Talk:List of software patents/Archive 1

Archive 1

Isn't "List of notorious software patents" rather POV?--Samuel J. Howard 01:27, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

• The present collection is more like "List of patents geeks don't like" - Nunh-huh 01:29, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

---

VfD Archived Debate

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion May 1 to May 7 2004, consensus was to keep following amendments. Discussion:

Inherently POV, somebody's idea that software should be free, with examples. RickK 02:05, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, at least with this title. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and list as "controversial" instead of "notorious". Fredrik 02:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
• Move to List of software patents (which of course is really a list of notable software patents, but not *just* controversial ones). anthony (see warning)
• Rename and keep. - SimonP 03:33, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, already moved (by anthony (see warning)). Fixed referrers. --Zigger 04:01, 2004 May 1 (UTC)
• Keep moved, list for cleanup. -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:23, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete (either too ambitious: it will never be exhaustive, tens of thousands of software patents - in the broad sense - have been granted in the past, or non NPOV: why select one software patent but not another?), so unencyclopedic. -- Edcolins 15:24, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
  • The same could be said of List of people by name and most of the other lists as well. List pages are more about organizing the encyclopedia than creating encyclopedic content in themselves. If someone starts adding every patent in the US patent office, that would be stopped. However, if someone presents any halfway decent argument that a patent is notable, why not include it in this list? anthony (see warning)
    • The point is that there is no yet any wiki article about the patents and patent case listed in this list (of software patents) while there are tons of articles in List of people by name. I think a list should be made as an index in Wikipedia, otherwise it is just a waste of time. This one is not organizing anything. -- Edcolins 23:18, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as moved. The general topic of Software patents is important and encyclopedic, and the list of specific examples with short descriptions is valuable. IMNO neither article is exactly up to the Featured Article level, but both are sorta-kinda OK. Dpbsmith 16:24, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

---

Information that should be provided

I think each item in the article should be accompanied with:

• either a patent application number or a patent number, for instance US 4,873,662;
• something indicating whether it is a patent or just a patent application; and
• a brief indication of why they are famous (famous related litigation?).

--Edcolins 21:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the discussion of the Unisys LZW patent in favor of a link to a more balanced presentation on the GIF page. --JeffW 20:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My question: google patent doesn't deserve to be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.19.79 (talk • contribs)

I've thought of a potentially good use for this page. It is clear from the level of misunderstanding on the Software patent debate article that that there are many different assumptions as to what counts as a "software patent". I think the patents in this article could usefully be split into different categories to break down some common misconceptions.

For example, there are certainly a number of patents on this list that cover an algorithmic way of doing something. I think MP3/JPEG/GIF patents or other compression patents fall into that category. These patents must include a detailed breakdown of the compression algorithms involved.

Patents such as the "one-click" patent and the "wiki" patent are very different, however. They cover a broader business concept which just happens to be carried out with a computer. The "software" is completely trivial, and not described in the patent. Instead, the patent just says that there is an effect that you should achieve using a computer, and it is that desired effect which makes the invention patentable, not the particular way in which the computer is programmed. I think a large number of "software patents" fall into this category and, intriguingly, do not seem to be the sort of patents that most people object to on the Software patent debate article.

Another possible category are "software patents" which still do not describe an alogrithm in great detail, but are nevertheless concerned with the internal operation of a computer, rather than the operation of some user interface (like the Amazon and Wiki patents). I think the FAT patent is an example, and Carmack's reverse, plus any patents that are to do with improved ways of caching data within a computer.

Any other categories, or better ways of determining which patent should go into which one? GDallimore 10:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome any effort to get some structure into this list. Your suggestion sounds like a good start. Creating clear category boundaries is not simple, though. And we do need better descriptions, particularly for those examples lacking a separate article to point to. Rl 10:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As part of the task to categorise the patents, I've created a new template Template:Cite patent that links to the [1] website rather than the USPTO one. There's more information available on espacenet, including better patent categorisation information, which I am proposing to use to develop a better system of categorisation than the ad-hoc one I started with. GDallimore 10:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming of patent

"U.S. Patent 6,384,822 Carmack's Reverse" is misleading, it might make someone think it's Carmacks patent when it's not. The Carmack Reverse was the scene adopted name since he announced the 'discovery' in 2000, 2 years before William Bilodeau and Michael Songy patented it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmack%27s_Reverse#Depth_fail - Zarkow 203.144.143.4 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make clear, since it may confuse people, the patent was GRANTED in 2002, but was filed in 1999, before this reported announcement of the discovery. Carmack's announcement therefore does not invalidate the patent. GDallimore 10:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Organisation

Any regular watchers of this article will notice that I've been adding piecemeal categories to it. I decided that my ad-hoc categorisation wasn't going to work, and have started categorising based on the ECLA classification index. However I have come unstuck and would welcome some help/input/suggestions.

Basically, the problem is that few patents are classified in a single class, and several (such as the recently added Overture patent) are placed into quite distinct classes. The Overture patent for example describes both a business method and a technical means for implmenting it so has been placed in two quite different classes.

How should this be resolved? Assuming we continue with the current ECLA based classification, do people think it would be a good idea to place relevant patents under each and every classification in which they fall? Or is this whole experiment with organising the patents doomed to failure?

Thanks in advance for the help.

BTW, my reasons for working so much on this article are that I think this could prove to be a useful list for people who have heard nothing except that all software patents are evil. This list could help to show that not all software patents are equal and it isn't all about Microsoft wanting to crush Linux. From my experience, the general level of understanding of the issues is low and the anger level high, so anything that can be done to clear up common misconceptions over what sorts of patents people are actually debating must be a good thing. If people agree with this goal, please help! GDallimore 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually GD, I prefer your ad hoc categories to the ECLA codes. The average reader won't know what ECLA codes are. Furthermore, since this article is about noteworthy (or notorious) patents that have come to the public's attention, categorizing them based on their public perception would be more useful to the readers.--Nowa 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientigo

I was wondering if we should remove the reference to the Scientigo patents. It's been a year since they made their announcement and I haven't seen any evidence of them asserting their patents or of anyone validating that they are important. Any others care to comment? --Nowa 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to expand that entry now I've found a source. Basically, I think it's a good example of small companies trying to beef up their importance by claiming their patents cover more than they do. This sort of thing happens a lot (although it's also done by nefarious commentators who assume the abstract defines the scope of protection!) and has a number of effects:

• 1. people on Slashdot go apeshit and the reputation of patents sinks another notch
• 2. people in big software industries and patent attorneys snort with derision
• 3. open source programmers get unnecessarily worried about a patent suit when the small company involved is never going to sue them because said company are just in it for the money so they're only going to go after the big players, if anyone.

So I think Scientigo's case is a prime example of how wild statements can be inflamed and cause everyone to worry over nothing. Question is, how best to get that across...? GDallimore 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Descriptive headings?

This looks so much better than it used to. I am wondering though whether patent numbers make the best headings to list them by. Maybe we can lead into each section with a somewhat more descriptive title such as "Unisys LZW/GIF", instead of "US patent 4558302, also granted as EP patent 0129439"? Rl 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much finished with my edits now and want to take a break from the article for a while. So why not try a few things and see what you can do to make it more user friendly. GDallimore 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tumbleweed

I've tried to trim my POV from Tumbleweed without losing the fact that the reason that they had to file patent infringement lawsuits was that they could not get alleged infringers to pay a reasonable royalty through normal negotiations. Reasonable royalty is, by US law,the minimum that a patent owner is entitled to when another party infringes their patent.--Nowa 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't read the references properly, but where does it say they couldn't get reasonable royalties or that Tumbleweed entered any negotiations at all before filing the suits or that anyone other than DST and NewRiver are now actually paying a license fee? GDallimore (Talk) 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have edited the article since your post, but in answer to your questions:

Here’s a list of their licensees [2]. Here’s the reference that they are collecting about $US 6 million per year in licensee fees. [3] There’s no reason to believe that all of their license income comes from a single licensee.

I removed the statement that they had license negotiations before hand.

By definition, whenever you file a patent infringement lawsuit in the US, you are seeking at least a reasonable royalty in damages. The question is what is “reasonable”. That has to be determined at trial and is based at least in part on industry norms.--Nowa 20:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a list of software patent ... applications

... and it may become confusing. The introduction (This article lists patents that are caught under (...)(emphasis added)) and the title may be misleading. I would suggest to separate the patent applications (which have not been granted yet) in a particular section at the bottom of the article, or to adapt the introduction (and title?). --Edcolins 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't help the fact that there are a lot of idiots out there who can't tell the difference. However, I think the few entires that mention patent applications make clear they are applications and give a reason why only an application is being mentioned (eg the "Emoticon patent" because people thought it was a patent and Macrossan's application because it is important in the UK - and has actually been granted eslewhere.)GDallimore (Talk) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bessen/Hunt

I took the liberty of moving the Bessen/Hunt discussion to its own article, Bessen/Hunt technique. The thought was that it was a subject unto itself and its removal would help focus the article on exemplary patents.--Nowa 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured list

Having finally got rid of the last {{fact}} tag, I'm putting this article forward for featured list status. Please put your comments on the discussion page. GDallimore (Talk) 15:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tables

Been away for a few days (holiday weekend), but have been thinking. Tables are great and all, and I tried using a table format myself once before. However, tables aren't that easy to use for less experienced editors. Since we've now decided that this is a dynamic list, which we want as many people as possible to contribute to, I'm thinking it would be best to keep as straightforward a layout as possible, avoiding the use of tables altogether. Sorry that this negates all your hard work, Ed, and it was certainly worth trying, but I think it might have been an experimen that should be taken back again. GDallimore (Talk) 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tables may not be easy to use, but it seems to me that the actual format is not appropriate, especially when more than one patent is cited... --Edcolins 19:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research image?

I think the image may be original research. The author devised his own (actually fairly complex) criteria for what was a software patent. We should rely on existing, verifiable studies for this type of information. Superm401 - Talk 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously misread the description. It does clearly refer to an existing study. Superm401 - Talk 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1