Critiques of Software Patent

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

CRITIQUES OF SOFTWARE PATENT

The contentious nature of software patents arises from their limited scope, as
they primarily encompass methods and procedures that instruct computers in
executing specific tasks, rather than providing comprehensive coverage for
whole software programs. The algorithms and approaches discussed are
regarded as viable processes that can be subjected to the patenting process.
However, the distinct amalgamation of algorithms and techniques employed by
a program is regarded as an "expression" and falls under the purview of
copyright legislation. Securing a patent for an algorithm or approach might be
likened to obtaining a patent for a musical composition and mandating artists to
get a license for its use.

One of the issues associated with software patents is the excessive granting of
patents for the mere execution of tasks, rather than new techniques for
accomplishing these tasks. In the realm of software patents, it is feasible to get a
patent for the mere act of "generating illumination" without necessitating a
particular method of execution. It is important for patent examiners to possess
the ability to differentiate between the conceptual aspects of software
implementation and the specific technical details of a given iteration.

The establishment of monopolistic market structures facilitated by patents,


while with some limitations, has the potential to foster innovation and yield
advantageous outcomes for consumers. Nevertheless, when competition is
artificially constrained, both consumers and the economy experience negative
consequences. This underscores the necessity for effective regulation and
settlement of these matters.

Ambiguity - Software patents frequently encounter issues related to ambiguity


and lack of clarity, resulting in challenges for developers and competitors in
comprehending the extent of the patent.
The presence of ambiguity in patent interpretation has been shown to result in
expensive legal conflicts, when parties engage in disputes about the meaning
and application of patents, therefore diverting resources from the pursuit of
innovation.
In 2008, James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer published a research entitled
"The Patent Litigation Explosion," which offers significant insights into the
potential consequences of software patenting, namely in terms of the resulting
lack of clarity and ambiguity across the patent system. This study highlights the
intricate nature of comprehending software patents across the legal
environment. Patent claims pertaining to software often include intricate
technical terminology and ideas, which might provide difficulties for judges and
juries in comprehending them properly. Consequently, this can exacerbate the
existing uncertainty and lack of clarity around such claims. In brief, the research
conducted by Bessen and Meurer presents empirical findings that support the
notion that the practise of software patenting can result in heightened levels of
litigation, diminished quality of patents, exorbitant legal expenses, and a
possible hindrance to innovation. These aspects work together to create a
landscape of software patents that is unclear and ambiguous, making it
challenging for both inventors and the legal system to operate efficiently. The
lack of clarity continues to be a noteworthy issue in the domain of software
patenting.

Patent trolls - sometimes referred to as non-practicing entities (NPEs), are


entities that purchase patents with the sole objective of claiming them in legal
disputes, rather than using the patents for product development or
manufacturing purposes. These entities have emerged as notable participants in
legal disputes related to software, frequently focusing on technology
corporations, including prominent ones such as Symantec and McAfee. Patent
assertion entities frequently get software patents characterised by their broad
and ambiguous definitions, including a diverse array of technologies and
applications and these entities subsequently enforce these expansive software
patents against various corporations, including prominent industry frontrunners
such as Symantec and McAfee. These demand letters often contain assertions of
patent infringement and the potential consequences of litigation. The purpose of
these letters is to intimidate and coerce targeted companies into entering
licencing agreements, even if the asserted patents are of questionable validity or
relevance to the company's products or services.
This practise, commonly referred to as patent trolling, has been a subject of
concern and debate within the legal and commercial communities. In order to
mitigate the financial burdens associated with patent litigation, several firms,
including prominent companies, choose to resolve disputes with patent trolls
through the payment of licencing fees. Patent assertion entities frequently
initiate legal proceedings in jurisdictions renowned for their propensity to issue
favourable judgements on patent matters, hence facilitating the expansion of
courts that exhibit a pro-patent stance.
In summary, patent trolls exert a substantial influence in the realm of software
litigation through their acquisition of broad software patents, assertive
enforcement against software businesses, and strategic utilisation of the
potential for expensive legal proceedings. The examination of Symantec and
McAfee, prominent entities within the sector, may be utilised as illustrative case
studies to demonstrate the influence of these practises on established
technological businesses and their attempts in innovation.

Time Taking and Costly - The process of software patenting might potentially
result in significant financial burdens and time constraints, mostly attributable
to several fundamental characteristics. The domain of software technology is
frequently characterised by its intricate nature and quick pace of advancement.
The process of preparing an extensive patent application for a software
innovation necessitates a certain set of expertise, resulting in elevated expenses
related to legal representation and professional guidance. The patent application
necessitates a comprehensive evaluation conducted by patent offices, such as
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The examination
procedure may last many years, necessitating continuous financial outlays for
legal and administrative purposes.
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) has contributed
significant insights about the financial dimensions of patent litigation inside the
United States. The findings of their research indicate that the financial burden
associated with patent litigation may be substantial, frequently surpassing the
threshold of $1 million. This diagram spans a range of expenditures accrued by
the parties engaged in a patent dispute, highlighting the significant financial
strain that litigation imposes on firms, individuals, and the wider economy.
The high costs and time delays associated with software patenting can be
attributed to several factors, including the intricate nature of software
technology, the rigorous inspection procedure, the backlog of applications at
patent offices, concerns over patent quality, and the substantial expenses
incurred during litigation. The aforementioned difficulties can pose significant
obstacles for individuals engaged in innovation, as well as for startups and
smaller businesses. Consequently, there have been demands for the reformation
of the patent system in order to enhance its accessibility and efficiency.
Areas for Reform and improvement and probable solutions

To Clear ambiguity and Lack of clarity - In order to tackle the problem of


ambiguity and lacking clarity, it is imperative to establish a more stringent
assessment framework for software patents. This can be achieved through the
hiring of specialised patent examiners possessing extensive technical
proficiency in software development. By conducting comprehensive evaluations
of patent applications, these experts would effectively enhance the quality of
assessments, thereby ensuring that only genuinely innovative and non-obvious
inventions are granted patents.

The implementation of stricter language requirements for patent claims has the
potential to mitigate the inherent ambiguity associated with software patents.
This could be achieved by promoting the inclusion of extensive and precise
technical descriptions in patent applications, thereby facilitating a clearer
comprehension of the patented technology for examiners, competitors, and the
general public.

To deal with Patent Trolls - In order to effectively tackle the problem of


patent trolls within the realm of software patenting, it is imperative to adopt a
comprehensive strategy that encompasses legal reforms, procedural alterations,
and collaborative efforts within the industry. The legislature has the potential to
implement a fee-shifting and Loser-pays clause, which would transfer the
responsibility of legal expenses to the losing party involved in patent litigation.
This measure aims to deter the filing of baseless claims.
The implementation of loser-pays rules, which necessitate that the patent troll
assumes responsibility for the legal expenses of the defendant in the event of a
lost lawsuit, would offer a pragmatic resolution. This stimulates individuals or
entities engaging in patent trolling to thoroughly evaluate the validity and
strength of their assertions.

To deal with High costs and Time delays - In order to effectively tackle the
challenges associated with the high expenses and time considerations associated
with software patenting, it is imperative to implement a comprehensive
approach that encompasses legal adjustments, procedural enhancements, and
improved methodologies. One potential option to address the issue of
efficiency and backlog in patent offices is to invest in the modernization of
infrastructure and technology. This might involve the use of advanced software
tools designed to increase the search skills of patent examiners and improve
their access to previous art. This investigation aims to devise efficient digital
workflows for patent applications, with the objective of minimising the reliance
on paperwork and manual procedures, hence mitigating time delays.
Another potential area for change might be modifying fee structures in order to
provide incentives for more effective patent prosecution and to decrease
expenses. One potential approach to accomplish this objective is by the
implementation of tiered fee systems, wherein applicants receive rewards for
submitting comprehensive and high-caliber patent applications. To foster
innovation, it is recommended to provide startups and small firms with fee
discounts or exemptions.

You might also like