Google is recommending the US Patent Office to curb their common practive of broad language in software patent filings which do not disclose actual algorithms, according to The Verge. After going through the awfully lengthy worded language of a patent claim this past week in class, I completely support Google's suggestion to the USPTO. According to a spokesperson from Google, "The corpus of existing software patents is replete with claims that describe a high-level function and no supporting algorithm."
When it comes to technology and innovation, it is not so much the words to explain the invention that matter so much as the algorithm itself. While words can be strung together to make a confusing, lengthy patent--someone else can use the same basic algorithm to create a product that may be described completely differently. So it would be smarter to judge technology in the language it is written in versus another language.The broad language of the language used in patents only invited scrutiny and fuels litigations and patent trolling--"drags on innovation". I think it is important to consider a change in how software patents are handled--adding a specific subset of rules for specific type of patents may just be the answer.
When it comes to technology and innovation, it is not so much the words to explain the invention that matter so much as the algorithm itself. While words can be strung together to make a confusing, lengthy patent--someone else can use the same basic algorithm to create a product that may be described completely differently. So it would be smarter to judge technology in the language it is written in versus another language.The broad language of the language used in patents only invited scrutiny and fuels litigations and patent trolling--"drags on innovation". I think it is important to consider a change in how software patents are handled--adding a specific subset of rules for specific type of patents may just be the answer.
This would certainly be an interesting battle to follow. If Google wins and patents for tech would be described in "normal" language then I believe that more patents will be filed since innovators will fear the language barrier less...
ReplyDeleteThe reason that we have broad language is to create litigation and priority for patents over others. I don't think we should mainstream everything for technologists for innovators (lawyers wouldn't be needed)
ReplyDeleteFinally, this is a common sense initiative by Google... there is a reason why patent lawyers have a technical background, it is so they can cater to the legal services of technology companies and Google is simply disgruntled by the absence of technicalities and algorithms disclosed in software patent filings.
ReplyDelete