Patently Stupid pt. 1

It all really started with an e-mail from Boyle that included an excerpt from an article at ZDNet about how Microsoft may start searching out more patents on technology. Here is an excerpt from the very same article:

"Microsoft could attack open-source software for patent infringements against OEMs, Linux distributors, and least likely open-source developers. They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and Sendmail. We believe Samba is first, and they will attempt to prove it isn't covered by prior patent cross as a so called "clone" product carve out in the previous agreement," the memo said. "OEMs that don't have a cross (like SUN), or OEMs like HP that they force a change in their cross licence to exclude open-source software are probably the first target. Intel, Red Hat, SuSE, UBL, Oracle are probably in the first wave as well."
Microsoft embarked on a campaign last year to increase its revenue from patents and enlarge its intellectual property portfolio. It has received patents on a wide variety of apparently elemental computing components such as to-do lists, double clicking and storing documents in XML format, and had another 5000 applications in the pipeline as of November 2003. Last year, Microsoft also hired IP guru Marshall Phelps -- previously architect of IBM's $2bn-a-year IP strategy. He is on record as saying that Microsoft intends to spend $7bn annually on IP issues.
[Goodwins, Rupert; ZDNet UK]

Now, I have known that the US patent process is flawed since I found out that there was a patent on a style of swinging, as in a seat on two chains, wee, push me higher. While it was patented by a 7 year-old boy, there had to be an adult help him with the paper work, and that adult should be throttled with a short length of Cat-5e cable. It's all just so ridiculous... but that has to be one of only a few ridiculous patents, I can hear you shout. The USPTO is working hard to make sure that only legitimate patents are granted, right? Hahahahahahahahahahaaaa... no. Unfortunately, stupid patents seem to be running the world now. Check out The EFF and their Patent Busting Project, in which they chose the top 10 "most dangerous patents to our freedoms on the internet," and are getting people to challenge the patents. What patents did they choose? See for yourself:

• One-click online shopping (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411.)


• Online shopping carts (U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314.)


• The hyperlink (U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662.)


• Video streaming (U.S. Patent No. 5,132,992.)


• Internationalizing domain names (U.S. Patent No. 6,182,148.)


• Pop-up windows (U.S. Patent No. 6,389,458.)


• Targeted banner ads (U.S. Patent No. 6,026,368.)


• Paying with a credit card online (U.S. Patent No. 6,289,319.)


• Framed browsing; (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,933,841 & 6,442,574.) and


• Affiliate linking (U.S. Patent No. 6,029,141.)
  

[EFF Patent Busting Project]

I know, I know. I had to clench my jaw to keep my brain from biting my tounge off so that my profane screams of indignation would be unintelligable, too. What is even more frightening than the sheer fact that these patents exist is that they aren't technically specific. The patent an idea, really, more than a specific process, or more aptly, a specific technical means, such as the anchor < a > tag in HTML. That makes the patent much broader and more dangerous. Not only is the patent based on an abstract idea, but the language used in most of the technology patents is extremely vauge and broad, like the patent on hyperlinks [Patent 4,873,662] Read it, and tell me that this isn't the stupidest shit you've ever read in your life. Go on. Do it.

Unfortunatley, I have to end this early, business you know, but I'll be back to continue this battle.

Suck on that.