14 replies to this topic

[i82much]

Hi all,

First post here, former C++ programmer so I am posting here, mods please move to the appropriate location if you don't think this is the place for it, thanks. Also, I put this on a few other forums, so if you read other forums, apologize for the duplication.

Long story made short - I have MS Comp Sci, wrote C++ professionally for 3 years, now have my JD and working as a patent lawyer doing software patents. Been about 4 years since I wrote code professionally.

I was a happier guy when I was a coder. I really like moving the ball forward, getting stuff to work, and I'm pretty good at it. The reason I'm posting is that I've got some ideas about how to integrate my programming background and patent lawyer expertise, but I wanted to bounce this off some more experienced developers.

Basically, my idea is to get a gig as a developer, and patent some of the technologies I work on. One way to do this would be to freelance as a developer, and whenever we (customer and I) have a good-faith believe that there is something "new" and worth patenting, to draft and file a patent application as part of the service I provide. I would normally expect to assign the patent application to the customer.

Do you think the patent application brings enough "added value" to my programming services to be a worthwhile differentiator from other developers?

Also - I think the ideal arrangement would be to hook up with one or more experienced developers and work together. There's a lot to be learned from folks who have been doing this for a long time, and I certainly recognize the value of working with such folks. For those of you with small businesses or freelancers, would you be interested in bringing on someone with such a background? Perhaps more importantly, what could I do to make myself more attractive as a guy who wants to get back into writing software, but still use my patent/legal skills?

Ultimately I want to write code and patent applications for a small company that is looking to be acquired, and do everything in my power to increase the value of that company for a possible acquisition, or at least help the company get taken seriously by VC's/other investors by obtaining some protection on the technology.

Is this a viable approach?

Thanks - I appreciate your input a great deal. If it all goes for nothing and I just go back to writing code, I'm actually quite ok with that - it's more fun than lawyering, and let's face it ... engineers are smarter than lawyers anyway, right :)

[WingedPanther]

Well, given that I think software patents are a silly idea, I have issues with the business plan to start with. I think writing software to assist lawyers could be VERY profitable, however.

[dargueta]

You do realize that there's a difference between patenting and copyrighting, correct? Copyrighting your work makes sense and is a good idea; but patenting? I'd agree with WingedPanther there. Too difficult to enforce, and kinda stifles the rest of us.

[runchman]

I think it would be a stretch. The reason I say this, is because I've spent years working in the cell phone industry where filing patents is pushed *very* heavily. As in, the company pays you $xx amount just for filing, then more if it's accepted, etc. In that time though, I seldom saw software patents being filed. I just don't think there's that much new in s/w for significant patents to coming out.

I could be totally wet, but it just doesn't seem it would be a worthwhile differentiator to most customers.

What about brainstorming what causes lawyers pain, and figure out how you could write s/w to alleviate that pain?

Best of luck in any case,

John

-------------------------
Welcome to Teach Me C | Teach-Me-C.com

[Guest]

Please don't patent your software. It is a very bad idea, and it's something I really hate.
Here are some reasons why software patents are a bad idea.

[i82much]

Thanks for the input, folks. Software patents are definitely obtainable and enforceable, that's what I do for a living.

I suppose you won't be surprised to hear that I don't have a problem with software patents. My view is that if I conceive of a technological improvement, I should be able to protect it. Copyrights only go so far. A copyright cannot stop a large company from reverse-engineering my software, writing new source code, and putting me out of business. A patent can.

I think the real problem folks have w/software patents is that obtaining them is so expensive - the legal fees can get very high. That's why I think I could bring some value as a developer, because I can do all of that work myself. The government fees aren't really that bad, maybe $1-3k when all is said and done. The legal fees can run up to 50k or so.

The expense is why it is mostly big companies that have a lot of patents, so they tend to get a bad name. But for a small company that has a great idea, getting that one software patent, even if it costs $50k, can be a huge difference-maker and enable them to compete with the big boys.

I understand my view may be in the minority, and I respect your viewpoint if you disagree. I'd be glad to hear anyone's thoughts on the matter, regardless of your position.

[WingedPanther]

No, the problem I have with software patents is they tend to be granted for silly/obvious things like parsing XML data, or using a single mouse-click to purchase an item. At this point, I'm kind of surprised there isn't a patent floating around for "a method to store information in a file in an easily accessible way" that then gets used to sue Oracle, Microsoft, and every other producer of database software.

[i82much]

I understand, and agree. Patents on trivial technology can also be problematic.

What about genuine technological advances? Let's say Inventor A conceives of a new sorting algorithm, GreatSort, that is 3x faster than any other known sorting algorithm. Inventor A own a small software company, and is selling several different products that use GreatSort. His competitor, BigCo, is a much larger company with established products in the marketplace, but Inventor A's GreatSort applications are starting to really pick up some steam.

Let's also suppose Inventor A obtained copyrights on the code for each of the applications, but has no patent protection. BigCo reverse engineers the code to see how the apps run so quickly, figures out the GreatSort algorithm, and updates their product line accordingly by writing new source code that doesn't violate the copyrights. Inventor A's customers start going back to BigCo's products because they are more established in the marketplace, and are now just as good as Inventor A's products.

Should Inventor A be allowed to obtain a patent and stop BigCo from ripping off his technology? Or should he just send his resume to BigCo and accept that he can't outcompete them without a way to protect his invention?

[Guest]

Microsoft has this in their EULA:

Quote

4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

Any attempts to reverse engineer a product with this in the license agreement would allow Microsoft to sue you.

[i82much]

Ok, assume instead an engineer in China reverse engineers the product and publishes the algorithm. Then BigCo implements the algorithm after reviewing the publication.

[WingedPanther]

Here's the real problem, as I see it. Any programming algorithm is ultimately a mathematical formula. You're patenting a math formula. That's just stupid.

[i82much]

Well, you're not really patenting a math formula. What you are patenting is the device that implements the formula - a computer programmed to implement the algorithm.

Anyway, Inventor A has no real protection without a patent. I guess he can just go to work for BigCo. I'm not convinced that's the best approach. I'd like guys like Inventor A to be able to protect their innovations. At the same time, I'd prefer companies who haven't really innovated anything to be denied patents on trivial technologies.

In my view, the solution is not as simple as categorically denying patents that protect software. I think we'd all be better off if there higher standards for obtaining a patent, but I don't think denying protection to an inventor just because they have a software invention is the best answer.