Home » It news

Red Hat Asks Federal Court To Limit Patents On Software

9 April 2008 1 views No Comment

Today, took a public stand challenging the standards for patenting . In the Biliski case that is now before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, this patent issue is ripe for consideration. In a friend of the court brief submitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bilski case today, describes the special problems that patents pose for open and seeks modification of the standards for patentable subject matter that take open into account. Here is a quick summary of our brief.

Open is one of the most dynamic, innovative sectors of the U.S. economy, but the U.S. patent is a costly hindrance to open innovation. We believe that although the patent was created to foster innovation, it’s simply not an engine for innovation for open . patents were barely recognized when open began, and so the hope of obtaining a patent did not motivate the first developers. Those pioneers were generally opposed to patents. The open, collaborative activity at the heart of open is at odds with the patent , which excludes the public from making, using or selling a patented invention. Open developers seek to contribute code to the community – not to exclude others from using the code.

Today the patent is, if anything, a hindrance to open . Developers face the risk that the original code they have written in good faith could be deemed to infringe an existing patent. It’s impossible to rule out this possibility, because there are now more than 200,000 patents, and those patents cannot be efficiently searched. patents are difficult to interpret, even for in science and engineering. often disagree as to whether a particular patent claim covers a particular program. Thus , a risk of litigation exist for every open project, and the potential cost of patent litigation runs into millions of dollars for a single case.

Given the litigation risk, some open , including , acquire patents for the sole purpose of asserting them defensively in the event they are faced with a . also provides open intellectual property protections through our Open Assurance Program that protects our customers and encourages them to deploy with confidence. Our strategy is a prudent one and mitigates the risk of patent lawsuits, but it would be unnecessary if the itself were fixed.

Despite the hindrances of the patent , open continues to expand at an exponential rate. One can only imagine how that expansion would if the braking effect of the patent were lifted.

In the Bilski case now pending in the Federal Circuit, the appeals court will the issue of the boundaries of the subject matter that may be patented. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that abstract ideas and algorithms (which are the building of programs) are not patentable. Applying this principle consistently would greatly narrow the of patents. As the Federal Circuit addresses the standard for patentable subject matter, we urge in our brief that it take account of the perverse effects of the patent on open and narrow the standard for patentability.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.