Patents
Volume Number: 9
Issue Number: 8
Column Tag: State of the Industry
Patent Stupidity
A horrific story about patents
By Eric Shapiro, Ann Arbor, Michigan
I was minding my own business one afternoon and who should call me but one of
my publishers. “I received a letter today,” he began, “from a company that claims
that your software violates one of their patents.”
I chuckled at first, until I realized that April 1st was an entire month away. The
tone in his voice indicated that this wasn’t a scheme to lower my royalties either.
“That’s impossible,” I said, “my software doesn’t really do much of anything.”
Fifteen minutes and one fax later, I wasn’t laughing anymore. I received a copy of
a very legal sounding cover letter claiming patent infringement along with a 10 page
copy of the patent itself. As I read the patent, I was dumfounded that anyone could
patent something this ridiculously obvious. The more I re searched the issue, however,
I discovered that this is the norm and not the exception in the United States patent
system.
First let me describe my software. It’s a control panel called VideoBeep™ that
lets users assign QuickTime™ movies to various system events such as inserting a disk
or emptying the trash. It’s not particularly original or useful, but can be a lot of fun
since it’s bundled with several disks full of clips from the movie Star Wars®.
The patent, #5012334, is entitled Video image bank for storing and retrieving
video image sequences. The patent holder, Tektronix Inc., insists that their patent
applies to our product. They claim to have invented the very system for storing
indexes to video media on computers. Their cover letter states:
“Claims 1 and 5 [of the patent] apply to the use, in conjunction with other
products, of a video disk (or CD-ROMs or floppy disks) to hold an indexed library of
video image sequences. Claims 9, 11, and 12 apply to the use of key words to index,
classify, and access video image sequences.”
This states, as far as I can tell, that all use of video in conjunction with
computers falls under the domain of their patent! In short, we should thank them for
inventing the entire multimedia industry and pay them royalties.
I talked to several people familiar with patents and here’s what they said:
1) The Patent Office doesn’t know very much about computers, so they tend to
approve even the most simplistic patents and then let the courts decide which
ones should stand.
2) The patent office is often more concerned that the complicated paperwork is filled
out properly than with the originality of the request.
3) A patent search is done before a patent is issued, but a search through books and
magazines is generally not made, as it takes too long. This means that a lot of
patents are granted for things that aren’t original.
4) Companies holding patents like to attack small companies first, knowing that a
smaller company is unlikely to win a court battle. Once the case has been won,
legal precedence has been established and future court cases against larger
companies are more likely to end in their favor.
5) A court case will generally cost at least $30,000 in legal fees and possibly as
much as $1 million! Many companies settle out of court for this reason or sign
cross-licensing agreements.
The problem with the current system is that companies can patent ridiculous and
obvious “inventions,” and then force another company to prove that the patent
shouldn’t stand. In short, we programmers must prove our innocence rather than
having them prove our guilt!
It may be several years before this issue is resolved, as in the Microsoft/Apple
battle. The court system is slow and Congress has been remiss for a decade in not
updating patent and copyright law to apply properly to computers and software. The
immediate problem, however, is that a bureaucrat with little understanding of
computers is right now approving patents that may affect your next software product.