Editing Software patent (section)

==Criticism==

===Compatibility===
There are a number of high-profile examples where the patenting of a data exchange standards forced another programming group to introduce an alternative format. For instance, the [[Portable Network Graphics]] (PNG) format was largely introduced to avoid the [[Graphics Interchange Format]] (GIF) patent problems, and [[Ogg]] [[Vorbis]] to avoid [[MP3]]. If it is discovered that these new suggested formats are themselves covered by existing patents, the final result may be a large number of incompatible formats. Creating such formats and supporting them costs money and creates inconvenience to users.

===Computer-implemented invention (CII)===
{{Main|Software patents under the European Patent Convention}}
Under the [[European Patent Convention]] (EPC), and in particular its Article 52,<ref>{{EPC Article|52}}</ref> "[[computer programs|programs for computers]]" are not regarded as inventions for the purpose of granting European patents,<ref>{{EPC Article|52|1}}</ref> but this exclusion from patentability only applies to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to a computer program as such.<ref>{{EPC Article|52|3}}</ref> As a result of this partial exclusion, and despite the fact that the EPO subjects patent applications in this field to a much stricter scrutiny<ref name=LaubThesis>{{cite thesis|url=http://www.miplc.de/research/master_theses/2004_2005/abstracts/abstract_laub.pdf|first=Christoph|last=Laub|title=International Software Patent Filing: The Problem of Statutory Subject Matter in view of Legal Standards at the EPO-USPTO and Economic Implications|year=2005|orig-year=Academic Year 2004/2005|type=Master's|publisher=Munich Intellectual Property Law Center |access-date=21 March 2006|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070621083254/http://www.miplc.de/research/master_theses/2004_2005/abstracts/abstract_laub.pdf|archive-date=June 21, 2007}}</ref> when compared to their [[USPTO|American counterpart]], that does not mean that all [[invention]]s including some [[software]] are ''[[de jure]]'' not [[patentability|patentable]].

===Overlap with copyright===
{{See also|Software copyright|Copyright infringement of software}}
Patent and copyright protection constitute two different means of legal protection which may cover the same subject matter, such as computer programs, since each of these two means of protection serves its own purpose.<ref>{{citation|work=Decision [[T 1173/97]] (Computer program product/IBM) of 1.7.1998|publisher=European Patent Office, Boards of Appeal|date=1 July 1998|title=Reasons 2.4|url=https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t971173ex1.html}}</ref> Software is protected as works of literature under the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works|Berne Convention]]. This allows the creator to prevent another entity from copying the program and there is generally no need to register code in order for it to be copyrighted.

Patents, on the other hand, give their owners the right to prevent others from using the technology defined by the patent claims, even if the technology was independently developed and there was no copying of a software or software code involved. In fact, one of the most recent EPO decisions<ref>{{citation|title=Decision T 0424/03 (Clipboard formats I/MICROSOFT) of 23.2.2006|publisher=European Patent Office Boards of Appeal|date=23 February 2006|url=https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t030424eu1.html}}</ref> clarifies the distinction, stating that software is patentable, because it is basically only a technical method executed on a computer, which is to be distinguished from the program itself for executing the method, the program being merely an expression of the method, and thus being copyrighted.

Patents cover the underlying methodologies embodied in a given piece of software, or the function that the software is intended to serve, independent of the particular language or code that the software is written in. Copyright prevents the direct copying of some or all of a particular version of a given piece of software, but does not prevent other authors from writing their own embodiments of the underlying methodologies. Assuming a dataset meets certain criteria, copyright can also be used to prevent a given set of data from being copied while still allowing the author to keep the contents of said set of data a [[trade secret]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/733688/Trade+Secrets/Copyright+in+Data+Compilations+Is+Thin|title=Copyright in Data Compilations is Thin|last=Bro|first=Sarah|date=September 6, 2018|work=Mondaq Business Briefing|access-date=January 25, 2019}}</ref>

Whether and how the [[Numerus clausus#Law|numerus clausus principle]] shall apply to the legal hybrid software<ref>{{cite journal|last=Burk|first=Dan L.|title=Copyrightable functions and patentable speech|journal=Communications of the ACM|publisher=Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)|volume=44|issue=2|date=February 2001|pages=69–75|doi=10.1145/359205.359231|s2cid=10784660|doi-access=free}}</ref> to provide a judicious balance between property rights of the title holders and freedom rights of computing professionals<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kiesewetter-Köbinger|first=Swen|year=2010|title=Programmers' Capital|journal=Computer|volume=43|issue=2|pages=106–108|doi=10.1109/MC.2010.47}}</ref> and society as a whole,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/patent_policy/en/scp_14/scp_14_7.pdf|title=Proposal from Brazil in respect of exceptions and limitations to patent rights|author=Standing Committee on the Law of Patents|date=January 20, 2010|publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization|access-date=4 February 2010}}</ref> is in dispute.<ref>{{citation|url=http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/comp/replies/planck_en.pdf|title=Stellungnahme zum Sondierungspapier der Kommission der Europaischen Gemeinschaften: Die Patentierbarkeit Computer-implementierter Erfindungen|trans-title=Opinion on the consultation paper by the Commission of the European Communities: The patentability of computer-implemented inventions|author=Max-Planck-Institut|date=20 December 2000}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=http://www.buchhandel.de/WebApi1/GetMmo.asp?MmoId=4804929&mmoType=PDF|first=Marcus|last=Hoffmann|title=Mehrfachschutz geistigen Eigentums im deutschen Rechtssystem|trans-title=Multiple protection of intellectual property in the German legal system|year=2008|isbn=978-3-8316-0806-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Alexander|last=Peukert|title=Güterzuordnung als Rechtsprinzip|trans-title=Goods classification as a legal principle|year=2008|isbn=978-3-16-149724-7|publisher=Mohr Siebeck}}</ref>

===Debate===
There is a [[software patent debate|debate]] over the extent to which software patents should be granted, if at all. Important issues concerning software patents include:

* Whether software patents should be allowed, and if so, where the boundary between [[patentable subject matter|patentable]] and non-patentable software should lie;<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.out-law.com/page-4814|title=Software patents in Europe: debunking the myths|first=John|last=Gray|publisher=OUT-LAW News|date=2004-08-19}}</ref>
* Whether the [[inventive step and non-obviousness]] requirement is applied too loosely to software;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ipo.gov.uk/response-inventive.pdf|title=Public consultation on level of the inventive step required for obtaining patents|publisher=[[UK Intellectual Property Office]]|access-date=2007-06-05|archive-date=2012-01-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120104231807/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/response-inventive.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> and
* Whether patents covering software discourage, rather than encourage, innovation;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2005/04/patent_economics_part_4_incent.html|title=Patent Economics: Part 4 – Incentives|format=blog entry|publisher=Patenthawk|date=2005-04-17|access-date=2012-10-09|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120906032234/http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2005/04/patent_economics_part_4_incent.html|archive-date=2012-09-06|url-status=live}}</ref>
*Whether software based on mathematical methods may be allowed if the mathematics or algorithm in question is complicated enough and may not be implemented with pencil and paper.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.managingip.com/pdfs/Events/IndiaIP2013_15.15_Akhilesh%20Gupta.pdf |title=The India Patents Act, 1970 and Software Patentability |date=7 March 2013 |website=www.managingip.com |access-date=2020-03-27 |archive-date=2016-04-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160417223948/http://www.managingip.com/pdfs/Events/IndiaIP2013_15.15_Akhilesh%20Gupta.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Open source software===
{{Main|Software patents and free software}}
There is [[Software patent debate|strong dislike]] in the [[free software community]] towards software patents. Much of this has been caused by [[free software]] or [[Open-source software|open source]] projects terminating<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/patent-examp/patent-examples.html|title=Software patents that hurt free software|publisher=Free Software Foundation|access-date=2012-10-09}}</ref> when the owners of patents covering aspects of a project demanded license fees that the project could not pay, or was not willing to pay, or offered licenses with terms that the project was unwilling to accept, or could not accept, because it conflicted with the [[free software license]] in use.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects|title=Effects|series=Patentability and Democracy in Europe|publisher=Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070210164646/http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/|archive-date=February 10, 2007}}</ref>

Several patent holders have offered royalty-free patent licenses for a very small portion of their patent portfolios. Such actions have provoked only minor reaction from the [[free software community|free]] and [[open source community|open source]] software communities for reasons such as fear of the patent holder changing their mind or the license terms being so narrow as to have little use.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html|title=Microsoft's Open Specification Promise: No Assurance for GPL|publisher=[[Software Freedom Law Center]]}}</ref> Companies that have done this include [[Apple Inc.|Apple]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://opensource.apple.com/apsl/|title=License - APSL|website=opensource.apple.com}}</ref> [[IBM]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.unicode.org/notes/tn6/#Intellectual_Property|title=UTN #6: BOCU-1|date=2006-02-04|first1=Markus |last1=Scherer |author2-link=Mark Davis (Unicode)|first2=Mark |last2=Davis|access-date=2014-02-05}}</ref> [[Microsoft]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/silverlightcontrolslicense.mspx|title=Silverlight Controls License|publisher=Microsoft Corporation}}</ref> [[Nokia]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sourceforge.net/projects/symbiandump/|title=symbian-dump|website=SourceForge|date=11 April 2013 }}</ref> [[Novell]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.novell.com/company/policies/patent/|title=Patent Policy|publisher=Novell|access-date=2012-10-09|archive-date=2013-07-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130730235511/http://www.novell.com/company/policies/patent/|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Red Hat]],<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web|url=http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html|publisher=Red Hat|title=Red Hat Patent Policy}}</ref> and [[Sun Microsystems|Sun]] (now [[Oracle Corporation|Oracle]]).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u2-license.txt|title=Oracle Technology Network for Java Developers|publisher=Sun Microsystems|access-date=2012-10-09}}</ref>

In 2005, Sun Microsystems announced that they were making a portfolio of 1,600 patents available through a patent license called [[Common Development and Distribution License]].<ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2005-01/sunflash.20050125.2.xml|title=Sun Grants Global Open Source Community Access to More than 1,600 Patents|publisher=Sun Microsystems|date=January 25, 2005|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081202014850/http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2005-01/sunflash.20050125.2.xml|archive-date=December 2, 2008}}</ref>

In 2006, Microsoft's [[Microsoft–Novell agreement|pledge not to sue]] Novell [[Linux]] customers, [[openSUSE]] contributors, and free/open source software developers over patents<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/community.mspx|title=Community Commitments – Microsoft & Novell Interoperability Collaboration|publisher=Microsoft|date=November 2, 2006}}</ref> and the associated collaboration agreement with Novell<ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.novell.com/news/press/item.jsp?id=1196|title=Microsoft and Novell Announce Broad Collaboration on Windows and Linux Interoperability and Support|date=November 2, 2006|publisher=Novell}}</ref> was met with disdain from the [[Software Freedom Law Center]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2006/11/microsofts_deve.html|title=Microsoft's developer patent pledge 'worse than useless' says SFLC|date=November 10, 2006}}</ref> while commentators from the Free Software Foundation stated that the agreement would not comply with [[GPLv3]]. Meanwhile, Microsoft has reached similar agreements with [[Dell]] and [[Samsung]],<ref>{{cite web|author1=Eric Lai|author2=Sumner Lemon|url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9019238/Update_Microsoft_wants_royalties_for_open_source_software|title=Update: Microsoft wants royalties for open-source software|publisher=Computerworld|date=2007-05-13|access-date=2012-10-09}}</ref> due to alleged patent infringements of the Linux operating system. Microsoft has also derived revenue from Android by making such agreements-not-to-sue with Android vendors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2012/jan12/01-12LGPR.mspx|title=Microsoft and LG Sign Patent Agreement Covering Android and Chrome OS Based Devices|publisher=Microsoft|date=2012-01-12|access-date=2012-10-09}}</ref>

===Unisys case===
In the late 1990s, Unisys claimed to have granted royalty free licenses to hundreds of [[Nonprofit organization|not-for-profit]] organizations that used the patented [[LZW]] compression method and, by extension, the [[Graphics Interchange Format|GIF]] image format. However, this did not include most software developers and Unisys were "barraged" by negative and "sometimes obscene" emails from software developers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/31/0143246.shtml|title=Unisys Not Suing (most) Webmasters for Using GIFs|first=Robin ("Roblimo")|last=Miller|publisher=Slashdot|date=August 31, 1999}}</ref>

===Licensing===
{{Main|Software license}}
{|class="wikitable floatright" style="width:600px;"
|+Total US software patent counts by class of invention as of 2015<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cbcby.htm|title=Patent Counts By Class By Year, CY 1977 - 2015|publisher=United States Patent and Trademark Office|access-date=2017-03-13}}</ref>
|-
!US class
!Description
!Total patents issued
|-
|align="right"|700
|Data Processing: Generic Control Systems or Specific Applications
|align="right"|26042
|-
|align="right"|701
|Data Processing: Vehicles, Navigation, and Relative Location
|align="right"|38566
|-
|align="right"|702
|Data Processing: Measuring, Calibrating, or Testing
|align="right"|27130
|-
|align="right"|703
|Data Processing: Structural Design, Modeling, Simulation, and Emulation
|align="right"|10126
|-
|align="right"|704
|Data Processing: Speech Signal Processing, Linguistics, Language Translation, and Audio Compression/Decompression
|align="right" |17944
|-
|align="right" |705
|Data Processing: Financial, Business Practice, Management, or Cost/Price Determination
|align="right" |38284
|-|align="right"|706
|706
|align="right"|Data Processing: Artificial Intelligence
|9161
|-
|align="right"|707
|Data Processing: Database and File Management or Data Structures
|align="right"|47593
|-
|align="right"|708
|Electrical Computers: Arithmetic Processing and Calculating
|align="right"|9993
|-
|align="right"|709
|Electrical Computers and Digital Processing Systems: Multicomputer Data Transferring
|align="right"|56001
|-
|align="right"|710
|Electrical Computers and Digital Data Processing Systems: Input/Output
|align="right"|23991
|-
|align="right"|711
|Electrical Computers and Digital Processing Systems: Memory
|align="right"|34025
|-
|align="right"|712
|Electrical Computers and Digital Processing Systems: Processing Architectures and Instruction Processing (e.g., Processors)
|align="right"|10461
|-
|align="right"|713
|Electrical Computers and Digital Processing Systems: Support
|align="right"|30695
|-
|align="right"|714
|Error Detection/Correction and Fault Detection/Recovery
|align="right"|38532
|-
|align="right"|715
|Data Processing: Presentation Processing of Document, Operator Interface Processing, and Screen Saver Display Processing
|align="right"|25413
|-
|align="right"|716
|Computer-Aided Design and Analysis of Circuits and Semiconductor Masks
|align="right"|13809
|-
|align="right"|717
|Data Processing: Software Development, Installation, and Management
|align="right"|17336
|-
|align="right"|718
|Electrical Computers and Digital Processing Systems: Virtual Machine Task or Process Management or Task Management/Control
|align="right"|7615
|-
|align="right"|719
|Electrical Computers and Digital Processing Systems: Interprogram Communication or Interprocess Communication (Ipc)
|align="right"|5456
|-
|align="right"|720
|Dynamic Optical Information Storage or Retrieval
|align="right"|3877
|-
|align="right"|725
|Interactive Video Distribution Systems
|align="right"|12076
|-
|726
|Information Security
|21144
|-
!
!align="right"|Total
!525270
|}

Patenting software is widespread in the US. {{As of|2015}}, approximately 500,000 patents had issued in the 23 classes of patents covering "computer implemented inventions" (see table).

Many software companies [[cross-licensing|cross license]] their patents to each other. These agreements allow each party to practice the other party's patented inventions without the threat of being sued for [[patent infringement]]. [[Microsoft]], for example, has agreements with [[IBM]], [[Sun Microsystems|Sun]] (now [[Oracle Corporation|Oracle]]), [[SAP AG|SAP]], [[Hewlett-Packard]], [[Siemens]], [[Cisco Systems|Cisco]], [[Autodesk]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arn.idg.com.au/index.php?taxid=620938001&id=63439861 |title=Microsoft, Autodesk in patent licensing deal |work=IDG News Service |date=2004-12-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115222332/http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/5043/microsoft_autodesk_patent_licensing_deal/?taxid=620938001 |archive-date=January 15, 2013 |access-date=2012-10-09}}</ref> and recently [[Novell]]. Microsoft cross-licensed its patents with Sun, despite being direct competitors, and with Autodesk even though Autodesk has far fewer patents than Microsoft.

The ability to negotiate cross licensing agreements is a major reason that many software companies, including those providing [[Open-source software|open source]] software, file patents. As of June 2006, for example, [[Red Hat]] had developed a [[patent portfolio|portfolio]] of 10 issued US patents, 1 issued European patent, 163 pending US patent applications, and 33 pending international PCT ([[Patent Cooperation Treaty]]) patent applications. Red Hat uses this portfolio to cross license with proprietary software companies so that they can preserve their freedom to operate.<ref name=autogenerated1 />

Other patent holders are in the business of inventing new "computer implemented inventions" and then commercializing the inventions by licensing the patents to other companies that manufacture the inventions. [[Walker Digital]], for example, has generated a large patent portfolio from its research efforts, including the basic patent on the [[Priceline.com]] reverse auction technology. US universities also fall into this class of patent owners. They collectively generate about $1.4 billion per year through licensing the inventions they develop to both established and start up companies in all fields of technology, including software.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.autm.net/FY_2004_Licensing_Survey/8932.htm|title=FY 2004 U.S. Licensing Survey|publisher=Association of University Technology Managers|date=2012-09-08|access-date=2012-11-07|archive-date=2012-10-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121015213045/http://www.autm.net/FY_2004_Licensing_Survey/8932.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Still other patent holders focus on obtaining patents from original inventors and licensing them to companies that have introduced commercial products into the marketplace after the patents were filed. Some of these patent holders, such as [[Intellectual Ventures]], are privately held companies financed by large corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, [[Intel]], [[Google]], etc. Others, such as [[Acacia Research|Acacia Technologies]], are publicly traded companies with institutional investors being the primary shareholders.<ref>{{citation|url=http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/overview.xhtml?ID=fffrfkrhrrxhjcxxkh|title=Acacia Technologies LLC: Company Information|publisher=Hoovers}}{{Dead link|date=December 2021}}</ref>

The practice of acquiring patents merely to license them is controversial in the software industry. Companies that have this business model are pejoratively referred to as [[patent troll]]s. It is an integral part of the business model that patent licensing companies sue infringers that do not take a license. Furthermore, they may take advantage of the fact that many companies will pay a modest license fee (e.g. $100,000 to $1,000,000) for rights to a patent of questionable validity, rather than pay the high legal fees ($2,000,000 or more) to demonstrate in court that the patent is invalid.{{Citation needed|reason=What are median license fees and litigation costs? Consider also the lower cost of ex parte and inter partes reexam.|date=November 2008}}