Thread: Can we get patents?
Hackers, I was reading LWN.net and noticed an article about Eben Moglen's keynote at linux.conf.au. Apparently he advises free software projects to get patents on their best ideas. Eben encouraged free software developers to record their novelinventions and to obtain patents on the best of them. Freelegalhelp can be made available to obtain patents on the best ideas.Until the rules of the game can be changed, we mustplay thegame, and having the right patents available may make all thedifference in defending against an attack. http://lwn.net/Articles/133421/ Eben Moglen is the FSF's attorney. I'm wondering, could the PostgreSQL Foundation (or some other entity) get patents on some parts of Postgres? Maybe ResourceOwners for example; or the newer parts of the optimizer. The patents would be freely licensed to everyone (including commercial redistributors and developers/users of competing products), except to patent litigators, or something like that. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>) "La espina, desde que nace, ya pincha" (Proverbio africano)
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hackers, > > I was reading LWN.net and noticed an article about Eben Moglen's keynote > at linux.conf.au. Apparently he advises free software projects to get > patents on their best ideas. > > Eben encouraged free software developers to record their novel > inventions and to obtain patents on the best of them. Free legal > help can be made available to obtain patents on the best ideas. > Until the rules of the game can be changed, we must play the > game, and having the right patents available may make all the > difference in defending against an attack. > > http://lwn.net/Articles/133421/ > > Eben Moglen is the FSF's attorney. > > I'm wondering, could the PostgreSQL Foundation (or some other entity) > get patents on some parts of Postgres? Maybe ResourceOwners for > example; or the newer parts of the optimizer. > > The patents would be freely licensed to everyone (including commercial > redistributors and developers/users of competing products), except to > patent litigators, or something like that. Individual developers could get their work patent'd, I would imagine ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Alvaro, > I'm wondering, could the PostgreSQL Foundation (or some other entity) > get patents on some parts of Postgres? Maybe ResourceOwners for > example; or the newer parts of the optimizer. That depends; is the SFLC offering to pay for the patent applications? Last I checked, it was somewhere around $6000 per patent. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
If the idea originates in PostgreSQL, then nobody else can patent it, because there will be pre-existing art (the PostgreSQL engine) that already demonstrated the idea. A patent must have a novel idea in it. I do not think a good thing can come from creation of software patents. Here is a link of interest: http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html Of course, it is IMO-YMMV. > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers- > owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Herrera > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:14 PM > To: Hackers > Subject: [HACKERS] Can we get patents? > > Hackers, > > I was reading LWN.net and noticed an article about Eben Moglen's keynote > at linux.conf.au. Apparently he advises free software projects to get > patents on their best ideas. > > Eben encouraged free software developers to record their novel > inventions and to obtain patents on the best of them. Free legal > help can be made available to obtain patents on the best ideas. > Until the rules of the game can be changed, we must play the > game, and having the right patents available may make all the > difference in defending against an attack. > > http://lwn.net/Articles/133421/ > > Eben Moglen is the FSF's attorney. > > I'm wondering, could the PostgreSQL Foundation (or some other entity) > get patents on some parts of Postgres? Maybe ResourceOwners for > example; or the newer parts of the optimizer. > > The patents would be freely licensed to everyone (including commercial > redistributors and developers/users of competing products), except to > patent litigators, or something like that. > > -- > Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>) > "La espina, desde que nace, ya pincha" (Proverbio africano) > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
On 5/9/05, Dann Corbit <DCorbit@connx.com> wrote: > If the idea originates in PostgreSQL, then nobody else can patent it, > because there will be pre-existing art (the PostgreSQL engine) that > already demonstrated the idea. A patent must have a novel idea in it. > > I do not think a good thing can come from creation of software patents. > > Here is a link of interest: > http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html > > Of course, it is IMO-YMMV. > But you need to probe that there is pre-existing art, and that implies a trial and costs involved. Who will do the representation? who will pay the bills? The same argument can be used (and in fact, was used) against the idea of patent software. :( -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova (DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)
> That depends; is the SFLC offering to pay for the patent applications? Last > I > checked, it was somewhere around $6000 per patent. Nolo press (www.nolo.com) sells a book on patents. Many people file their own patent applications successfully. The cost is less that $1000. David
I've talked to a friend of mine who is a patent lawyer. 1) in Europe if it is in the public domain then it cannot be patented 2) in North America you would have to patent before submitting to the project. 3) His question was why? With a bsd license you can't stop anyone from using it and nobody else can patent it since by placing it in the project you are establishing prior art. Dave David Walker wrote: >>That depends; is the SFLC offering to pay for the patent applications? Last >>I >>checked, it was somewhere around $6000 per patent. >> >> > >Nolo press (www.nolo.com) sells a book on patents. Many people file their own >patent applications successfully. The cost is less that $1000. > >David > > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > > > -- Dave Cramer http://www.postgresintl.com 519 939 0336 ICQ#14675561
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 16:57:01 -0400, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote: > > 3) His question was why? With a bsd license you can't stop anyone from > using it and nobody > else can patent it since by placing it in the project you are > establishing prior art. Nope. They can still be issued a patent and then you will have to come up with some big bucks to get it overturned. The Patent Office isn't going to go looking through the Postgres source when checking for prior art. Even if you got the method published in a journal, the Patent Office could still not see that the paper was the same technique as was being used in the patent.
Another difficulty with establishing prior art to prevent others from
obtaining patents is that different inventors and different patent
agents or attorneys use different terminology to describe the same or
similar inventions.
To use a simple mechanical example:
- Alex develops gadget that includes a "... coupling comprising two pipes aligned end-to-end with a
washerin between and a clamp that grasps both pipes ... " Alex publishes and/or patents her gadget.
- Subsequently, Beth develops a similar gadget that includes "... a link comprising a plurality of hollow
cylinders,each adjacent cylinder linked to the next by a circular gasket, the adjacent cylinders being
functionallyattached to each other ..."
Are these inventions the same? Is Beth's invention obvious in light
of Alex's? They certainly appear to be the same, but without knowing
the details of the patents and their prosecution history, there's no
way to know. If a patent examiner working on Beth's case relied on
word searches - or was just working too quickly - it is likely that
Alex's would not show up in the search or not be carefully
considered; and Beth's application might grant as a patent.
Now consider complex software patents. The same software function can
be described in a myriad of ways. It is quite possible for the first
inventor to establish prior art that SHOULD block another application
for the same or a similar invention, but nevertheless the second
application is granted as a patent.
If the second inventor tries to enforce the patent it SHOULD be
declared invalid in court; but no one wants to be accused of patent
infringement, forced to pay a fortune in legal fees, and dragged into
Federal Court just to prove a point. One advantage of the first
inventor actually patenting the invention, rather than just publishing
it, is that then at least the first inventor can threaten to counter
sue, and perhaps reach an quick settlement.
Other than increase the price of applying for a patent (again) and
hiring more and better examiners, I don't know the solution to this
problem.
Richard Tanzer