DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Failure by Stephen Redd, English 101

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Failure by Stephen Redd, English 101 Patent Failure By Stephen Redd, English 101 In the spring of 2012, the Samsung Galaxy S3 Few argue that the existing software patent became one of the most eagerly anticipated system is a healthy one, but deep controversies smartphone releases ever. Expected to ship in over how to improve the situation remain. One the summer of 2012, continuous parades of T.V. camp argues for the elimination of software commercials, geek bloggers, and YouTube patents on the premise that they do more harm reviewers foretold the imminent arrival of the than good, while another argues for reforms to new king of smartphones. Three months and 18 restore sanity and continue to encourage healthy million units later, the Samsung Galaxy S3 software innovation. Until the matter is settled, it bested Apple’s iPhone 4s to become the most is likely that costly and abusive patent popular smartphone on the planet (“Strategy infringement cases will continue to plague the Analytics”). Prior to release software industry. though, Apple Computer Corporation attempted to garrote Patents have a long Samsung and ensure the history and are a complex premature death of the topic comprised of law, prophesized king of smartphones. judicial precedent, and international treaty. Apple’s attack against According to the Oxford Samsung alleged that the phone’s English Dictionary Online, software was composed of ideas a patent is “a license from a to which Apple held the patents. government conferring for a The problem for many is that set period the sole right to these patents, and the inventions make, use, or sell some claimed thereby, seem outright process or invention; a right absurd. As an example, Apple conferred in this way.” Put patent 305 claims that Apple concisely, a patent is a invented the idea of rounding the government-approved corners of square icons (Smith). monopoly. Apple is far from the only Article I of the U.S. company to litigate seemingly Constitution obliges the inane software patents. In 1999, government to grant patents Amazon.com won the infamous by proclaiming they one-click case, preventing rival “promote the Progress of Barnesandnobel.com from selling Science and useful Arts, by books through their web site via a Figure 1 Apple phone/Wikimedia Commons securing for limited Times single click payment method to Authors and Inventors (Hansell). In 1994, E-Data Corp. attempted to the exclusive Right to their respective Writings claim ownership over the entire World Wide and Discoveries” (Sec. 8, Cl. 8). The Patent Act Web through a patent granted six years prior to of 1790 placed the initial burden for patent the invention of the Web (“Everlasting oversight onto the shoulders of the Secretary of Software” 1455). Thousands of similar cases War, Secretary of State, and the Attorney over the years feature one company bludgeoning General. By 1836, the task had grown so another with incremental, trivial, or obvious onerous as to prompt the establishment of an software patent claims. official Office of Patents. Since then, numerous ELF 2013 (Vol. 5) 3 additional restructurings culminated in today’s without the need for specific physical U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the rules characteristics or outcomes (Nieh 303). by which it operates (“A Brief History”). Software patents have always been a The issue of what should be patentable, and contentious subject, raising many concerns for how long, has always been thorny; however, across the industry. Is software an invention the justification for patents is rather simple. deserving of patent protections, or does the Invention is time consuming and risky. An nature of software render it ineligible? Are inventor may labor for years only to fail, or a patents a useful means of incentivizing software rival inventor may beat him to market. Patents innovation? Does the industry benefit from encourage inventors to brave such risks by patents, or has patent litigation resulted in more guaranteeing a limited monopoly over successful damage than good? These issues are growing in inventions, during which time inventors can importance every year, but definitive answers recoup their costs and earn a profit (Bessen and remain elusive. Maskin 2). Since inventions are of immense public value, patents also ensure public Opponents of software patents have long disclosure, thus preventing advanced knowledge contended that the nature of software makes a from following jealous inventors to their graves poor subject for patent protection. Traditional (Nieh 307-308). patents include a “functional claim” describing what result to be achieved, as well as a “method Traditional patents operate under complex claim” detailing how the invention achieves that rules, but patent applications must fully describe result (“Everlasting Software” 1457-1460). In the intended functionality, as well as the means reviewing patent claims, the Federal Circuit by which the functionality is achieved. For decides validity based on the claims made in the physical devices, this amounts to a detailed filing. Concentrating on the functional claim of description of the idea, as well as the physical the invention’s achievement comprises the characteristics of the device implementing the “written description requirement” doctrine, idea (“Everlasting Software” 1457). The Patent where a focus on the method claim is Act of 1952 codified the modern requirements of “enablement doctrine” (Merges 1648-1652). a valid patent under U.S. Law. It established a list of the specific categories of invention For patent disputes, both functional and considered patentable and formalized the method claims play a role. With physical requirements that the invention be novel, non- devices, enablement doctrine has been obvious, and useful (35 USC 101, 2007). dominant; the result being that infringement cases are decided by the merits of the method The 1952 Patent Act does not explicitly name claim. This is important because the method software as patentable. In 1981, the Supreme claim of physical patents specifies numerous Court ruled on the case of Diamond v. Diehr, physical characteristics and behaviors. A concluding that software does fall under the subsequent invention, having a similar statutory label of a “process.” This early case functional claim to the first, can avoid infringing centered on software as a mere component in a by achieving the same result in a different way; larger invention with physical results, the both having the same functional claim but molding of rubber. While the case made differing in the method by which the function is software patentable, it did so only in a narrow accomplished. This allows new, and hopefully set of circumstances. Software patents as we better, versions of prior inventions to develop, know them today only became possible in 1998 without infringing prior patents (“Everlasting when the Federal Circuit Court ruled in the case Software” 1457-1458). of State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group. This case set the modern precedent With software, incremental innovation under which software became fully patentable without infringing prior patents becomes troublesome. Software has no physical ELF 2013 (Vol. 5) 4 characteristics, and so the functional claim is software. Patents also require that the functional essentially the entire claim. Any method claim claim be novel, and non-obvious. If all software in a software patent tends to be highly generic is an incremental advance over previous and vague. This has resulted in the Federal developments, then it follows that all software is Circuit largely abandoning enablement doctrine an obvious invention, lacks novelty, and is in favor of written description requirement when therefore not patentable (Nieh 319-320). deciding infringement cases for software patents. Since As interesting as the software patents are claimed patentability arguments may by functionality alone, they be, the 1998 State Street encompass a much wider decision by the Federal Circuit range of invention than is temporarily settled the matter typical for physical patents. by proclaiming that software Software will always infringe is patentable under current if it achieves similar law. The discussion over the functionality regardless of how last decade has shifted from that functionality may be whether software can be physically implemented patented, to whether it should (“Everlasting Software” 1464- be. Today’s critics ask 1466). The functional basis for whether software patents do software patents also results in spur innovation, encourage a broader scope of claims than new entrants to the market, for physical patents. This often and protect R&D investments allows software patents to (Merges 1628-1629). apply to seemingly unrelated software inventions, even ones As with general the original inventor could not patentability, the arguments have anticipated (“Everlasting around the usefulness of Software” 1459-1460). software patents also rest largely on an examination of Proponents of software the nature of software. In an patents acknowledge the M.I.T. working paper, James unusual breadth of software Figure 2 Samsung Phone/Wikimedia Commons Bessen and Eric Maskin patents and the abuse that explain that software sometimes follows, but assert that the broad innovation is not just incremental, but also scope is simply a by-product of necessarily complimentary in nature: generic and vague method claims. Simple reforms could narrow the scope by either This is because these are industries in which returning to a balanced version of enablement innovation is both sequential and doctrine, or through modification to the complementary. By “sequential,” we mean application process that narrow the scope of that each successive invention builds on the functional claims (Merges 1654-1657). preceding one—in the way that Windows built on DOS. And by “complementary,” we mean that each potential innovator takes a Opponents of software patents hypothesize somewhat different research line and that overly broad claims are the unavoidable thereby enhances the overall probability that result of an inherent incompatibility between a particular goal is reached within a given software and the patent system.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Is Software Still Patentable?
    Is Software Still Patentable? The last four years have posed significant hurdles to software patents; nevertheless they continue to be filed and allowed. By James J. DeCarlo and George Zalepa | August 20, 2018 | The Recorder Over the past four years, decisions by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, as interpreted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, have had a dramatic effect on software-related inventions. These decisions have focused primarily on what comprises patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether a patent’s specification adequately supports the claims. While uncertainty still exists, recent court decisions, coupled with sound prosecution strategies, can be used to bolster a practitioner’s arguments before the USPTO and courts. In Alice v. CLS Bank (2014), the Supreme Court applied the now familiar “two-part test” first laid out in Mayo v. Prometheus (2012). Under this test, a claim is first analyzed to determine if it is “directed to” an abstract idea. If so, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether it recites “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea or just “routine and conventional” elements. This test was (and is) routinely applied to software claims, and the pendulum of patentability for software inventions post-Alice swung firmly towards ineligibility. Nearly all decisions by the Federal Circuit in the immediate aftermath of Alice found claims ineligible. Similarly, the USPTO’s allowance rate in software-related art units plummeted, and many allowed but not yet issued applications were withdrawn by the USPTO. While many cases are representative of this period, the decision in Electric Power Group v.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology Giants in Patent Wars: Competition, Litigations and Innovation
    1 Technology giants in patent wars: competition, litigations and innovation Heli Koski (ETLA/Aalto University) & Juha Luukkonen (ETLA) 26.4.2017 Building Expertise for Innovation -conference 2 Background • Patent wars involve aggressive intellectual property disputes and patent litigations. • Substantial costs for parties involved in them: In 2012, average cost of U.S. patent litigation for cases with over $25 million at stake was close to $6 million per party through trial, and even higher for those cases with retrials or appeals (The American Intellectual Property Law Association) • Damage to those found liable for patent infringement may be massive, examples: - Median damages awarded for U.S. patent holders in telecom industry 1995 – 2012: over $50 million - In 2012, Samsung was ordered to pay over $1 billion to Apple for its patent infringements (e.g., Iphone physical design, functions) 3 Background • Large technology companies (e.g., Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) have been in the spotlight. - Criticized for their massive investments in patent infringement lawsuits and accumulation of patent portfolios to secure patents for litigation. - Also envisioned envisioned as the major originators of patent wars filing lawsuits against each other. • Underlying forces of patent portfolio races and via what channels patent wars contribute to firm’s accumulation of patent portfolios lack empirical evidence. 4 Research questions • How large technology companies respond to i) patent wars involving firm directly, ii) patent wars not involving firms directly but emerging in their geographical market area, iii) higher fragmentation of patent ownership? • To what extent each of these elements contributes to a) patent portfolio races b) quality of their patented inventions? 5 Conceptual framework • Patent races (game-theoretic models): firms compete to be the first inventors of certain technology.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M
    THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M. Rice† Billionaire entrepreneur Naveen Jain wrote that “[s]uccess doesn’t necessarily come from breakthrough innovation but from flawless execution. A great strategy alone won’t win a game or a battle; the win comes from basic blocking and tackling.”1 Companies with innovative ideas must execute patent strategies effectively to navigate the current patent landscape. But in order to develop a defensive strategy, practitioners must appreciate the development of the defensive patent playbook. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”2 Congress attempts to promote technological progress by granting patent rights to inventors. Under the utilitarian theory of patent law, patent rights create economic incentives for inventors by providing exclusivity in exchange for public disclosure of technology.3 The exclusive right to make, use, import, and sell a technology incentivizes innovation by enabling inventors to recoup the costs of development and secure profits in the market.4 Despite the conventional theory, in the 1980s and early 1990s, numerous technology companies viewed patents as unnecessary and chose not to file for patents.5 In 1990, Microsoft had seven utility patents.6 Cisco © 2015 James M. Rice. † J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. 1. Naveen Jain, 10 Secrets of Becoming a Successful Entrepreneur, INC. (Aug. 13, 2012), http://www.inc.com/naveen-jain/10-secrets-of-becoming-a-successful- entrepreneur.html.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Patent Wars on Firm Strategy: Evidence from the Global Smartphone Industry
    Organization Science Articles in Advance, pp. 1–20 ISSN 1047-7039 (print) ISSN 1526-5455 (online) https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1092 © 2016 INFORMS The Impact of Patent Wars on Firm Strategy: Evidence from the Global Smartphone Industry Yongwook Paik Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, [email protected] Feng Zhu Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163, [email protected] trategy scholars have documented in various empirical settings that firms seek and leverage stronger institutions to Smitigate hazards and gain competitive advantage. In this paper, we argue that such “institution-seeking” behavior may not be confined to the pursuit of strong institutions: firms may also seek weak institutions to mitigate hazards. Using panel data from the global smartphone industry and recent patent wars among key industry rivals, we examine how smartphone vendors that are not directly involved in patent litigation strategically respond to increased litigation risks in this industry. We find that as patent wars intensify, smartphone vendors not involved in any litigation focus more of their business in markets with weaker intellectual property (IP) protection because of institutional arbitrage opportunities. This strategic response is more pronounced for vendors whose stocks of patents are small and whose home markets have weak-IP systems. Our study is the first to examine the relationship between heterogeneity in national patent systems and firms’ global strategies. It provides a more balanced view of firms’ institution-seeking behavior by documenting how they make strategic use of weaker institutions. Keywords: patent wars; patent litigation; intellectual property (IP) enforcement; patent thicket; smartphone; platform-based markets; platform competition History: Published online in Articles in Advance November 21, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Strict Territoriality Toll the End of Software Patents?
    NOTES DOES STRICT TERRITORIALITY TOLL THE END OF SOFTWARE PATENTS? James Ernstmeyer* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1267 I. UNITED STATES PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SOFTWARE ........................................................................ 1269 A. Defining Software ...................................................................... 1269 B. Copyright Protection for Software ............................................ 1270 C. Patent Protection for Software .................................................. 1272 D. The Backlash Against Intellectual Property Rights in Software ..................................................................................... 1274 E. In re Bilski Turns Back the Clock .............................................. 1278 II. UNITED STATES SOFTWARE PATENTS IN CROSS-BORDER TRADE .... 1280 A. Global Economic Stakes in United States Software Patents ..... 1280 B. Congressional Protection of Patents in Cross-Border Trade ......................................................................................... 1281 C. Extraterritoriality Concerns in Applying § 271(f) to Software Patents ........................................................................ 1283 III. DO PATENTS PROTECT SOFTWARE? – WOULD COPYRIGHTS DO BETTER? ............................................................................................ 1287 A. Effects of the Microsoft v. AT&T Loophole .............................. 1287 B. Combining
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Such Thing As a Software Patent
    There is no such thing as a software patent 1 Kim Rubin BSEE/CS 45 years technology experience 4 startups 100+ inventions Patent Agent Author Taught computer security Book shelf for patents 2 {picture of file cabinets here} 3 There is no such thing as a software patent 4 7.5 5 7.4 6 7.3 7 There is no such thing as a software patent. There is no such thing as a rubber patent. There is no such thing as a steel patent. There is no such thing as an electricity patent. 8 There is only ... a patent. 9 pro se en banc said embodiment 10 Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, ¶ 19, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d 120. v. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., iSee 21 U.S.C. § 355(a); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661, 665—666, 674 (1990). 11 Article I, Section 8 8. “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries.” 12 Article I, Section 8 8. “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries … except for software.” 13 Jefferson, Congress, SCOTUS and MPEP 3. “The Act embodied Jefferson’s philosophy that ‘ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement.’ 5 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 75-76 Washington ed. 1871).
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Art Searches in Software Patents – Issues Faced
    Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 23, November 2018, pp 243-249 Prior Art searches in Software Patents – Issues Faced Shabib Ahmed Shaikh, Alok Khode and Nishad Deshpande,† CSIR Unit for Research and Development of Information Products, Tapovan, S.No. 113 & 114, NCL Estate, Pashan Road, Pune - 411 008, Maharashtra, India Received: 15 November 2017; accepted: 24 November 2018 Prior-art-search is a critical activity carried out by intellectual property professionals. It is usually performed based on known source of literature to ascertain novelty in a said invention. Prior-art-searches are also carried out for invalidating a patent, knowing state of the art, freedom to operate studies etc. In many technological domains such as chemistry, mechanical etc., prior art search is easy as compared to domain such as software. In software domain, prior-art can prove to be a complex and tedious process relying heavily on non-patent literature which acts as a pointer to the current technological trends rather than patent documents. This paper tries to highlight the issues faced by patent professionals while performing prior-art search in the field of software patents. Keywords: Patents, Software patents, World Intellectual Property Organisation, Prior art, Search Issues A patent is a form of intellectual property. It provides The identification of the relevant prior art, comprising exclusionary rights granted by national IP office to an of existing patents and scientific or non-patent inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time literature is important as it has bearing on the quality in exchange for public disclosure of an invention.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Inc. in Response to the PTO's Request for Comments on the Partnership for Enhancement of Quality of Software-Related Patents, Docket No
    From: Suzanne Michel Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:40 PM To: SoftwareRoundtable2013 Subject: Submission of Google Inc Please find attached the submission of Google Inc. in response to the PTO's request for comments on the partnership for enhancement of quality of software-related patents, Docket No. PTO-P-2012-0052. If possible, please send an acknowledgment of receipt of the submission. Thank you very much, Suzanne Michel -- Suzanne Michel Senior Patent Counsel, Google [email protected] 202 677- | | | 5398 Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Alexandria, VA 22313 In re: ) ) Docket No. PTO-P-2012-0052 Request for Comments and Notice ) of Roundtable Events for ) Partnership for Enhancement of ) Quality of Software-Related ) Patents ) ) COMMENTS OF GOOGLE INC. Daryl L. Joseffer Suzanne Michel KING & SPALDING LLP GOOGLE INC. 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1101 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 737-0500 (650) 253-0000 Adam M. Conrad KING & SPALDING LLP 100 N Tryon Street, Suite 3900 Charlotte, NC 28202 (704) 503-2600 April 15, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 PART II: THE PTO SHOULD APPLY SECTION 112(F) TO MORE PATENTS THAT CLAIM SOFTWARE-IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS ...........................3 A. Section 112(f) Permits The Use Of Functional Claim Elements Only When The Specification Discloses Sufficient Structure To Limit The Claim To The Applicant’s Actual Invention. ...............................3 1. As A Matter Of Policy And Precedent, Patent Law Has Never Permitted Pure Functional Claiming. .......................................3 2. Congress Enacted Section 112(f) To Permit Functional Claiming Accompanied By Sufficient Disclosures.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Development and Intellectual Property
    E CDIP/13/10 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: MARCH 27, 2014 Committee on Development and Intellectual Property Thirteenth Session Geneva, May 19 to 23, 2014 PATENT-RELATED FLEXIBILITIES IN THE MULTILATERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AT THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS - PART III prepared by the Secretariat 1. In the context of the discussions on Development Agenda Recommendation 14, Member States, at the eleventh session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) held from May 13 to 17, 2013, in Geneva, requested the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to prepare a document that covers two new patent-related flexibilities. 2. The present document addresses the requested two additional patent-related flexibilities. 3. The CDIP is invited to take note of the contents of this document and its Annexes. CDIP/13/10 page 2 Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………...…….….. 3 II. THE SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY OF PLANTS..…….…….…4 A. Introduction……..……………………………………………………………………….….4 B. The international legal framework………………………………………………………. 6 C. National and Regional implementation………………………………………………… 7 a) Excluding plants from patent protection……………………………………........ 8 b) Excluding plant varieties from patent protection………………………………... 8 c) Excluding both plant and plant varieties from patent protection……...……….. 9 d) Allowing the patentability of plants and/or plant varieties……………………… 9 e) Excluding essentially biological processes for the production of plants…….. 10 III. FLEXIBILITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PATENTABILITY, OR EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY, OF SOFTWARE-RELATED INVENTIONS………………………….…….…. 12 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….….…12 B. The International legal framework………………………………………………………13 C. National implementations……………………………………………………………….. 14 a) Explicit exclusion …………………………………………………………………. 14 b) Explicit inclusion…………………………………………………………………... 16 c) No specific provision……………………………………………………………… 16 D.
    [Show full text]
  • How Electric Power Group Case Is Affecting Software Patents by Michael Kiklis (August 19, 2019)
    This article was originally published by Law360 on August 19, 2019. How Electric Power Group Case Is Affecting Software Patents By Michael Kiklis (August 19, 2019) Many commentators predicted the end of software patents after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision. Software patent practitioners therefore applauded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated in 2016’s Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. decision that “claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are [not] inherently abstract.”[1] But soon thereafter, our optimism waned when the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA found that data gathering, analysis and display is an abstract idea, thus rendering many software inventions abstract.[2] In fact, the Federal Circuit is recently applying Electric Power Group more Michael Kiklis frequently and has even expanded its use to find that “entering, transmitting, locating, compressing, storing, and displaying data”[3] and “capturing and transmitting data from one device to another” are abstract ideas.[4] Many software inventions — such as artificial intelligence systems — gather data, analyze that data and perform some operation that usually includes displaying or transmitting the result. Electric Power Group and its progeny therefore pose a serious risk to software inventions, including even the most innovative ones. Knowing how to avoid Section 101 invalidity risk from these cases is therefore critical. This article provides strategies for doing so. The Problem With Being Abstract Alice holds that if a claim is directed to an abstract idea and it does not recite an inventive concept, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Patent War on Innovation Vfinal.Pdf
    Patent Wars and Their Impact on Innovation A study on Technology and Mobile patent litigation | Peter Tatrai Technology Strategy– Wharton San Francisco Karl Ulrich December 10th, 2012 WORD COUNT: 2570 (excluding cover, table of contents) and title Table of Contents Patent Wars and Their Impact on Innovation ............................................................................................. 1 This paper answers the Question: “Has the current patent system become a barrier to innovation?” ........ 1 1. The Patent System: A Barrier to Innovation? ..................................................................................... 2 Recent development involving the Patent System .............................................................................................................. 2 The Patent War among the tech giants – The Smartphones battlefield ..................................................................... 2 Patent as weapons of attack and defense and the rise of patent trolls ....................................................................... 4 The cost of the current patent system ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Problems with the patent system ............................................................................................................ 6 The lifetime of patents is too long and does not take industrial differences or the cost of developing the patent into account ...........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Software Is Wrong
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 58 Issue 2 Article 7 2007 Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong Peter D. Junger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter D. Junger, Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong, 58 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 333 (2007) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol58/iss2/7 This Tribute is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. MANUSCRIPT* YOU CAN'T PATENT SOFTWARE: PATENTING SOFTWARE IS WRONG PeterD. Jungert INTRODUCTION Until the invention of programmable' digital computers around the time of World War II, no one had imagined-and probably no one could have imagined-that methods of solving mathematical . Editor'sNote: This article is the final known manuscript of Professor PeterJunger. We present this piece to you as a tribute to Professor Junger and for your own enjoyment. This piece was not, at the time of ProfessorJunger 's passing, submitted to any Law Review or legal journal.Accordingly, Case Western Reserve University Law Review is publishing this piece as it was last edited by Professor Junger, with the following exceptions: we have formatted the document for printing, and corrected obvious typographical errors. Footnotes have been updated to the best of our ability, but without Professor Junger's input, you may find some errors.
    [Show full text]