- Related Stories
-
High court wrestles with software patent questions
February 21, 2007 -
Microsoft patent case stirs software export fears
February 21, 2007 -
Supreme Court won't hear Microsoft appeal
November 27, 2006 -
Supreme Court to review Microsoft patent appeal
October 27, 2006 -
Microsoft asks Supreme Court to take case
August 7, 2001
(continued from previous page)
The software giant didn't dispute that Windows software object code, after being supplied to manufacturers and installed on computers, gave users the ability to record, store and play back speech in a way that violated AT&T's patent. Rather, the high court case centered on whether Microsoft should be forced to pay damages not only on software code installed on U.S. machines but also on foreign ones.
AT&T had argued before the justices in February that the discs are far more than a simple set of instructions. It argued that the information on the discs constitutes a critical component of the product--and that software is so easily encoded into a tangible copy that the extra step undertaken by foreign manufacturers to duplicate the master disc and then install it onto a machine should make little difference.
The majority of the justices disagreed with that logic. "The extra step is what renders the software a usable, combinable part of a computer; easy or not, the copy-producing step is essential," they wrote. "Moreover, many tools may be used easily and inexpensively."
AT&T also argued that the way the law is written provides a loophole for companies to avert patent infringement damages by arranging for copies to be made abroad from U.S.-supplied master discs. The Federal Circuit appeals court sympathized with that concern, but the Supreme Court said any perceived "loophole" would be best addressed by Congress.
Justice John Paul Stevens said he would have chosen to uphold the Federal Circuit's findings. In his dissent, he said he disagreed that abstract software code is analogous to a blueprint.
"Unlike a blueprint that merely instructs a user how to do something, software actually causes infringing conduct to occur," he wrote. "It is more like a roller that causes a player piano to produce sound than sheet music that tells a pianist what to do."
The U.S. software industry, including the open-source community, and the U.S. Department of Justice's Solicitor General had filed briefs on behalf of Microsoft in the case. They contended that a ruling against the Windows maker could expand its vulnerability in patent infringement suits compared with global rivals and make it more attractive to locate its research operations abroad. AT&T countered that software companies need only worry if they're committing infringement in the first place.
Emery Simon, counselor to the Business Software Alliance, which counts Microsoft among its members and backed its Supreme Court position with briefs, hailed the decision as an important step in "rebalancing patent law," which he said has been skewed too far in favor of inventors.
The trade association had been pressuring Congress to scale back the section of the law governing the international exports as part of broader changes it has vowed to enact. Simon told reporters in a conference call that such changes are no longer necessary "because we think the court got it right."
Notably, the high court also did not declare that software is unpatentable--a move that Microsoft, for one, embraced. "It is important for patent laws to continue to provide an incentive to innovate for software, just as it does throughout the rest of the economy," Smith said in the company's statement about the ruling.
In an unlikely alliance, developers of free and open-source software had filed briefs with the high court in support of Microsoft with the hope that the justices would proclaim once and for all that software is not patentable.
Instead, the court attempted to draw a line: It ruled that "software in the abstract" is not patentable when it is simply a set of instructions detached from any medium--an "idea without physical embodiment." But the ruling suggests that copies of code that can be, for example, downloaded from the Internet or inserted in a CD-ROM drive and installed on a computer do qualify as patentable.
Ed Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which counts Microsoft and Red Hat among its members, said that although his organization supported the Supreme Court's overall conclusion about the application of patent damages abroad, "some of the discussion relating to software patents and to software and what they are and how they should operate within the patent system need further study to understand the implications."
He added, "It points up some of the inherent problems when you apply patents into the software world."
CNET News.com's Ina Fried contributed to this report.
See more CNET content tagged:
American Software,
justice,
blueprint,
Alcatel,
Lucent Technologies Inc.
Aspiring software developers! Flee to the EU where there is still freedom and make your fortunes there! You can safely innovate, create and reap the rewards of a huge market there. It's nto that hard to emmigrate.
Plus, no Patriot Act !
Writing code here has bee outlawed in all but name. But ask Vonage about that; the "patent" they violated is MERELY the ACT of putting information into a database and taking it out later, for a specific purpose. I know that sounds unbelievable so here's the links:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Vonage
check out patent #3
and some commentary by industry vets:
http://blog.biginternetmall.com/?p=88369
The destruction of the vital software industry and all the precious fruits it bore, from programmable computers to the internet to software to jobs, and its replacement by with overpriced, junkware monopolies that force their garbage down our collective throats is what has to happen when you permit ideas, which is really all software is apart from the source code, to be patented.
No one even argues anymore if ideas ARE what's being patented in method and software patents; they just argue whether it's good or not.
America's patent lawyers and multinationals will eat it alive economically just so their CEOs can send their kids to $20,000 a year preschools
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1915973&page=1
and sleep with high priced prostitutes http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/28/national/main2738173.shtml
then turn their hungry, clicking mandibles to the rest of the world. Your job, EU et.al. is to stop them. http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/Software_Patents