produce/manufacture a piece of software for sale to the public would be almost pointless, given that you may end up losing everything in a potential court case, should some patent holder crawl out of the woodwork.

If patent Holders 1 had a piece of software hardcoded into a physical device that performed the same calculations, and you invented something similar but a different algorhithm, then you may have problems.

Now this one is a strange one.

We have loads of calculators on the market, from different manufacturers. I assume that at some point the calculator was patented...if so, surely any manufacturer wishing to manufacture a calculator would need to pay royalties to the original patent holder...surely?

Also, how long do software patents last for?

With regards to the 1 click:
What if I had a web page, with a 2 click ordering system, ie. the page requires you to press the same button twice (ie. 1 double click) - would this infringe on the patent held by amazon?

 

[sunama]

No, but it might infringe on the one held by others. Doesn't iTunes use something like that?

LOL. OK

What if we did a 3 click system, ie. triple click?

Also, what about the conventional system of checking out of an online store, eg. type in name, address, select type of postage, then click confirm...etc

Why hasnt that been patented, ie. the idea of using a checkout, in the above way, on a web page?

If you can patent the 1 click system, surely you can patent the conventional system, too?

 

[sunama]

Duff-man. I'm not sure about other countries, you can definitely patent software in the US and in the UK. Furthermore, people have been successfully sued. Ask search engine comes to mind.

Others:
http://searchengineland.com/microsoft-google-sued-over-paid-search-patent-infringement-13409

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...tent+sued&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&lr=lang_en

http://www.out-law.com/page-4599

http://www.pagetrafficblog.com/google-msn-yahoo-sued-over-competitive-bidding-patent/2907/

 

[sunama]

Basically, you're patenting a process rather than software.

I think that was the key point that I needed clarification on.
Earlier posts have also stated the same as you.

With regards to Amazon, who has the patent now? How did they lose the patent?

 

[sunama]

I'm very much opposed to software patents as in a very fast moving industry they stifle, rather than foster, innovation. Very few are also novel or difficult to come up with; if we must have software patents, I think the bar should be set very much higher than it currently is.

Same here. Its just another way to for big corporations to prevent others from developing a technology.

It certainly stifles development as very few big commercial want to develop a technology and take it forward, if they feel that it may infringe on some exisiting patent. Only the small-time one-man-band programmer would risk it, but as his resources are limited, the project would probably die a natural death.