Reed Intellectual Property

We were all waiting for Bilski and now it is hear…, but not much changed. No clear guidance, but at least innovation lives on. See the Washington Post and tech news for more info.

Amazing how much uncertainty is out there in patent law while we all wait for the Supreme Court. We have gone from State Street which seemed to allow amost everything to be patented to rumors of really restrictive interpretation that may cut out huge areas of technology in the US.

Found this excellent analysis of what may come at in this Commentary by John A. Squires and Duane R. Valz

I think most assume the machine or transformation test at least will stick around, but you never know. Seems like some see the patent system as a thing of the past and want to limit it out of existence. I, for one , wish they could reorient the system to fit more with modern technology, but think we need a system to reward the innovators. This is especially true in the technology field where information flows so freely that trade secrets just don’t suffice.

Saw this rather passionate plea against software patents ( and Microsoft ) at When will Microsoft admit the truth about software patents?.

Although I found reading the comments the more fascinating part.

First, one of the big complaints is about the time frames in the process. I think people on both sides agree the time frames don’t match the reality of the computer world. It takes 5 years to get a patent ( in which case it is obsolete ) and then you get it for 20 years ( in which case it is of little value after that ). Seems like people should get together and work on that.

Secondly, why is it that everyone has no problem with other innovative industries having patents but rail against software. Ultimately, an innovator will be more motivated to innovate if they will benefit from the innovation. I do a lot of cutting edge software development and I like the idea of personally benefiting from that effort. See Are Software Patents Evil? in my guide on software patents for a more eloquent version of this.

Seems like real problems are the technicalities of the system as applied to software and not the idea of rewarding innovation in and of itself.

The CAFC ( U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ) recently made a landmark ruling in patent law. It is thought by some to be the end of business method patents and possibly software patents. While the system is flawed, I hope it doesn’t mean the end of software patents because the reality is that a large part of innovation happens in software today, so the patent system loses a lot of its value if it excludes innovative areas.

See attached Zakta Guides for some more resources