From 2d97ecc2c1ac605ca49e8a866b309daaeb7a831c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: MS Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:53:45 +0200 Subject: Installing the Blog --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_23.html | 313 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 313 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_23.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_23.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_23.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_23.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1456a78 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_23.html @@ -0,0 +1,313 @@ + + + + + +

+ 23. Anatomy of a Trivial Patent +

+ + +

+ 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 is 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 com- +
+ puter 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: +

+ +
+

+ 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 re- +
+ trieving 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 stor- +
+ age 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. +

+
+ +
+

+ 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. +

+
+ +
+

+ 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. +

+
+ +
+

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

+
+ +
+

+ 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 [149]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 [150]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 + + http://researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf + + .) There is no +reason why society should expose software developers and users to the +danger of software patents. +

+ + +
+ -- cgit v1.2.3