UK Rejects Software Patents That Don't Actually Describe Process
from the a-decent-test dept
One of the reasons that defenders of the current patent system often give for the importance of keeping the system, is the idea that it benefits society by revealing ideas that otherwise would be kept secret. That is, indeed, one of the benefits... if those ideas wouldn't have come out otherwise and if the publication of the patent actually revealed anything about the invention in question. All too often we've seen that this second part is missing. Patents describe something extremely broad and general, so as to reveal as little as possible, but make sure as much as possible infringes on it. It seems like it would be a reasonable "test" of the validity of a patent to see if someone could use just the patent itself to replicate the invention in question. It seems like some judges in the UK agree. The Court of Appeals in England has ruled against two software patents, specifically noting that someone who knows the basic subject area should be able to replicate what's described in the patent with just the patent alone -- and these patents fail that test. In fact, the ruling said: "that the patent was missing vital details, contained wrong equations, demanded a higher level of expertise than allowed and that it relied on material external to the patent." In other words, the patent itself did not actually explain the invention it was trying to cover, but rather hinted at what it might be. With the huge awards for patent infringement going around, an increasing number of patents seem to be written the same way -- so it would be nice to see more examinations of patents that look at this particular factor and whether or not the patent actually does try to explain the invention for others to use, or simply word it broadly enough to catch random infringers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: finally
Amen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woohoo!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair test
Often this site takes the slant that true innovators are the ones who successfully get a product to market. This just simply isn't the case. Microsoft is a prime example. Many times their "innovations" are really the material of a company they purchased, then put into their packaging.
But describing a vague process or product that is not workable is definitely NOT the answer. At the very least, a patent holder should be able to produce a working model of what is covered (before the patent is issued). Then patents will protect the little guy who simply can't move from model to market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no winners really
Halliburton vs Smith was first heard in the US where the judge screwed it up very badly by finding for Halliburton. He clearly had no clue about the technical details of the case. It turns out that the "patent" in question was for an implementation of a fairly obscure torque formula used in the design of drill bits. This formula is quite standard physics and has been known to metallurgists for eons, but was written into said software enabling the rapid development of mining drills. Since Halliburton could not obtain a patent on the physics they tried to gain a competetive advantage by claiming Smith had infinged a software patent by using the same formula in their own design tools.
However (and here's the complicated bit (no pun)) - Halliburtons patent was vague, alluding only to the use of a particular formula in the domain of drill design. They did not specify the details of the formula or its utility in the patent itself but claimed that this was "implied" and that they held "supporting documentation" referred to by the patent which explained the process. Of course this documentation was not publicly available.
When the case was heard in the UK they lost. Because the patent did not actually contain enough information for a skilled practicioner in the field to reproduce the solution *from the patent alone*. In other words - claiming you have a patent on a process, but not disclosing that process in detail within the patent is not acceptable.
Halliburton appealed, Judge Jacob found against them and denied then leave to appeal again. Case closed.
This does not represent a victory against software patents.
It represents a victory against vague patents which do not ultimately promote innovation by publishing methodology. Halliburton tried to have it both ways, to hold a patent on a process but hide the details of that process.
The losers are still you, me and the rest of the industrialised world since none of us can legally try to write and sell a *better* piece of drill design software using a well understood but unpatentable physical principle. The interpretation of this as a "software" patent allows them to patent the unpatentable. Meanwhile, a simple copyrighting of the source code would have served the purpose of protecting Halliburtons R&D investment and forced Smith to write their own interpretation of the physics formulas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no winners really
Its also a nice high profile refresher course in how these things are SUPPOSED to work since the US patent office can't usually be bothered doing their jobs properly
Yey to Judge Jacob - I hope he went home to a huge brandy and fine cigars
PS it was also refreshing to see someone shove one up Halliburton being the big global planet fuckers that they are ;0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a stupid question...
Kudos to the UK for this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a stupid question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yay!
now if only they could implement this at the patent application stage....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patentability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patentability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is
Apparently, the enablement defense never was seriously pressed in the U.S. suit over this patent.
You are correct, it's a good rule, and software patent applications that are conceptual and not enabling should be tossed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]