DISQUS

First, it's hard to feel sorry for Microsoft. But before some readers assume that I'm "anti-Microsoft", I should say that I use Microsoft products on a daily basis, I like some of their products, and I even recommend them on occasion.

At any rate. I examined this patent and I can't find anything that seems novel. Certainly the chaining of systems or the inter-operability of systems isn't novel. I gather that this IDIOT from Guatemala for some reason thinks he's figured out something that no one else can grasp; that's why his patent includes so much noise and general by-product of food eaten by a bull.

These novelties are called features. They're obvious to any developer worth his or her salt. This Guatemalan Pusbag and/or his attornies obviously blinded the judge with jargon. I think this happens a lot in patent filings and during patent litigation.

My pretend patent description.

When stored in hardware, such as a CDROM or hard disk drive, the resources are in a storage context. When the human operator activates the user agent, these resources are loaded into memory on the playback device.

There, I just created a completely jargonized description of a file stored on a CDROM or hard disk and what might happen when the user loads the file from storage memory into RAM. Wow! Isn't that a super-neato-technical description. This certainly "sounds" novel to someone who is not significantly computer literate, but then again, it might sound novel to the programmer in the cubicle next to mine. It depends on whether or not the neighboring programmer understands the jargon. And remember ... I wrote my example in two minutes. If I spent a year or more, I'm sure I could decompose this into utter nonsense and be granted a patent.

And perhaps if I were a Mr. Bull Fecal Matter from Guatemala, and/or any other holder of a software patent, I might decide that using jargon makes me sound smarter than I really am and certainly looks better on a patent application. Therefore, if I were a Mr. Puke Vomit from Guatemala, I would use as much jargon as possible. That way I could describe basic, boring, and non-unique ideas in a way that sounded unique.

Has anyone ever seen the movie Brokedown Palace? There is a scene where the two female characters are asked to provide statements. Later, they are asked to sign these statements, and ... SURPRISE ... the statements have been transcribed in Thai. Of course, neither of the women speaks or reads Thai and they have no idea what they are signing. Trouble ensues. Etc, etc, etc.

That's what's going on in the patent office. These patents contain so much jargon that they might as well be written in Thai. So Mr. Bull Fecal Matter Vomit Puke from Guatemala was obviously granted this patent because the reviewer simply didn't understand the jargon.

I've said it before. Software patents are going to seriously damage the software industry. While I might seem to treat Mr. Bull Fecal Matter Vomit Puke with unnecessary disdain, I would invite the audience to remember that their jobs are on the line. And not just the programmers in the audience. This patent noise, and we're only seeing the opening volleys in what is sure to be an INSANE war, is going to wreck havoc on the industry.

It's basic economics. While vigorous head-to-head competition actually destroys some value in any given industry, consumers benefit and markets are opened. These new markets open additional markets and so forth. In addition to the chilling effect on innovation, software patents are going to damage competition. I think software patent holders like Mr. Bull Fecal Matter Vomit Puke are simply afraid to compete. Competition is scary, I'll give you that, but a market with reduced competition...that's even scarier. It's really interesting to think about what the word "free market" means when framed in the patent debate. Software patents will destroy the free market, and give us instead a market regulated by judges and government officials who know a lot about the law and nothing about software.