US Patent Office Seeking 'Partnership' With Software Community, Hoping To 'Enhance Quality Of Software Patents'

from the is-that-a-want-ad? dept

Fri, Jan 4th 2013 1:48pm — Mike Masnick

In what looks sort of like a government dating ad, the US Patent Office has announced that it's seeking a "software partnership" with the software community, with the goal of "enhancing the quality of software-related patents." To translate: "please come to hear us speak, because we're kind of annoyed that basically everyone who works in software hates patents and thinks software patents are pure evil." This process is kicking off with some roundtable discussions in Silicon Valley and New York City. Unfortunately, the parameters for the roundtable seem fairly limited already:

For these initial roundtable events, this notice sets forth several topics to begin the Software Partnership discussion. The first topic relates to how to improve clarity of claim boundaries that define the scope of patent protection for claims that use functional language. The second topic requests that the public identify additional topics for future discussion by the Software Partnership. The third topic relates to a forthcoming Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications and offers an opportunity for oral presentations on the Request for Comments at the Silicon Valley and New York City roundtable events.

Those are important issues, but it shows where the USPTO is starting from, and it's not about taking a wider look at issues related to software patents, but looking for ways to patch up some of the symptoms of the larger problem. It's good that they're looking to have this discussion, but it seems like a better first step would be to really hold an open discussion first, to hear more of the concerns of software holders.

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

Filed Under: partnership, patents, software patents, uspto

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

John Fenderson (profile), 4 Jan 2013 @ 1:59pm

No faith
I have exactly zero faith that anything will come of this. The PTO has a history with software patents: from the moment that they were allowed, they have regularly asked for industry input, only to ignore it in the end. I predict more of the same.

The PTO appears to have only one goal: to increase the number of patents and increase the rate at which they are approved. I submit that a better use of their time would be to reevaluate their purpose: they should be focussed on patent quality, not quantity.

I dream of a day when approval of a patent is actually a sign that the patent is likely to be valid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2013 @ 2:08pm

'a better first step would be to really hold an open discussion first, to hear more of the concerns of software holders.'

dont be ridiculous. that would mean having someone at the patent office that had and used some sense!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2013 @ 2:27pm

As they live of the fees surrounding patents, they are not going to reduce their scope, and hence their income.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2013 @ 2:33pm

Re: No faith
I just found this gem:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/03/uspto-seeks-comment-on-software-patent-quality/id=32730/

Now go home illiterals! :)

Remember that the events are only for getting opinions and it is unlikely that it will actually get anything done. The thing we can hope for is that USPTO has gotten the ball rolling on collecting grassroots for rationalizing the system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2013 @ 2:34pm

Re: No faith
The PTO appears to have only one goal: to increase the number of patents and increase the rate at which they are approved.
Not only do they appear to have that goal, it is in their mission statement:

To foster innovation and competitiveness by:
Providing high quality and timely examination of patent and trademark applications, guiding domestic and international intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property information and education worldwide.
Not quite as bad as 1997's "To Help Our Customers Get Patents"; but let us recall that when you work from the predicate "patents == innovation", you arrive at conclusions like "more patents == good".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 4 Jan 2013 @ 2:39pm

Re:
If they had to pay everyone's costs whenever a lawsuit resulted in a patent being declared invalid thatn it might concentrate their minds a bit...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 4 Jan 2013 @ 2:53pm

Re: Re: No faith
I'd be happier if they did something about towards achieving the "high quality" portion of their mission statement. Instead, they seem to be doing the opposite of that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2013 @ 3:06pm

Re:
No, a better first step would be removing patents completely and forcing people to actually compete in the marketplace. After all, you can't have a "free market" without a market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2013 @ 3:24pm

Re: Re: No faith
guiding domestic and international intellectual property policy, and delivering intellectual property information and education worldwide.

Does that mean the whole world ends up with your broken system. Please keep your bad ideas to your own country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 4 Jan 2013 @ 3:38pm

Hows this for a partnership?
You stop getting in our way, and we will make software.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 4 Jan 2013 @ 3:46pm

Re: Re: No faith
hehe, I was reading that thing and kept seeing stuff like "the 'pro-patents' people better be ready" and such, and wondering "who is this guy? What 'pro-patents' people"?

Then I got to the bottom.. OOOh, patent attorney.. lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Webster (profile), 4 Jan 2013 @ 11:06pm

Enhance Quality?
The best way to enhance the quality of software patents? Abolish them.

A program is not an invention any more than an idea or a novel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2013 @ 8:43am

Here's an idea - software is not patentable.
Maybe they should start discussing why this is the case and how to back out of the mess that they helped create.
[ link to this | view in thread ]