Sarcasm off.
Now, I’m not an attorney and don’t even play one on TV, but the Vonage-Verizon verdict is one more example of how twisted the patent system has become. I won’t get into the merits of software patents which I think is a very worthy debate. I won’t even debate the merits of the particular patents in question in this case which as far as I can tell are pretty dubious; one appears to be for using a database to authenticate callers and billing information over IP; another for call controlling voicemail or call forwarding over IP. This harks back to the early days of the ‘Net and business process patents. Bar tabs have been around since the beginning of man, but online its’ one-click shopping and it’s protected via patent. Argggggh.
But as I said, I won’t debate that. What I will debate is time. The applications for patents listed above were filed in 1997 and 1999. They were granted in 2000 and 2002. A typical software product development cycle these days is 6 months, and often shorter. Unfettered, innovative companies can go from conception to critical mass to exit in under 36 months. Yet a patent stays in force for 20 years from filing. The concept of protecting any software or business process for 20 years in the modern world is, in a word, ludicrous. By definition, anything that could reasonably stand 20 years of protection in the world of software is something that is so abstract and broad that it should never receive protection in the first place.
As far as I can tell, nobody without a serious vested interest in patent trolling or protecting monopolies thinks the current system makes sense. The problem is there is an industry where it probably does, one in which there’s a far clearer case that innovation and the public good are served by patents: pharmaceuticals. Not that there isn’t trolling and abuse there. But the numbers I’ve seen suggest average cost to develop a new prescription drug is nearly a billion dollars, and the typical time between patent and selling the first pill is over 10 years. Given that cost and time structure, 20 years seems like a low number (that’s why patent extension was introduced).
So, even if you buy the concept of software and business process patents (as I said, a worthy debate in and of itself) the root problem here is one of time. The length of protection is what allows software and business process patents to transmogrify from shield to sword, and what stifles innovation rather than protects it. The combination of a protection period that far outlasts the innovation and typical return cycle, and the cost pf litigation, holds companies hostage to ludicrous claims and makes patent trolling far more profitable than actually bringing a technology to market.
So how about this? Keep the concept of software patents if you like, but lower the protection period drastically – say to 7 years. That will give an “inventor” more than ample time to figure out how to monetize his invention. And it will still allow a nice secondary market for patent trolls. They will just make a lot fewer frivolous claims, and allow settlements that are far more reasonable and don’t encourage extortion under the guise of the law.
Posted by hbart 
