Ben Slade

The authors argue that license fees, regulations and patents are now so misused that they drive up the cost of creation and slow down the rate of diffusion of new ideas. Levine explains, "Most patents are not acquired by innovators hoping to protect their innovations from competitors in order to get a short term edge over the rest of the market. Most patents are obtained by large corporations who have built portfolios of patents for defense purposes, to prevent other people from suing them over patent violations."

Boldrin and Levine promote a drastic reform of the patent system in their book. They propose the law should be restored to match the intent of the U.S. Constitution which states: Congress may "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writing and discoveries."

According to IEEE's Spectrum magazine, "from now on, you can get a U.S. patent only on a mousetrap—not on the idea of catching mice".

On 30 October 2008, the much-maligned “business method” patent died at the hand of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the very court that had given birth to it a decade earlier. The occasion was the case of In re Bilski, and although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to utter the last word, the overwhelming likelihood is that you will no longer be able to patent the newest way of making a buck. If you want to protect new modes of shopping, delivering legal services, reserving a rest room on an airplane, or settling futures contracts, don’t ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for help.

An actual "business method" patent on the concept of using a laser pointer to play with a cat:

..participating in the patent system is not optional. Independent invention is not a defense to patent infringement, and large software companies now hold so many patents that it is almost impossible to create useful software without infringing some of them. Therefore, the only means of self-defense is to stockpile patents to use as bargaining chips in litigation. Vonage didn’t do that, and it’s now paying a very high price.

From InformationWeek (02/20/06), by Eric Chabrow:

The U.S. patent system needs serious reforms in both the system itself and the quality of patents. Many ongoing tech-related patent infringement lawsuits serve as testimony to the patent system's shortcomings, specifically its inability to keep pace with IT advancements.

The foundation for this lamentable state of affairs was set down over the past 20 years as the courts bolstered the rights of patent holders while simultaneously loosening the standards for granting patents. There was a 73 percent increase in U.S. patent applications between 1995 and 2005, and software patents now account for roughly 10 percent of all issued patents, according to Internet Patent News Service editor Gregory Aharonian.

A two part article (see part 1 and part 2) from the IEEE magazine Spectrum:

The first article focuses on how the U.S. patent system attempts to draw a dividing line between patentable machines and unpatentable mathematics—and why the system is failing.

The second article discusses the economic and legal impact of software patents and a proposed solution.

From Salon.com:

What do you get when you design a condom that men want to use? Sued. Inside the twisted patent battle over prophylactics.

Oct. 24, 2005 | In a courtroom in New Jersey, lawyers are arguing about condom size.

The case is a patent-infringement suit. In the normal run of events, such cases are mind-numbingly boring. But when the product in question is a condom, and the patents at issue refer to design modifications that are supposed to increase male pleasure during the sexual act, you're not dealing with a normal legal situation. This is a case in which the technical question of how a penis is properly stimulated is of critical importance not just to the prospect of great sex but also to such momentous affairs as the fight against AIDS. Most people will likely agree: There is nothing boring about that.

From the International Herald Tribune, 10/03/05 by James Kanter.

The generation of ideas is an essential component of economic growth and competition, but experts in the governmental, academic, and corporate domains agree that this concept is under threat as ideas are redefined by governments and companies as assets that must be jealously guarded.

The free exchange of ideas is battling against software patents and other measures to control innovative concepts for profit; companies, inventors, distributors, and even entire countries are ensnared in this tug of war, which experts warn could stifle true innovation and harm competition.

By Grant Goss for

National Journal (02/26/05) Vol. 37, No. 9, P. 612; Stirland, Sarah Lai

So-called patent trolls represent a huge cost of business for deep-pocketed companies and create a chilling effect for small startups that cannot afford to defend their use of a contested technology. Patent trolls are companies who do not market any product, but earn revenue through licensing questionable patents; the term was coined by former Intel patent counsel Peter Detkin. Intel claims to receive one letter from patent holders per week threatening legal action, and has a policy of fighting such lawsuits rather than settling out of court or paying requested fees.

By Robert McMillan from IDG News Service 2/02/05

The issue of software patents was discussed by a panel of major open-source figures at the recent Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) Enterprise Linux Summit. Linux kernel project developer Linus Torvalds noted that the open-source community has long identified software patents as a problem, and said proprietary vendors are also starting to come to the same conclusion. It is estimated that 150,000 to 300,000 software patents exist in the United States, and many open-source developers regard the bulk of these patents to be trivial, arguing that software innovations are better shielded by copyright law. Lotus Development founder Mitchell Kapor partly blamed the proliferation of software patents on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's laziness in enforcing its own policies. He warned that Microsoft will eventually take action against open-source projects by launching "patent weapons of mass destruction" in the form of patent lawsuits. "Their business model no longer holds up in an era where it's clear that open-source is simply an economically superior way to produce software," Kapor said. In January, IBM released 500 of its patents to the open-source community in the hopes of encouraging IT innovation. Sun Microsystems made over 1,600 of its own patents available shortly afterwards, and OSDL CEO and panel host Stuart Cohen said more vendors are likely to follow suit.