Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Patents

Patent Concerns Unlikely To Nix Munich Linux Plan 244

Posted by timothy from the that-blue-sky-plucky-upstart dept.
MonkeyDev writes "Yahoo is reporting that Munich is ready to move forward with plans to 'abandon Microsoft Windows in favor of upstart rival Linux. The council is expected to take a calculated risk and vote through the move, despite concerns about possible software patent infringements in the face of coming European Union legislation that caused months of delay.' Not everyone is excited about it. A software developer at MySQL claims 'Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond to these claims?" (Florian Mueller, the MySQL developer mentioned, isn't opposed to Munich using Linux, though -- just the opposite.) Update: 09/29 02:22 GMT by T : Marten Mickos of MySQL AB writes with a correction: "Florian Müller is an independent software developer and entrepreneur. He is ALSO an advisor to MySQL AB but he does not work for the company. He is presently engaged in coordinating opposition against software patents in EU, and thereby doing all of us within free software and open source a great favour."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patent Concerns Unlikely To Nix Munich Linux Plan More

Patent Concerns Unlikely To Nix Munich Linux Plan

Comments Filter:

  • Wrong Job (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mod_critical ( 699118 ) *

    A MySQL software developer? Hmm, it would seem that it dosen't bother MySQL AB too much, so why should it bother Munich.

    Seriously, if a MySQL developer is worried about the legality of running Linux then maybe he has the wrong job ;)

    • Re:Wrong Job (Score:5, Informative)

      by bumski ( 308461 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:34PM (#10379781)
      Seriously, if a MySQL developer is worried about the legality of running Linux then maybe he has the wrong job ;)
      More like a MySQL developer worried about the promulgation of bad patent law [theinquirer.net].
  • Sheesh.

    This is not news until the vote actually occurs.

  • claims ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:28PM (#10379739)
    A software developer at MySQL claims 'Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond to these claims?"

    Hmmm, easy answer : back up your claims, show us the list.

  • Can someone explain software patents? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:29PM (#10379745) Homepage Journal
    If you ship software that has code in it that is covered by a patent what does that mean? Can the owner of the patent hit the author up for money? Can they hit the users of the code up for money? Can the author say "you, the user, are responsible for getting licenses for any patents that cover this code" and pass the buck?

    • Re:Can someone explain software patents? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evslin ( 612024 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:45PM (#10379844)
      I doubt it. The thing is ... how many lines of code go into a Linux distribution, and can you expect that the general public is gonna go through all of the source on their own and try to determine if any of it was stolen? Even if you looked through the kaleidescope long enough and tried to make it look like they were receiving stolen property, that'd be a tough mountain for the prosecution to climb if something like this went to court.

    • Re:Can someone explain software patents? (Score:5, Informative)

      by KillerCow ( 213458 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:29PM (#10380092)
      IANAL.

      If you ship software that has code in it that is covered by a patent what does that mean?

      Patents cover the manufacture, sale, and use of an item.

      Can the owner of the patent hit the author up for money?

      Yes, the author manufactured and sold it without a license to the patent. This is what patents mainly protect. What will be more likely that the patent holder will get an injunction saying that the author can no longer sell his product, and then seek damages.

      Can they hit the users of the code up for money?

      Yes, the user used it without a license. See cases involving geneticaly modified seeds.

      Can the author say "you, the user, are responsible for getting licenses for any patents that cover this code" and pass the buck?

      Yes and no. If they the author doesn't have permision to grant further licenses for use of the patent, then the users must get one themselves from the patent holder. But the author needs a license to produce and sell the item in the first place too.

      • Re:Can someone explain software patents? (Score:4, Informative)

        by TheHonestTruth ( 759975 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:06PM (#10380299) Journal
        AFAIK, this is all accurrate, but the superset of being right. Patent claims are analyzed on a claim by claim basis. It all depends on the claim language

        For example: I patent a method of doing foo. You build an apparatus for doing foo, but you never really do foo, the customer at the end of the line practices the method. You do not infringe, the customer does. Similar scenario: I claim a system for doing foo. You sell "f" and "oo" but you do not sell "foo." Your customer buys each and assembles them into "foo." They infringe, you do not.

        This is why a lot of patents have a method claim or two and an apparatus claim and maybe a "means for". The idea is to cover all possible infringers (though you never go after the customer because they are poor). That all being said, my case law is spotty, and IANAL, but that is how the initial analysis goes down. I actually think there is a case stating the opposite of of my combination example, i.e., if you make the parts and ship them into the US, you infringer, but I can't be sure.

        -truth

        • though you never go after the customer because they are poor

          Right! But in the case of Free Software the developer is (or may be) poor. So who do these people go after?

          • The software developer and IBM/Redhat/bigLinuxVendor. Why IBM/Redhat? Deep pockets. Why name the developer just because? To scare people away. Adding another name to the Defendant list is no big deal if you're taking on Big Blue. The scare tactic is the one used by the RIAA. The RIAA is going after the little guy because the deterrent factor is much more valuable than the monetary settlement.

            -truth

            • People suing over patent infringement are usually after 2 things. 1 is money (especially if the infringer has deep pockets) and the second is to ensure that is the only one.

              For example, if a big company makes money of a piece of software covered by a software patent, its in the interests of said big company to sue a little guy who makes free software that infringes on the patent. Even if the little guy has absolutly no money, it doesnt matter. The aim of the lawsuit is to ensure that distrbution of the so

    • Well, for one, it means that you may have a harder time getting adoption of your software, especially by people with a lot to lose. Patent indemnity is a big deal for some ... entities.

      A lot of these angles are explored here:
      http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,163468 7,00.as p

  • These are US software patents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by virgil_attack ( 744501 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:30PM (#10379753) Homepage Journal
    Why would these guys in Munich be concerned with violating US software patents? Just as long as they don't become European software patents (although that doesn't look like happening).
    • Well before the Munich councillor brought the issue up, it looked very much like Euro software patents were going to be OKed. I seem to recall the Gernan government was one of the countries backing it. Probably due to SAP lobbying.

      Hopefully the decision makers are more informed now.

      • Actually, the German government was one of the few who originally took a stance against the proposed EU patent legislation. However, after a couple of (key?) changes to the proposition, they agreed with it.

        • Re:These are US software patents (Score:4, Informative)

          by BlueWonder ( 130989 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @02:44AM (#10381388)
          Actually, the German government was one of the few who originally took a stance against the proposed EU patent legislation. However, after a couple of (key?) changes to the proposition, they agreed with it.

          The German Department of Justice seems to be in favor of software patents, but at same time it carefully avoids admitting so publically. From the Department's point of view, the latter makes sense, since almost all (all but a small number of very large) companies are strongly opposed to software patents here in Germany.

          A day before the vote in the EU Counsil (May 17th, 2004), there was a protest in Berlin, and a speaker of Department of Justice told the protesters that Germany would abstain in the vote.

          On May 18th, the following "compromise" was reached. The original text of article 2b

          A technical contribution means a contribution to the state of the art in a field of technology which is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

          was changed to

          A technical contribution means a contribution to the state of the art in a field of technology which is new and not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

          (emphasis mine). That's right, the "couple of key changes" was to insert the words "new and"!

          Of course, the law already states that a patent cannot be granted if there is prior art, so the effect of the change is exactly zero. How the change is supposed to prevent software patents is honestly beyond me, but nevertheless it caused Germany to vote in favor instead of abstaining.

  • re violation of n US patents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pfriedma ( 725399 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:31PM (#10379759) Homepage
    I wish that developers would, instead of noting that such violations exist, correct them. Now... this is not always possible... for instance, I'm sure that a patent or copyright exists for "displaying multiple pages through the use of a clickable scroll bar" and undoubtedly, more than one OS has this functionality. Perhaps the issue will boil down to not whether or not parts of Linux violate copyrights but rather, whether or not said copyrights are even enforceable in the first place?
    • I think that the patent office should get some intellegent people in there and stop issuing these ridiculous patents we keep on seeing.

    • Re:re violation of n US patents (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ThogScully ( 589935 ) <neilsd@neilschelly.com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:40PM (#10379822) Homepage
      That's the point... largely, software patents don't deal with truly clever ways of accomplishing things. They deal with obvious things that are practically accepted as standard methods of doing things. They are written to prevent other projects from achieving interoperation without stepping on patents.

      If software patents only covered truly novel ideas like the patent system was initially designed to do, then no one would have a problem with them.

      I look at it like this... good patents cover the way something is accomplished and bad patents cover the accomplishment. A good patent something like a particular method of preparing a chemical that is particuarly difficult normally to prepare. A bad patent is patenting that chemical, regardless of how it's prepared, as if that chemical's existence is owed to the patent holder.

      It's hard to make up a good example of this with software, because any program you use, you're only seeing the output, but that may well be the patented methods, like a scrollbar in your example, which could be implemented many different ways of course.

      -N

      • Well, in fact many chemicals exist solely because someone created them artificially. There are many modern chemicals that do not occur in nature. For that sort of substance, the simple existence of the substance itself is often a great contribution to technological advancement.

        There are four types of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
      • I look at it like this... good patents cover the way something is accomplished and bad patents cover the accomplishment.

        Algorithms are what is used to accomplish something on computers. At least in Europe, algorithms and mathematical methods are not (yet) (officially) patentable.

        If patents would have covered things like sorting algorithms, heap and stack management, control flow structures etc., my guess is that we would not have computers today.

        • Re:Algorithms (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ThogScully ( 589935 ) <neilsd@neilschelly.com> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @05:13AM (#10381806) Homepage
          I considered adding a paragraph about algorithms being the appropriate parallel in software, but pulled it out just because of what you said here...

          I guess at that point, you'd have to also confirm it's a non-obvious method that is being patented. If someone invents a truly novel algorithm of encrypting communication that doesn't involve really big factorizations or something, that might warrant a patent. If someone develops an encryption algorithm though that just does different factorizations or longer keys than normal methods, while different, that algorithm isn't really novel.

          So essentially, I guess algorithms could potentially be patented ethically, but it would more or less be a math patent, not a software patent. And i would take a good mathemetician to identify if it was obvious or not, because I know I certainly couldn't decide...

          And even with all that, this is a gray area, which is largely why patent reform is necessary in the first place. Innovation is being hindered by these questions since some of the most innovation right now is coming out of software development.
          -N
    • Although some outside people has done the patent investigation, the developers themselves decide not to, so they really don't know what patents are they really stepping on.

      I think they are wise not to spend time investigating patents. Assuming that all the patents concerned are valid (actually many of them can probably be struck down, but at considerable cost of time and money), the situation may change from unknowningly infringement of 340 patents (57 undiscovered by that MySQL employee) to knowingly in

    • Anyone who starts talking about "copyrights" when the issue is patents isn't demonstrating any insight at all into IP issues as far as I can see. The two things a distinctly different.

      On the upside with such a blurred understanding of IP there may well be a job offer from SCO coming your way!
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • So what? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:33PM (#10379778)
    > Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond
    > to these claims?

    I just don't care.

    • Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)

      by lphuberdeau ( 774176 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:42PM (#10379832) Homepage

      Well, 238 patents isn't much if you consider the amount of stupid patents out there. You can barely cross a street without violating one. In fact, I quite glad to see it's not that much of a disaster. Now if you remove things like using an image as an icon, drag and drop of files, pressing tab to change links in a browser, memory allocation, displaying characters while you type, ... you're probably down to 2.

      • Re:So what? (Score:3, Funny)

        by taj ( 32429 )

        I agree, 183 patents isn't much if you consider the amount of stupid patents out there.

        In fact at this rate there wont be any patents to worry about.

    • The conduct of the [freedom seekers] is a threat to the authority of the [arbitrary authority], and a threat to peace. [freedom seekers] has answered a decade of [arbitrary authority] demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the [arbitrary authority] a difficult and defining moment. Are [arbitrary authority] resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the [arbitrary authority] serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

  • Upstart? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Slapdash X. Hashbang ( 315401 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:34PM (#10379784) Homepage
    when does Linux stop being an "upstart" in the popular press? It's getting on to 15 years old, and it's quite prevalent already.

  • NOT a MySQL developer (Score:5, Informative)

    by martenmickos ( 467191 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:43PM (#10379834)

    Please read the source text carefully!

    Florian Müller is NOT a MySQL developer. He is an independent software developer who ALSO is an advisor to MySQL.

    And when Florian mentiones the patents, he is only quoting another source.

    Florian Müller is engaged (successfully, I might add) in opposing the legalisation of software patents in EU. By doing this, he is doing all of us within the free software and open source world an enormous favour.

    I am afraid that many of the postings on this topic are based on erroneous input data. Hope this helps to set things straight.

    Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB

  • Worry much? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Cyco(k) ( 817420 )
    Linux has been around for 13 years, almost 14 years, and now they are just starting to worry about software patents. What is next copyright then the RIAA of Software gets into the mess. This is linux, not winux ( my new imaginary marketable overpriced OS, for point making purposes ). - Cyco(k)

  • Yeah... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Audacious ( 611811 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:54PM (#10379902) Homepage
    And how many of those 283 patents are based upon other patents which have already expired or are really not unique? (Many of the patents being issued today are only extensions of pre-existing patents which is why there are these long lists of other patents being referenced.) This is not to dump on those truly unique patents - it is to dump on those (like the usage of a laser light as a cat toy) patents which, to programmers, are so obvious as to make you sick that the Patent Office could actually issue a patent on the invention. As per this other /. article [slashdot.org] - there are a lot of people saying the Patent System is broken and needs to be fixed.

  • And How Many Patents Does MySQL Infringe? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @08:58PM (#10379920) Homepage
    > A software developer at MySQL claims 'Linux
    > violates 283 U.S. software patents.

    Linux _may_ infringe some of 283 U.S. software patents. And MySQL? Are they willing to tell us how many they may be infringing? Do they know? You can be damn sure they are infringing some.

  • linux patent violation #1: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deathcloset ( 626704 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:03PM (#10379949) Journal
    How about Math.

    Please explain to me why a computer program is not simply a gigantic math problem?

    Can it's processing not be broken down into nothing more than binary operations of a function. A formula that some determined individual may write out longhand?

    Sure, that blackboard may stretch to the moon (and be made of carbon nanotubes), but it is an equation nonetheless.

    is it not?

    I mean, it takes input values, and returns output values.

    It's just a really useful math problem.

    When did we suddenly become able to patent Mathematics?

    • Re:linux patent violation #1: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:23PM (#10380051)
      When did we suddenly become able to patent Mathematics?
      Simple; ever since business people and lawyers decided they were almighty God.
    • When did we suddenly become able to patent Mathematics?

      See the RSA algorithm. It is non-obvious, and deserving of a patent.
    • I believe there are math patents. Like the formula / equation to make those big picture made out of little pictures. Thats patented and has to be "licensed".

      I might be wrong, but thats what I read on this puzzle box for a Simpsons puzzle. Some guy from MIT had patented the formula.
    • When mathematics became profitable.
    • How about Physics?

      Please explain to me why a machine is not simply a gigantic physical reaction?

      Can its function not be broken down into nothing more than charged particles exerting force on each other? A system that some determined individual may explain in detail?

      Sure, that explanation may take longer than the lifetime of the universe, but it is a fundamental reaction, nonetheless

      Is it not?

      I mean, it takes in energy from some source, and converts that energy to work.

      It's just a really useful physic

    • Re:linux patent violation #1: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by torokun ( 148213 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:48PM (#10380530) Homepage
      If you reduce any machine or process to inputs, *a function* and outputs, you could say they're all mathematics.

      But the difference in function has meaning to us, practical meaning, as humans. Software that can reliably pinpoint tumors in medical images is not "just mathematics." It has meaning and it has social ramifications.

      You are trying to look at the issue, as many of the people here on slashdot try to do, completely objectively. That is, you are tending in the direction of trying to see the universe as it is without any subjective human categorizations. But human life and human society do not and cannot function this way.

      There are distinctions that we can make between software and mathematics. The fact that you can generalize and generalize until everything is mathematics says nothing about what the practical attributes of software are.

      In other words, you are looking at the uber-parent class's properties and methods instead of the ultimate derived class's properties and methods.

      According to this logic, you might argue that all english textual trademarks are just letters, and letters are just information which can be represented in binary, which means they are all just numbers, so there's no reason to prefer any one number over another. To paraphrase, "Since when did we get to register numbers as trademarks?" Clearly, by this point, you've lost all concept of the actual properties of various trademarks in the human environment.

      I think I'll just stop here. ;)

      • Re:linux patent violation #1: (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @01:08AM (#10381102) Homepage Journal
        Software that can reliably pinpoint tumors in medical images is not "just mathematics."

        As someone who works in the medical imaging industry, I can't argue with that. There is some amazing work being done in this field that truly deserves patents.

        But at the same time, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that all 283 of those patents in Linux are of that quality. I suspect that they're all of the "so obvious no one ever bothered to file a patent until we came along" class of patent.

      • If you reduce any machine or process to inputs, *a function* and outputs, you could say they're all mathematics.

        You cannot reduce everything to mathematics. You can approximate a lot of stuff, but not accurately describe it. The fact is that in software, we are actually living in an idealised world. As far as your software itself is concerned, you do not have to care about all those exceptions and annoying side effects from the real world (even not when your software is used to search for brain tumors

    • All logic functions are decomposable into smaller functions. However, if you look at things with that fine a microscope, then you are really just a collection of atoms. Obviosuly you're much more then atoms, and a program is much more then logic. Here's a joke Consultants tell themselves (I believe there is a version for mechanics):

      A network consultant gets an urgent call from a company manager, their network is down and they need him *NOW*. He walks into the company, looks everything over, says "hmmm

  • Don't forget the patent on swinging sideways on a swing and the patent on teh wheel...

    Keep in mind software patents are by definition of what can and cannot be patented..... invalid.

    you cannot patent abstract ideas and just what is it that you think software is... but abstraction...

    The best way to deal with this is to realize the degradation fo the value of teh patent system due to its failure to follow its own basis.

    Why don't we just say Linux violates the desires of corporations that prefer having con

  • "Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bani ( 467531 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:08PM (#10379981)
    How many patents does microsoft windows violate? How about osx? solaris? aix? hp/ux? Probably tens of thousands.

    We only know about the linux 'violations' because the code is open. I'm sure if someone were to evaluate "those other operating systems" we'd find far more -- because there is no open public oversight of their code. They operate in secret, who's the wiser if they were deliberately violating patents?

    Also, do any of "those other companies" provide indemnification to end users? No, in fact microsoft's license is almost exclusively to provide microsoft with indemnification from end users.

    Using microsoft or any other OS isn't likely any safer than using linux, when it comes to patent violations.

  • The Linux Community's Answer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:11PM (#10379990) Journal
    'Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond to these claims?'

    You pulled 283 out of your ass. Those are just the ones you know about. You know why you pulled that number out of your ass? It's impossible to review the whole patent database and screen it against the whole of Linux. Humanly impossible. 283 is a made up number. May as well say 2,830 or 283,000.

    An exact count of how many software patents are violated by Microsoft Windows, for instance, would be equally impossible - nay, more, because they keep their source code a secret; however, it is incontravertibly a similar if not higher number.

    If you try to follow the U.S. software patent system you won't even be able to power a pocket calculator without a half-million dollars for attorneys and payoffs. Yes, you think I'm exaggerating, don't you.

    That's why 100% of Americans ignore their own system. Everybody knows its ridiculous. Even SP's major proponents are afraid to use them because they fear the whole system will unravel if they test it, so all they do is occasionally shake people down, hit and run once and a while. They want to sue Linux over patents; they've been desperate to do it for years, and they're too scared of how badly it will backfire. They're probably right. So they're reduced to backdoors like SCO. And we see how well that cleverness works for them.

  • Linux and patents.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by euxneks ( 516538 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:20PM (#10380039)
    'Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents.' How does the Linux community respond to these claims?"

    Maybe it's not Linux which is what's wrong/broken. Fill in the rest.
  • I thought part of the deal with patents (at least in the US) was that the government was granted free license to any and all of them..?

  • No so fast (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deadline ( 14171 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:29PM (#10380089) Homepage
    Linux violates 283 U.S. software patents

    If some one said this to me, I would take the "Groklaw Approach". I would ask them first, what are the specific patents and second, how can he be sure that Linux violates all these patents. It would seem to me that to do a fair assessment of 283 patents would take a fair amount of time. So let's see the details.

    My guess is that his answers would consist of words like "I", "don't", and "know".

    • Re:No so fast (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BeeRockxs ( 782462 )
      You do realize that the study that said was made by OSRM, a company/foundation/whatever, who PJ, the woman that set up Groklaw works for?

  • U.S. enforces patents... (Score:3, Funny)

    by the-build-chicken ( 644253 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @10:57PM (#10380574)
    ...rest of the world innovates on linux and open source to the benefit of their economies...

    hey, that's your foot america...what are you doing with that gun??!?

  • If patents applied to law practices... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MCRocker ( 461060 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @11:43PM (#10380821) Homepage
    It's interesting to note that patents apply to all sorts of unlikely things like software and business processes, but not to legal strategies, practices or processes. It seems as if the lawyers realized how badly that would muck them up and haven't applied the patent pricipals to their own field. I guess that there's lots of money to be made from messing up everyone else's business, but not their own.

    It would be very bizarre to hear an objection to a legal argument because someone else owned the right to make arguments of they style that the motion used. Perhaps only Johny Cochraine could "play the race card" or something like that. Every other law firm might have to pay him a royalty to use the argument.

    If someone could come up with a clear demonstration showing that software patents are as sensible as legal strategy patents, then I'll bet that the supreme court would overturn the current incarnation of the patent laws in a heart beat.

    • Re:If patents applied to law practices... (Score:4, Informative)

      by dghcasp ( 459766 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:17AM (#10381973)

      Actually, business methods are patentable.

      Historically (Before 1998,) business methods were not patentable for the following reasons:

      1. Business methods are not "technical"
      2. A market monopoly might result

      However, this was questioned in State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group Inc., 49 F. 3d 1369 (Fed Cir. 1998).

      Signature was assigned a patent, "Data processing system for Hub and Spoke Financial Services Configuration," which described a computer system for asset management, where mutual funds ("Spokes") pooled their assets in an investment portfolio ("The Hub,") which was organized as a partnership to offer tax advantages and economies of scale.

      State Street had been negotiating for use of the patent. When talks broke down, they brought legal action saying that the patent was invalid.

      The lower court found for State Street, saying business methods are not patentable. The US Federal Court of Appeals overturned this decision, saying that considering business methods unpatentable was ill conceived and unsupported by the Patent Act. In other words, business methods should be treated as any other patent claim.

      Because of this ruling, business methods are now patentable as long as they can be implemented in software. This has been one of the drivers on the rush for software patents.

      Sources:

      • Duplessis et. al, Canadian Business and the Law, 2001 (background; most text adapted form there)
      • Internet search on "state street v. signature" (verification of no supreme court appeal; current impact assessment)

        Disclaimer:
        IANAL.

Slashdot Top Deals

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Close