Getting around a software patent

sunama

sunama

sunama

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
15,861
Location
NW London
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
 
As far as I know the patent would be for how it performs the function rather that the function it performs. As long as your method is different I believe you would be fine.
 
We have a few patents on our software.

If someone wishes to use it, we have no problem, however we do charge an initial fee (and they have to adhere to some strict guidelines, it is after all our name and reputation), and we generally require a small commision against each sale.

Other than that, providing it's not reverse engineered, modified and we are given credit, we are fine about it.
 
I'm pretty sure Apopcalyptic has it right, with software it's the methodolgy you patent, not the result.

Hence why we have thousands of different web browsers, dvd burning apps etc.
 
Apopcalyptic said:
As far as I know the patent would be for how it performs the function rather that the function it performs.
Click to expand...

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 said:
OK. Lets say a programmer make Program1, which performs a certain function. The maker patents this..
Click to expand...

Stop there.

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

If the program is part an parcel of a piece of hardware then a patent 'may' be granted.

But just writing a computer program to do something will not get it a patent.
 
Spunkey said:
... with software it's the methodolgy you patent, not the result.

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

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.
 
~J~ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Would this stand true in the US also? The US loves a good lawsuit.
 
With patents you aren't expected to re-invent the wheel, but you do need to acknowledge if you've used patented items to get there.

If you've knowingly used someone else's work then at the very least you should contact them asking if this is ok, even if out of common courtesy.
 
sunama said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are a number of other browsers around. The reason there aren't more has nothing to do with patents and everything to do with the fact that the existing browsers are free. That makes it rather hard to make money out of creating a new one.
 
sunama said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that it's because most companies don't see there being sufficient return for any investment made in developing their own browser.
 
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
sunama said:
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?
Click to expand...

It depends. It isn't the code that matters (that is covered by copyright) it is the method. The easiest example is Amazon's "One Click" ordering system. They have a patent on one click ordering so no one else can do that unless they pay royalties to Amazon. It doesn't matter if the code in the background is completely different if you click once to order something then you are infringing the Software patent.
 
RDM said:
It depends. It isn't the code that matters (that is covered by copyright) it is the method. The easiest example is "One Click" ordering system. They have a patent on one click ordering so no one else can do that unless they pay royalties to. It doesn't matter if the code in the background is completely different if you click once to order something then you are infringing the Software patent.
Click to expand...
Stupid though. Wish I'd thought of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom