🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <WORLEY.91May9095218@sn1987a.compass.com> worley@compass.com (Dale Worley) writes:
>Has anybody studied the use and abuse of the patent system
>in other industries?  I seem to remember that the electronics industry
>has to deal with abusive patents all the time, but nonetheless it
>seems to be able to maintain a high level of innovation.  How do they
>avoid being unduly hampered by the patent system?

	What little data I have on this suggests that patents are being
abused in other industries, possibly to the point where having no
patents at all might benefit the public more than the current system,
and that software has characteristics that exacerbate the situation.

	See "The Patent Battle Takes An Ugly Turn", _Electronics_,
February 1991, pp. 51-56, to read about Texas Instruments' attempts to
enforce a trivial patent (#4,043,027) on plastic chips.  The article
claims that TI is reportedly asking for 2% to 3%, but I've heard a much
higher number from someone in a position to know who doesn't want to be
identified.  The article also discusses the Hitachi/Motorola and
Intel/Cyrix lawsuits.

	You may have read in the trade rags about various companies
designing interfaces to their computers so that it is impossible to
produce compatible hardware without infringing on one of their patents.
Examples of this include the IBM microchannel, the DEC BI bus, and
Nintendo cartridges.

	You might also want to check out "Patent Protection or
Piracy -- a CEO views Japan", _Harvard Business Review_, September-October
1990, pp. 58-67, in which Donald M. Spero, CEO of Fusion Technology,
writes about how Mitsubishi used obvious patents to fence in Mr. Spero's
company when his company tried to enter the Japanese market.  When Spero
argues for more "protection" for American companies doing business in
Japan, he means protection from the patent system rather than broader
patent monopolies as the term usually implies.  However, Spero does
think that some level of patent monopoly is "necessary" to make it
profitable enough for his company to justify entering the Japanese
market.  (On the other hand, I don't think that the Japanese governemnt
wants his business in the Japanese market, so their only motivation to
extend a patent incentive would be US reciprocity.)

	The problems of ignorance in the courts, vague patents, and
the threat of expensive litigation over dubious patents apparently
apply to other industries (at least in England) according to _Patents On
Inventions_ by Thomas A. Blanko White.  I've only read the first chapter,
since the remainder of the book is devoted to explaining the legal
workings of the UK patent system up to 1962.  

	Jack Larsen (attorney, former law professor and current LPF
president) told me that a new federal court for patent infringement
cases, created late in the Carter administration and filled during
the Reagan administration, has been much more willing to uphold any
patent that the patent office issues, leading Mr. Larsen to describe
it as a "new business" court ("new business" meaning that it seems
to have an agenda of its own).  I don't rember the name of the court,
unfortunately.  Perhaps he was referring to the Court of Appeals of the
Federal Circuit.

>I seem to remember that: IBM often deals with the patent system by
>signing blanket cross-licensing agreements with other companies.

	I don't think that IBM signs blanket cross-licensing agreements
with companies or people who have nothing to offer in return.  The
entrepreneur is still in danger of being shut down by IBM if he has
accidentally reinvented something that IBM has patented.  I've also read
that anti-trust issues are being raised with regard to blanket cross
licensing.  If the big companies in an industry sign blanket cross
licences with one another, they are in effect conspiring to put all
newcomers at a competitive disadvantage.

	Also, a new crop of companies whose only business is litigation
is emerging.  Since thse companies aren't producing any products, they
aren't infringing on anybody else's patents, so big companies can't
force them to sign cross-licensing agreements.  Examples of these
companies that are based on obvious patents include Cadtrack, Refrac
Technology Devlopment Corporation, and whatever Gil Hyatt's company is
called.

	I don't have enough information to draw many conclusions about
patent abuses in other industries, but, since Dale's posting raised an
important question and nobody posted a response, I decided that I should
at least share the information that I've come across.  I have avoided
explaining why patents are especially bad for software because it is
not relevant to the subject of this posting, but I mentioned it because
I don't want people to misinterpret this posting as being an endorsement
for the claim that the patent problems in the software industry will be
no worse than patent problems in other industries.

Adam J. Richter			adam@soda.berkeley.edu
409 Evelyn Avenue, Apt. 312	....!ucbvax!soda!adam
Albany, CA 94706		Home: (415)528-3209