VOICES FROM THE INTERNET ======================== Opinions on Software Patents ---------------------------- The League for Programming Freedom On Sunday night, while the League for Programming Freedom was preparing its testimony for this hearing, it was decided to electronically send a form to some of its members on the Internet, allowing them to have a say in what the League's testimony should be. Some of our members then decided to forward this note to other bulletin boards and mailing lists not affiliated with the League, significantly increasing the number of responses we received. To date we have received 280 responses from the Internet community. The following document provides edited highlights. We feel these responses provide an accurate reflection of some of the concerns of the software development community. Most respondents included phone numbers and electronic mail addresses from which it should be possible to obtain further information. From jim@kaos.stanford.edu Sun Jan 23 23:57:32 1994 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Sun, 23 Jan 94 23:57:32 -0500 Received: from lamour (bauhaus.Stanford.EDU) by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for lpf-pto-letters-archive@gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA23243; Sun, 23 Jan 94 23:57:14 EST Received: from [127.0.0.1] by lamour (4.1/inc-1.0) id AA06903; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:58:54 PST Message-Id: <9401240458.AA06903@lamour> To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Jan 94 12:17:31 EST." <9401231717.AA04303@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:58:52 -0800 From: jim@kaos.stanford.edu Name : James Helman Email : jimh@sgi.com Title : Member Tech Staff Phone : 415.591.8165 Employer : Silicon Graphics Companies and Individuals ------------------------- Check all that apply: _X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. _X_ Favor making software non-patentable. _X_ Support a higher standard of novelty for software than that applied to other industries. _X_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year __ 2 years __ 3 years _X_ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: A couple years ago, I was involved with a start up that was shot down by a bogus software patent. We were well on our way to having several hundred thousand dollars of private placement venture capital. Out of the blue, another company was awarded an extremely broad software systems patent for an obvious concept with substantial existing prior art. We received a cease and desist letter, and our funding evaporated. The sad thing is that the company that received the patent was so incompetent that they went out of business shortly afterwards. Business success should be determined by who has the best ideas, best implementations, and best marketing. Some proponents of patents claim that patents help protect ideas of small companies from being appropriated by large companies. In my experience, when small companies compete successfully against larger ones it is more often due to the small company being more focused and nimble, than from patent-protected intellectual property. I'm not totally opposed to patents of software. In my opinion, the best solution would be a dramatic increase in the novelty standard required for a patent to be awarded along with a reduction in term. If the invention is truly something that other researchers or developers would not come upon for a decade, some protection and reward is reasonable in exchange for the inventor's contribution. However, this standard would rule out virtually all current software patents, and is sufficiently unlikely to be applied, that I favor outright abolition of software patents. While non-optimum, this would at least be a substantial improvement over the current situation which is stifling to small companies and those who would start them. Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 21:13:18 -0500 From: "Geoffrey S. Knauth" Message-Id: <199401240213.AA22371@carrara.bos.marble.com> Received: by istrian.bos.marble.com.marble.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01797; Sun, 23 Jan 94 21:13:16 EST Name of Company : Marble Associates Contact Person : Geoffrey Knauth Annual Revenue : private Email : gsk@marble.com Number of Employees : 40 Phone : 617/891-5555 Marble Associates is a 10-year old company specializing in technology consulting that currently employs 40 people. A significant number of Marble programmers is concerned about the threat that software patents pose to the software industry, and they believe software patents should be granted for a period of no more than 1 year. Marble Associates itself, however, has not expressed its opinion on the matter. Geoffrey Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 01:20 PST From: adam@adam.yggdrasil.com (Adam J. Richter) To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company : Yggdrasil Computing, Inc. Contact Person : Adam J. Richter Annual Revenue : $1 million (est. '94) Email : adam@yggdrasil.com Number of Employees : 3 Phone : 408 261-6630 _X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. _X_ Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: The duration of intellectual property restrictions should be shortened to reflect the change in the lengths of product cycles between Elizebethan England and today. I have yet to see anything that was developed as a result of patent incentives in software. On the other hand, I regularly hear about numerous software patents that could destroy our company. Adam J. Richter President Yggdrasil Computing, Inc. From: Chris Caputo To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 19:04:06 PST To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Chris Caputo Email : ccaputo@microsoft.com Title : Software Design Engineer Phone : 206-936-2519 Employer : Microsoft Corporation _x_ Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: As a budding entrepreneur, I have little hope of starting a software business in the present environment. Existing companies are too hostile with their patents. I would be unable to survive a litigious attack from a large software company. Software patents are deterring myself and others from starting businesses. Instead, I must work for a large company such as Microsoft. Why? Because only large companies can afford to defend themselves in a patent suit. In addition, companies such as Microsoft, are forced to apply for patents they normally wouldn't bother with, simply because these patents can be used as a defense mechanism against other companies wielding software patents. Date: 24 Jan 1994 08:09:35 -0500 (EST) From: bruc@horta.bms.com (Robert Bruccoleri) To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Robert E. Bruccoleri Email : bruc@bms.com Title : Principal Scientist Phone : 609 252-6165 Employer : Bristol-Myers Squibb Company XX Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: I believe that the software industry has grown rapidly because patents have not been available. Ideas and algorithms have spread very quickly as a result, and given the low production costs for software, it has allowed thousands of businesses to start and prosper. Software patents will raise the costs of doing business significantly, and will destroy the incentive for small software businesses to start. In addition, patent royalties will eventually squeeze the profits of the big players, thereby causing a catastrophe at both ends of the economic spectrum. From: adelman@tgv.com (Kenneth Adelman) Reply-To: Adelman@tgv.com (Kenneth Adelman) Message-Id: <940124075649.6080023c@TGV.COM> > To be Filed out by Companies Only > --------------------------------- > Name of Company : TGV, Inc. Contact Person : Kenneth Adelman > Annual Revenue : $18M Email : Adelman@TGV.COM > Number of Employees : 58 Phone : 408 457 5200 > XX Favor making software non-patentable. TGV is a 5 year old company employing 50+ people with an annual revenue of over $20M. TGV specializes in providing network connectivity software and is concerned about the threat that software patents pose to the software industry. As an example, the UNISYS software patent on LZ-compression was sufficiently disconcerting, given the current state of software patents, to cause us to remove a data compression feature in one of our products. TGV advocates that software related inventions be non-patentable. David Kashtan CEO TGV Incorporated From williams@bolero.gsfc.nasa.gov Tue Jan 25 16:49:18 1994 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:49:18 -0500 Received: from bolero.gsfc.nasa.gov by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for lpf-pto-letters-archive@gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA02201; Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:48:45 EST Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bolero.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id QAA15157 for lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu; Tue, 25 Jan 1994 16:48:44 -0500 Message-Id: <199401252148.QAA15157@bolero.gsfc.nasa.gov> X-Authentication-Warning: bolero.gsfc.nasa.gov: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : James W. Williams Email : willams@bolero.gsfc.nasa.gov Title : Principal Systems Programmer Phone : +1 301 286-1131 Employer : Hughes STX Corporation XXX Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: I consider the trouble being caused by software patents to be the greatest single threat to the American software industry today. Far more threatening than foreign competition, the American software industry is headed for self destruction from all the non-productive legal machinations surrounding software patents and user interface copyrights. As a compromise position, I would tentatively favor changing the patent laws such that software patents must be published before being granted, to permit prior-art to be submitted before the patent is granted. This is particularly important in a field as new and volatile as computer software. From agleckle@us.oracle.com Mon Jan 24 12:32:58 1994 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 09:32:34 PST From: Arthur Gleckler To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Arthur A. Gleckler Email : agleckle@us.oracle.com Title : technical staff Phone : (415) 506-2898 Employer : Oracle Corp. ++ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. ++ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. ++ Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: If software must be patentable, then I do favor restricting_ software patents in every way possible. I am proud that my company has gone on record as being against software patents. From: bill@camco1.celestial.com (Bill Campbell) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 10:30:41 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: bill@celestial.com Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA 98040 To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company : Celestial Software Contact Person : Bill Campbell Annual Revenue : 150,000 Email : bill@celestial.com Number of Employees : 2 Phone : (206) 236-1676 X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. X_ Favor making software non-patentable. X_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year __ 2 years __ 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : 0 years Additional comments: Software patents appear to be issued by people who have little or no experience in programming or software design, thus they issue patents on programs/techniques that either have been in common use for years, or would be obvious to any competent programmer. Bill -- INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software UUCP: camco!bill 8545 SE 68th Street FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591 From unbob@popj1.zko.dec.com Mon Jan 24 13:47:51 1994 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Mon, 24 Jan 94 13:47:51 -0500 Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for lpf-pto-letters-archive@gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA19659; Mon, 24 Jan 94 13:47:12 EST Received: from peano.zk3.dec.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/13Jan94) id AA25552; Mon, 24 Jan 94 10:44:51 -0800 Received: from popj1.zko.dec.com (popj1.zko.dec.com [16.32.0.137]) by peano.zk3.dec.com (8.6.4+sb/8.6.4+dnet) with SMTP id NAA00749 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 1994 13:41:47 -0500 Received: by popj1.zko.dec.com (5.65/fma-100391); id AA01329; Mon, 24 Jan 1994 13:42:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 13:42:55 -0500 From: unbob@popj1.zko.dec.com (Robert Praetorius) To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Robert Praetorius Email : Praetorius@PopJ1.ZKO.DEC.Com Title : Senior Software Engineer Phone : (603) 881-1808 Employer : Digital Equipment Corporation / V_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. / V_ Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: After more than a decade and a half in the computer industry I fail to see evidence that software patents have significantly (or even perceptibly) increased competition and innovation. Abuse of the system, in the form of patenting techniques that are common practice, appears to be extensive and injures regard for the law. If software patents and look-and-feel copyrights are to be preserved (and I sincerely hope the aren't) they should at least be subject to higher standards. Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 10:57:16 +0800 From: jwm@mojave.kaleida.com (Jeff McCarrell) To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Jeff McCarrell Email : jwm@kaleida.com Title : Sr. Programmer Phone : 415) 966-0460 Employer : Kaleida Labs, Inc. XX Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. XX Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. XX Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: In my 12 years of experience in the software industry, my experience with software patents has been mostly negative. Under the current system, the small software startups that I have been involved with typically try to obtain patents as a defensive posture. Small software companies fear the nuisance suits for violation of software patents that larger firms can bring. One vice president of engineering told me the idea was if they brought a patent violation suit, then you brought one and since these patents tend to be so broad, the two cases essentially cancel each other. This defensive capability was the primary motivation for the one patent application I have been personally involved in. From: CDH@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU@INTERNET# INTERNET# Document Id: <9401231717.AA04303@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai Item 5732207 94/01/23 09:17 From: CDH@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU@INTERNET# Gateway to Internet/BITNET/UUCP To: SHAYER Sentient SW, David Shayer,PRT To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company : Sentient Software Contact Person : David Shayer Annual Revenue : $500K Email : shayer@applelink.apple.com Number of Employees : 5 Phone : (415) 595-2523 Companies and Individuals ------------------------- Check all that apply: _X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. _X_ Favor making software non-patentable. _X_ Support a higher standard of novelty for software than that applied to other industries. From nerd@percy.rain.com Mon Jan 24 14:37:57 1994 Name : Michael N Galassi Email : mng@clam.com Title : Sr Consulting Engineer Phone : 503 531 3370 Employer : CLAM Associates I feel companies that invest in research deserve protection for their work but in an industry where time moves a the pace it does in ours a diferent standard is needed. One year feels right to me but may not to others, I'm do feel certain that the current standard is way too long. From csmith@mozart.convex.com Mon Jan 24 14:11:09 1994 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 13:08:28 -0600 From: csmith@mozart.convex.com (Chris Smith) Message-Id: <199401241908.NAA08491@mozart.convex.com> To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu In-Reply-To: Chris Hofstader's message of Sun, 23 Jan 94 12:17:31 -0500 To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Chris Smith Email : csmith@convex.com Title : Sr Development Engineer Phone : 214 497-4504 Employer : Convex Computer Corporation Companies and Individuals ------------------------- Check all that apply: _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. _X_ Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: Ask almost any practitioner in the (flourishing) software industry whether software patents advance or retard progress in this useful art. In my experience there is almost a consensus that software patents are not helpful but quite harmful. The present scheme, if implemented seriously, would bring progress to a standstill almost instantly. The main reason people around here sweat patents at all is to form cross-licensing agreements, thus nullifying the whole nuisance, one tiny piece at a time. Good copyright protection is essential, and sufficient. From mike@pooh.tec.army.mil Mon Jan 24 15:25:06 1994 Received: by pooh.tec.army.mil (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA11365; Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:24:19 EST Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:24:19 EST From: mike@pooh.tec.army.mil (Mike McDonnell) To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Michael M. McDonnell Email : mike@tec.army.mil Title : Physicist Phone : (703)922-5698 Employer : U.S. Army Engineers Topographic Engineering Center Patents will slow down software development and penalize the Government in its procurement. Penalties would be in the form of both cost and time. For the military, developing timely systems is crucial to maintaining our technical superiority in battle, so it is in the interest of national security to not have software patents. From billw@riverside.scrc.symbolics.com Mon Jan 24 15:25:50 1994 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:25:50 -0500 Received: from RIVERSIDE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for lpf-pto-letters-archive@gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA25736; Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:25:28 EST Received: from WINTER-PARK.sdc.symbolics.com ([128.81.253.105]) by RIVERSIDE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via INTERNET with SMTP id 1091185; 24 Jan 1994 13:03:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 13:02-0500 From: Bill Wilkinson To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Bill Wilkinson Email : billw@symbolics.com Title : Sales Support Engineer Phone : 703-876-0243 Employer : Symbolics, Inc. XX Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: Copyright law provides all of the intellectual property law needed for software and the software industry. From bostic@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu Mon Jan 24 15:35:41 1994 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 15:33:13 -0500 From: bostic@vangogh.cs.berkeley.edu (Keith Bostic) Message-Id: <199401242033.PAA03054@python.bostic.com> To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: YOUR OPINION ON SOFTWARE PATENTS To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Keith Bostic Email : bostic@cs.berkeley.edu Title : Programmer/Analyst III Phone : 508-287-4781 Employer : University of California, Berkeley Check all that apply: Yes Consider software patents harmful to business interests. Yes Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. Yes Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. No Favor making software non-patentable. Yes Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: Yes 1 year Yes 2 years Yes 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: I strongly believe that the current situation with respect to software patents is fatally flawed. I don't pretend to believe that I know the solution, however, I am becoming increasingly aware that fundamental ideas which should be usable by others are being locked down by companies. This does NOT encourage innovation, it circumscribes it to less fruitful areas because companies can (and, in my experience, do!) use the legal system to maintain a monopoly on ideas as well as to drive small entrepreneurs out of business. More specifically, MANY of the patents that I have seen granted are trivial in the extreme, and it is laughable that anyone could possibly consider the ideas either original or other than the most obvious extensions of previous work. Finally, providing protection for more than three years, in an industry that completely reinvents itself every five years, is again, laughable, and only encourages companies to excel in litigation. From curtis@ans.net Mon Jan 24 15:38:21 1994 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu); Mon, 24 Jan 1994 15:37:58 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Mon, 24 Jan 1994 15:37:58 -0500 Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Mon, 24 Jan 1994 15:37:58 -0500 From: Curtis Villamizar Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:36:59 -0500 To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Curtis Villamizar Email : curtis@ans.net Title : Sr Enginner Phone : 914-789-5309 Employer : Advanced Network and Services Stardization of sofware platforms has a tremendous positive effect on the productivity of the US software industry and progress of the field of computer science. The underlying basic tools do not have to be reinvented with each application. Software patents serve to undermine this. There is already very strong motivation to develope new software techniques and very strong activity in this area. The intent of the patent system simply does not apply to the computer software industry. Software patents have so far only served as attempts to restrain competition or by opportunists as attempts to erect artificial barriers by restriciting use of obvious techniques and then draw revenue from those barriers. The software industry would greatly benefit by the total exclusion of software from the patent process. From margo@das.harvard.edu Mon Jan 24 15:38:03 1994 Received: from life.ai.mit.edu by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:38:03 -0500 Received: from virtual61.harvard.edu by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for lpf-pto-letters-archive@gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA26890; Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:37:55 EST Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 15:37:43 EST From: margo@das.harvard.edu Message-Id: <9401242037.AA03841@virtual61.harvard.edu> To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name :Margo Seltzer Email :margo@das.harvard.edu Title :Assistant Professor Phone :617-496-5663 Employer :Harvard University X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. X_ Favor making software non-patentable. X_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year X_ 2 years __ 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: Software patents, as they are currently being applied, are a menace to the software industry. Patents benefit the large corporations that can use patents as bargaining chips while severly penalizing small companies. At an absolute minimum, the requirements for the Patent Bar must be broadened to allow (and encourage) software professionals to become patent agents. Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 16:07:04 -0500 From: chris@das.harvard.edu To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Christopher Small Email : chris@das.harvard.edu Title : Research Assistant Phone : 617-495-5866 Employer : Harvard University Companies and Individuals ------------------------- Check all that apply: xx Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. xx Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. xx Favor making software non-patentable. xx Support a higher standard of novelty for software than that applied to other industries. xx Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year xx 2 years __ 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: As an engineer with substantial industry experience, both at large companies (e.g. Microsoft, AT&T Bell Labs) and several small, entrepeneurial companies doing leading-edge product development, I feel strongly that software patents seriously limit the competitiveness of software developers. The Patent Office should take special care to ensure the novelty of software before granting a patent on it, and, in my opinion, never grant a patent on software. Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 13:05:37 -0800 From: Mohsen Banan Message-Id: <199401242105.AA07756@rostam.neda.com> To: comments-software@uspto.gov Cc: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company : Tele-Voice Contact Person : Mohsen Banan Annual Revenue : 350K Email : mohsen@neda.com Number of Employees : 1 Phone : +1 (206) 644-8026 XX Support a higher standard of novelty for software than that applied to other industries. XX Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year __ 2 years XX 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: Existing laws regarding Intelectual Property Rights are outdated. These laws are doing more harm to the public's interest and our software industry's interest than good. Usefull and exciting technolgy is not being deployed or used because of serious flaws in our laws. Examples of such technology are Public Key Cryptography Systems and Man-Machine interfaces. The orderly transition of our society from "manufacturing" to "information processing" hinges on vision and wisdom of our public sector. Time is of essence. Re-evaluation of our Intelectual Property laws is urgently needed. From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) Message-Id: <9401250106.AA00496@bi.twinsun.com> Date: 25 Jan 1994 10:06:04 +0900 YOUR OPINION ON SOFTWARE PATENTS ================================ Information you provide will be forwarded to the patent office. To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company : Twin Sun, Inc Contact Person : Paul Eggert Annual Revenue : not public info Email : eggert@twinsun.com Number of Employees : 15 Phone : +1 310 524 1800 To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Paul Eggert Email : eggert@twinsun.com Title : Director, R&D Phone : +1 310 524 1800 Employer : Twin Sun, Inc Companies and Individuals ------------------------- Check all that apply: X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. X_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. X_ Favor making software non-patentable. __ Support a higher standard of novelty for software than that applied to other industries. X_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year X_ 2 years __ 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: I do not support a ``higher standard of novelty for software than that applied to other industries'', but I do support a higher standard of novelty than the USPTO seems to be applying to software patents. In my opinion, the current standard for software novelty is much lower than that for other industries. From disab@autodesk.com Mon Jan 24 21:49:08 1994 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 18:28:18 PST From: disab@autodesk.com (Dave DiSabatino) Message-Id: <9401250228.AA21215@ogma.autodesk.com> } To be Filed out by Individuals Only } ----------------------------------- } } Name : E. David DiSabatino Email : disab@autodesk.com } Title : Senior Programmer } Employer : Autodesk, INC } } Companies and Individuals } ------------------------- } } Check all that apply: } } _x_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. } } _x_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. } } _x_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. } } _x_ Favor making software non-patentable. } } Additional comments: Those who follow the software industry have clearly seen the damage done to users and developers alike by software patents. Software patents set back the state of the industry in general. They make competition impossible and make the users lose. Patents were designed to protect ideas. In manufacturing ideas are valuable because manufacturing is cheap. In software ideas are cheap but implementation is difficult. There is no shortage of good ideas, but once someone has come up with an idea, it takes a team of experts, not an easy group to assemble, to actually take that idea to fruition. VPLs patent of the data glove has probably set back the virtual reality industry by several years. Apple's patent of their interface has made everyone suffer. The implementation of software should be protected, and can be, with a copyright on the actual code. If someone were to steal sections of code, this would be stealing a protected comodity. Stealing someone's idea should be considered a compliment not a crime. Removing or shortening software patents, or making them only apply to particular implementations of an idea will inevitable increase competition and help the software industry in general. Until we come up with software components that can be assembled as easily as blocks of lego, software patents will hurt the industry, because only an entire system is worth money. From tim@ora.com Tue Jan 25 00:12:05 1994 To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company :O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Contact Person : Tim O'Reilly Annual Revenue : 13 million (1993) Email : tim@ora.com Number of Employees : 95 Phone 707-829-0515 : _x_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. _x_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. _x_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. __ Favor making software non-patentable. _x_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year __ 2 years _x_ 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: 1. I don't come out above as totally against software patents because I can imagine some kind of invention that is so totally original that someone ought to have some chance to exploit it even if they aren't a big player--as software becomes more monopolistic, with companies like Microsoft in the driver's seat, patents may serve the public good at some point by allowing smaller players to have a bit more of a level playing field. For that reason, the idea of a short protection period for highly original ideas might not be a bad alternative. But the patent office needs to be very highly trained to recognize not only originality but also non-obviousness. The number of software "patents" that really recognize obvious or nearly inevitable developments is far too large. One possible criterion might be to say that if more than two people independently come up with the same technique, that it is not patentable. 2, It should not be possible to get a private patent for the results of government funded research. What's more, there should be very tight restrictions on the ability of publically funded institutions to claim that *any* of their activities were privately funded and thus deserving of patent protection, since it is too easy to move things from one side of the house to the other. 3. Public key cryptography should be in the public domain! The patents assigned to Public Key Partners are one of the single largest obstacles to the progress of the "information superhighway" our government supposedly wishes to see put into place. -- Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Publishers of Nutshell Handbooks 103 Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA 95472 To reach me: 707-829-3382 To order: 707-829-0515, 800-998-9938, FAX 707-829-0104 Internet: tim@ora.com UUCP: uunet!ora.com!tim From kingdon@cygnus.com Tue Jan 25 10:17:07 1994 From: kingdon@cygnus.com (Jim Kingdon) Message-Id: <9401251516.AA09529@cygnus.com> Received: by lioth.cygnus.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00162; Tue, 25 Jan 94 10:16:24 EST To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : James Kingdon Email : kingdon@cygnus.com Title : Programmer Phone : 703 894 5580 Employer : Cygnus Support Additional comments: The software industry has/had no problems which software patents have solved or could solve. From ezaust@math.sunysb.edu Tue Jan 25 09:53:19 1994 From: ezaust@math.sunysb.edu (Eugene Zaustinsky) Message-Id: <9401251452.AA28385@math.sunysb.edu> To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu Subject: comments for pto To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Dr. Eugene Zaustinsky Email : ezaust@math.sunysb.edu Title : Professor of Mathematics Phone : (516) 757-4402 Employer : State University of New York at Stony Brook XX Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. XX Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. XX Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: The fundamental purpose of all copyright and patent law is to advance the public interest by encouraging innovation. The innovator is granted the limited exclusive right to commercially exploit his innovation for a limited time, in exchange for the early disclosure of the essence of his innovation. It is important to understand that the courts have always held that the government has no interest in advancing the fortunes of innovators. In writing a piece of software, the programmer draws on an enormous body of existing knowledge. He selects existing pieces of knowledge (code fragments, procedures, algorithms, and so on) and puts them together, in what is generally a perfectly straightforward way, to do something useful. Once in a while he discovers or invents a new piece of knowledge but, in my opinion, this is the exception rather than the rule. The process is pretty much like writing anything else. What the programmer can actually write is strongly constrained, in pretty much the same way that what an author can actually write is strongly constrained by the rules of grammar, syntax, and so on. Consequently, the result of programming effort should be protected in pretty much the same way that other written work is protected. In particular, if the author of a book invents a new word or turn of phrase, he cannot patent it. Similarly, if a programmer devises a new code fragment or algorithm, he should also not be able to patent it. A piece of software should be protected from outright copying by copyright law, just like a book. In asking for further protection, however, it is my opinion that software vendors are asking the government to advance their fortunes, without regard for the fundamental purposes of patent and copyright law, without regard for the health of their own industry, and without regard for the public interest. Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 09:55:46 -0500 From: david@elwapo.agricon.com (David C. Brown) Message-Id: <9401251455.AA24808@elwapo> To: uunet!WPI.EDU!csa@uunet.uu.net Cc: david@uunet.uu.net, uunet!prep.ai.mit.edu!lpf-pto-letters@uunet.uu.net, uunet!uspto.gov!comments-software@uunet.uu.net To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company : Agricon Int. Inc. Contact Person : Sherry L. Tucker Annual Revenue : Email : sherry@elwapo.agricon.com Number of Employees : 5 Phone : (813) 275-341124 To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : David C. Brown IV Email : david@elwapo.agricon.com Title : Communications Specialist Phone : (813) 275-3411 Employer : Agricon International Inc. Companies and Individuals ------------------------- Check all that apply: X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. X_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. X_ Favor making software non-patentable. X_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year __ 2 years __ 3 years X_ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: Due to the rapid change that the computer industry experiences, shorter patent terms are in order. The equipment changes by_ enough generations to give the autors sufficient reward for their creativity. However, software patents should still be uncommon as copyrights still provide excellent protection. As a patent holder myself (#5,133,668) and author of several software items (programs and algorithms) both proprietary and public-domain, I believe I am speaking from an informed position. Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:28:35 -0500 From: Gerald Jay Sussman To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Gerald Jay Sussman Title : Matsushita Professor of Electrical Engineering Employer : Massachusetts Institute of Technology Email : gjs@martigny.ai.mit.edu Phone : (617) 253-5874 Companies and Individuals ------------------------- Check all that apply: X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. X_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. X_ Favor making software non-patentable. X_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ other : as short as politically possible. Additional comments: I consider software patents to be harmful to all long-run interests, including business. Software patents may very well confer short-timescale advantages to patent holders, but the overall economic health of industry and the nation depends upon continuing innovation and cooperation among innovators, especially in an industry where interoperability of components is crucial to succes. From: dan@copernicus.bbn.com (Dan Franklin) To be Filled out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Daniel Franklin Email : dfranklin@bbn.com Title : Sr. Scientist Phone : 617-873-3871 Employer : Bolt Beranek & Newman, Inc. _?_ Favor making software non-patentable (see comments below). _Y_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year __ 2 years _Y_ 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: It is clear to me as a software practitioner that the current system for patenting software is badly broken. I am not sure that software patents ought to exist at all, but if they do continue to exist, their nature must be changed. First, the useful life of a software invention is hardly ever as long as 17 years, so software patents currently grant an effectively unlimited monopoly on the use of the patented idea. The life of software patents MUST be shortened to no more than 3 years, possibly less, so that it will be of limited duration, as intended by the Constitution. Second, the secrecy surrounding software patents in the licensing process must be eliminated. It is impractical, to say the least, to try to develop and market software without knowing whether one about to infringe on a patent that has not yet been issued. With the advent of the "first-to-file" rule it would seem that there is no longer any reason to keep patent applications secret until they have been granted or rejected. Elimination of secrecy would also permit knowledgeable individuals outside the PTO to provide examples of prior art, or arguments against sufficient novelty in the patent, before the patent is issued. Third, if software patent application secrecy is not eliminated (and probably even if it is), the PTO must use people whose primary, and potentially only, training is in computer science to examine software patent applications in order to ensure that obvious ideas are not granted patent protection. The time to issue a patent must also be shortened; in the software world, yesterday's novelty is tomorrow's routine, and it becomes difficult to distinguish what may have been novel 5 years ago from what was routine even then. Fourth, the standard of novelty must be raised. Any useful piece of software is so complex that it will, of necessity, contain some novel collection of parts used to provide some new function; thus virtually any software seems to be patentable under current rules. The standard of novelty must be high enough so that only ideas worth publishing in a peer-reviewed trade journal (as a minimum) could be granted a patent. The Compton's multimedia patent, for example, would clearly fail this test. The PTO should also consider whether patent protection for software is simply not useful--that is, if it is not in the public interest. I suspect that this may be the case, though the current system is so badly flawed that it is hard to determine whether one that is truly beneficial could exist. Dan Franklin From jeffrey@netcom.com Tue Jan 25 15:19:12 1994 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Jan 94 12:17:31 EST." <9401231717.AA04303@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:19:05 -0800 From: Jeffrey Kegler > To be Filed out by Companies Only > --------------------------------- > Name of Company : Algorists, Inc. Contact Person : Jeffrey Kegler Annual Revenue : not public Email: jeffrey@netcom.com Number of Employees : 1 Phone : (408) 733-1255 Note: Algorists, Inc. is not publicly held -- it's a very small consulting firm incorporated in California. Algorists does not release financial data except as required by law. > Companies and Individuals > ------------------------- > > Check all that apply: > _X Consider software patents harmful to business interests. _X Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: The items marked with a question mark imply the existence of software patents. While admittedly short patent terms are better than long ones, difficult to obtain patents are better than broad patents for well known techniques awarded trivially, and the present patent office procedures aggravate the problem, Algorists, Inc. feels that any patenting of software will be disastrous for the software industry, perhaps amounting to the one factor that eliminates the current U.S. dominance in this field. Any availability of patents for software could mean the collapse of our business, we feel. At the risk of seeming uncompromising, then, we are thus unable to get excited about discussing reforms in the process. Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc. jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM 137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Jan 94 12:17:31 EST." <9401231717.AA04303@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:48:44 -0500 From: "James W. Williams" X-Mts: smtp To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : James W. Williams Email : willams@bolero.gsfc.nasa.gov Title : Principal Systems Programmer Phone : +1 301 286-1131 Employer : Hughes STX Corporation _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. XXX Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: I consider the trouble being caused by software patents to be the greatest single threat to the American software industry today. Far more threatening than foreign competition, the American software industry is headed for self destruction from all the non-productive legal machinations surrounding software patents and user interface copyrights. As a compromise position, I would tentatively favor changing the patent laws such that software patents must be published before being granted, to permit prior-art to be submitted before the patent is granted. This is particularly important in a field as new and volatile as computer software. Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 12:58:42 -0800 From: William Shipley Message-Id: <9401252058.AA04061@omnigroup.com> Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.99.1) To be Filled out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company :Omni Development, Inc Contact Person :Wil Shipley Annual Revenue :$500,000 Email :wjs@omnigroup.com Number of Employees :9 Phone :206-720-2955 Companies and Individuals ------------------------- Check all that apply: _X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. _X_ Favor making software non-patentable. _X_ Support a higher standard of novelty for software than that applied to other industries. _X_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year __ 2 years __ 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years _X_ other : NO TERM, NO PATENTS. Additional comments: Small companies like mine are supposedly the embodiment of the "American Dream": young entrepeneurs re-inventing how business is done. With software patents, however, the deck is stacked against us. There is no way we can afford to patent what we do, or do an exhaustive patent search on every idea we want to use. Thus, we're constantly putting ourselves at risk to get sued and destroyed by some large company that has spent its life just sitting around and collecting patents. Software patents have recently gotten ridiculous. We have companies claiming they've invented the most basic and obvious ideas, and the courts are too ignorant of the software industry to realise these claims are spurious. Compton's Encyclopedia recent claim that they own the idea of mulitmedia is so crazy it's laughable, except it isn't a joke to the thousands of companies that are now facing making royalty payments. And RSA's patent on encryption algorithms has prevented data security from becoming commonplace in America; giving all businesses a disadvantage. Even patents on ideas that aren't totally obvious are still harmful. The software business changes rapidly; it doesn't take us time to re-tool when a new process comes along, unlike in other business. Software patents allow one company to corner a new idea and prevent others from improving on it; this hobbles our entire industry. The whole notion of someone "owning" an idea is ludicrous to me; ownership of code is fine, but owning an idea is like owning an attitude. From pothiers@aries.saic.com Tue Jan 25 16:49:46 1994 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 14:43:45 MST From: pothiers@aries.saic.com (Steve Pothier) Message-Id: <9401252143.AA07345@aries.saic.com> To be Filed out by Individuals Only ----------------------------------- Name : Steve Pothier Email : pothiers@aries.saic.com Title : Senior Engineer Phone : 602-748-7400 Employer : SAIC x_ Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: I have also done consulting work where I created software that I believe would be patentable under current law. I refuse to even try because I believe it would contribute to the problem. But, I have tried for a non-software patent. From: Ken Anderson Site: Phibro Energy Inc (Westport) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.100) Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.100) To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu Subject: Response form Reply-To: anderson@biztech.com To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company : Biztech, Inc. Contact Person : Ken Anderson Annual Revenue : $350,000 Email : anderson@biztech.com Number of Employees : 4 Phone : 203.328.3711 x_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. x_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. x_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. x_ Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: Software patents have already affected my business from a productivity point of view. A company called Athena Design has removed certain Lotus compatability aspects in fear of litigation. This has directly affected spreadsheets that we keep. From: Vern Blanchard <70760.434@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu" Date: 25 Jan 94 14:30:32 EST To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company : Advanced Gaming Technology Contact Person : Vern Blanchard Annual Revenue : $1Million Email : 70760,414 (Compuserve) Number of Employees : 15 Phone : (619) 789-2442 x Consider software patents harmful to business interests. x Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. x Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. x Favor making software non-patentable. Additional comments: There is virtually NOTHING novel or unique in software programing. Almost any decent programmer can develop any program, given enough time. There is no clear way for the PTO to check on what is general knowledge in the programming community, much less determine if a technique is new. [LPF editorial comment: Vern Blanchard has recently been in court and had his business threatened with closure due to a software patent claiming to cover a form of computerized bingo.] From go_rilla!jon@mtxinu.com Wed Jan 26 21:42:11 1994 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 18:40:53 -0800 From: go_rilla!jon@mtxinu.com (Jon Hale ) Message-Id: <9401270240.AA00333@go_rilla.GORILLA.UUCP> To: lpf-pto-letters@prep.ai.mit.edu Subject: Software patents To be Filed out by Companies Only --------------------------------- Name of Company :Gorilla Consulting Contact Person : Jon Hale Annual Revenue : Email : go_rilla!jon@mtxinu.com Number of Employees : 1 Phone : (510) 836-6638 _X_ Consider software patents harmful to business interests. _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the software industry. _X_ Consider software patents harmful to the public interest. _X_ Favor making software non-patentable. _X_ Support significantly reducing the term for software patents: __ 1 year __ 2 years __ 3 years __ 4 years __ 5 years __ other : Additional comments: I dislike software patents. I think that they are a very bad influence on the entire software industry. If we must have software patents, then I would favor a very short duration (less than 2 years).