Difference between revisions of "Software Patents"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | The immediate urgency of the software patent issue has gone away, although as explained by Panos Alevropoulos, ''[https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/the-threat-of-software-patents-persists Battles were won, but the war is not over]''. Open source software developers still need to scrutinise licenses from the point of view of patents, and seek support of patent pools especially the [https://openinventionnetwork.com/ Open Invention Network]. If you run an open source project and you should be at least speaking with a patent pool. |
|
Patents still exist and are a threat, even when there is very nice-sounding language and grants involved. |
Patents still exist and are a threat, even when there is very nice-sounding language and grants involved. |
||
Revision as of 11:37, 21 March 2022
The immediate urgency of the software patent issue has gone away, although as explained by Panos Alevropoulos, Battles were won, but the war is not over. Open source software developers still need to scrutinise licenses from the point of view of patents, and seek support of patent pools especially the Open Invention Network. If you run an open source project and you should be at least speaking with a patent pool.
Patents still exist and are a threat, even when there is very nice-sounding language and grants involved.
As an example, even in 2022, a software developer wanting to implement a Microsoft protocol and not covered by a patent pool should still follow my Microsoft patent examination process. And for other companies and patent claim areas there are similar processes. Here is an excerpt:
- From one of the previous steps you have a list of patents that appear to be relevant to your work implementing protocols. Microsoft has patents which it claims covers protocols you think are the same or similar to protocols you have implement. Your list consists only of patents that Microsoft are claiming read on that protocol, and which Microsoft say they will enforce, noting the various complicated exceptions given in steps 1 and 2. You have considered territorial implications, and from this point on you are in a standard patent evaluation scenario.
- Get a software patent lawyer!
- A developer is not a software patent lawyer. A commercial lawyer is not a software patent lawyer, and neither is a patent lawyer.
- Your task is to compare the technical descriptions in the patent with the technical description in your code, with the technical description in the Microsoft protocol specification. Your task is to compare three things which might express the same concept in very different ways, or may just seem to.
- Good luck.
I have looked extensively into the wikipedia:MIT License since it is used in some of my software projects. I have made many contributions to the Wikipedia page since that is where the decades-old knowledge of the MIT license origins seems to accumulate. There seems to be a plausible legal theory that at least in the US, the MIT license implies a patent grant. At least, as one of the most-used licenses, there are very rich companies with an interest in defending that hypothesis should it be tested.