From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/trivial-patent.html | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 293 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/trivial-patent.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/trivial-patent.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/trivial-patent.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/trivial-patent.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5fab4b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/trivial-patent.html @@ -0,0 +1,293 @@ + + + +The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent - GNU project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent

+ +

by Richard Stallman

+ +

Programmers are well aware that many of the existing software patents +cover laughably obvious ideas. Yet the patent system's defenders often +argue that these ideas are nontrivial, obvious only in hindsight. And +it is surprisingly difficult to defeat them in debate. Why is that?

+ +

One reason is that any idea can be made to look complex when +analyzed to death. Another reason is that these trivial ideas often look +quite complex as described in the patents themselves. The patent +system's defenders can point to the complex description and say, +“How can anything this complex be obvious?”

+ +

I will use an example to show you how. Here's claim number one +from US patent number 5,963,916, applied for in October 1996:

+ +
+

1. A method for enabling a remote user to preview a portion of a +pre-recorded music product from a network web site containing +pre-selected portions of different pre-recorded music products, using +a computer, a computer display and a telecommunications link between +the remote user's computer and the network web site, the method +comprising the steps of:

+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ +

That sure looks like a complex system, right? Surely it took a real +clever guy to think of this? No, but it took cleverness to make it seem +so complex. Let's analyze where the complexity comes from:

+ +
+

1. A method for enabling a remote user to preview a portion of a +pre-recorded music product from a network web site containing +pre-selected portions

+
+ +

That states the principal part of their idea. They put selections +from certain pieces of music on a server so a user can listen to +them.

+ +
+

of different pre-recorded music products,

+
+ +

This emphasizes their server stores selections from more than one +piece of music.

+ +

It is a basic principle of computer science that if a computer can do +a thing once, it can do that thing many times, on different data each +time. Many patents pretend that applying this principle to a specific +case makes an “invention”.

+ +
+

using a computer, a computer display and a telecommunications +link between the remote user's computer and the network web +site,

+
+ +

This says they are using a server on a network.

+ +
+

the method comprising the steps of:

+

a) using the remote user's computer to establish a telecommunications link to the network web site

+
+ +

This says that the user connects to the server over the network. +(That's the way one uses a server.)

+ +
+

wherein the network web site comprises (i) a central host server +coupled to a communications network

+
+ +

This informs us that the server is on the net. (That is typical of +servers.)

+ +
+

for retrieving and transmitting the pre-selected portion of the +pre-recorded music product upon request by a remote user

+
+ +

This repeats the general idea stated in the first two lines.

+ +
+

and (ii) a central storage device for storing pre-selected +portions of a plurality of different pre-recorded music +products;

+
+ +

They have decided to put a hard disk (or equivalent) in their +computer and store the music samples on that. Ever since around 1980, +this has been the normal way to store anything on a computer for rapid +access.

+ +

Note how they emphasize once again the fact that they can store +more than one selection on this disk. Of course, every file system +will let you store more than one file.

+ +
+

b) transmitting user identification data from the remote +user's computer to the central host server thereby allowing the +central host server to identify and track the user's progress through +the network web site;

+
+ +

This says that they keep track of who you are and what you +access—a common (though nasty) thing for web servers to do. I +believe it was common already in 1996.

+ +
+

c) choosing at least one pre-selected portion of the +pre-recorded music products from the central host server;

+
+ +

In other words, the user clicks to say which link to follow. That +is typical for web servers; if they had found another way to do it, +that might have been an invention.

+ +
+

d) receiving the chosen pre-selected portion of the +pre-recorded products; and

+
+ +

When you follow a link, your browser reads the contents. This is +typical behavior for a web browser.

+ +
+

e) interactively previewing the received chosen pre-selected +portion of the pre-recorded music product.

+
+ +

This says that your browser plays the music for you. (That is what +many browsers do, when you follow a link to an audio file.)

+ +

Now you see how they padded this claim to make it into a complex +idea: they combined their own idea (stated in two lines of text) with +important aspects of what computers, networks, web servers, and web +browsers do. This adds up to the so-called invention +for which they received the patent.

+ +

This example is typical of software patents. Even the occasional +patent whose idea is nontrivial has the same sort of added +complication.

+ +

Now look at a subsequent claim:

+ +
+

3. The method of claim 1 wherein the central memory device +comprises a plurality of compact disc-read only memory +(CD-ROMs).

+
+ +

What they are saying here is, “Even if you don't think that +claim 1 is really an invention, using CD-ROMs to store the data makes +it an invention for sure. An average system designer would never have +thought of storing data on a CD.”

+ +

Now look at the next claim:

+ +
+

4. The method of claim 1 wherein the central memory device +comprises a RAID array drive.

+
+ +

A RAID array is a group of disks set up to work like one big disk, +with the special feature that, even if one of the disks in the array +has a failure and stops working, all the data are still available on +the other disks in the group. Such arrays have been commercially +available since long before 1996, and are a standard way of storing +data for high availability. But these brilliant inventors have +patented the use of a RAID array for this particular purpose.

+ +

Trivial as it is, this patent would not necessarily be found +legally invalid if there is a lawsuit about it. Not only the US +Patent Office but the courts as well tend to apply a very low standard +when judging whether a patent is “unobvious”. This patent +might pass muster, according to them.

+ +

What's more, the courts are reluctant to overrule the Patent +Office, so there is a better chance of getting a patent overturned if +you can show a court prior art that the Patent Office did not +consider. If the courts are willing to entertain a higher standard in +judging unobviousness, it helps to save the prior art for them. Thus, +the proposals to “make the system work better” by +providing the Patent Office with a better database of prior art could +instead make things worse.

+ +

It is very hard to make a patent system behave reasonably; it is a +complex bureaucracy and tends to follow its structural imperatives +regardless of what it is “supposed” to do. The only +practical way to get rid of the many obvious patents on software +features and business practices is to get rid of all patents in those +fields. Fortunately, that would be no loss: the unobvious patents in +the software field do no good either. What software patents do is put +software developers and users under threat.

+ +

The patent system is supposed, intended, to promote progress, and those who +benefit from software patents ask us to believe without question that they do +have that effect. But programmers' experience shows otherwise. New theoretical +analysis shows that this is no paradox. (See researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf +on web.archive.org.) There is no reason why society should expose software +developers and users to the danger of software patents.

+ + + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3