Software Patents
This article by Hunter Jensen, CEO of Barefoot Solutions, was originally published in the July 2008 edition of PHP Architect, a print magazine for PHP Professionals. It is the fourth article in a five part series on some of the different legal issues surrounding the web development industry.
Modern day patents originated from a specific form of Letters Patent. These were decrees handed down by a monarchy granting exclusive monopoly rights to the recipient for a specific and often broad range of business activities. Patent laws have come a long way since then, but the basic premise is the same. A government provides monopolistic rights to the creator of an invention for a limited time. The justification here is to provide an incentive structure that is conducive to promoting progress and innovation.
But why, as professionals working with PHP, do we need to care about patents? Most small software development shops and startups will run their entire course without ever securing a patent. We should care because most small software development shops will infringe upon a software patent during the ordinary course of business. Patent infringement lawsuits, regardless if you win or lose, are expensive propositions. Further, we should care because they are threatening the software development industry as a whole. They are stifling innovation and creating massive barriers to entry. Major changes need to be made to fix the current system in the U.S. and across the world.
First, a little background on intellectual property laws and patents. The U.S. system will be discussed here because it has one of the broadest covering patent systems in the world, and is the basis for many of the software patent issues that are affecting the industry globally. The United States Constitution states that: “Congress Shall Have Power To […] promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. This one sentence contains the entire justification for the U.S. copyright and patent system. Patents are not the right to use your invention, but rather the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing patented goods and services. Inventors must apply for patents which are then reviewed by government officials and awarded or denied based on their merit. In the United States, this is handled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (U.S.P.T.O). They base their judgments on three main criteria. In order to be awarded a patent, the idea presented must be novel (new), useful, and nonobvious.
A patent will not be considered new if:
The invention was publicly known before it was supposedly “invented” by the patent applicant
The invention was explained or described in any publication more than one year prior to the date that the application is filed
The invention was used or offered for sale in a public manner more than one year prior to the filing date.
The actual rules are more detailed than this, but are fairly clear in their application. The Useful requirement for patents is generally used only to throw out frivolous applications and is most often very easily met for software patent applications. The Nonobvious requirement is by far the most difficult to predict and judge properly. The rules state that not only must the invention be different from any prior art (novel), but it must also be a nonobvious extension or improvement on any prior art. This is judged by determining whether a person “of ordinary skill in the art” would consider something obvious. For example, as a person of excruciatingly ordinary skill in the art of computer programming, it seems obvious to me that, in an online shopping system, the less clicks required to checkout the better. Therefore, given prior art of a two-click checkout process, a one-click process seems to be an obvious extension. Unfortunately, as we will see, the judgments of the USPTO do not always follow my intuition.
A common misconception is that you have to actually copy another person’s invention in order to infringe on a patent. While this is true for copyright, it is possible to infringe on a patent while being completely unaware of its existence. Lack of knowledge is considered irrelevant in a patent infringement case. Another area of confusion is where exactly patents are enforceable. While it is true that patents are only enforceable in the country in which they were issued, international trade agreements make it very reasonable to obtain similar patents in many other countries, thereby making them internationally enforceable.
Software patents are only one specific form of patents. Surprisingly, they are available in most countries with a mature set of intellectual property laws; Even those countries that specifically do not allow them. This is achieved by working around the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit entirely. For example, in the United States software patents were not valid in the 1980s because they were regarded as “printed matter”. The federal government ruled that they were simply written instructions on how to perform a task and therefore outside the scope of the patent office. Further, the USPTO has always held that scientific truths or algorithms expressing those truths cannot be patented. No corporation can own e=mc2. In the mid-90s the “Beauregard Claim” was developed and shown to be lawful, and it changed the landscape of software development for the worse. While it was still unlawful to patent a set of written instructions, the Beauregard claim sought patent protection for a computer readable storage device (hard drive, floppy disk, CD-ROM) which contains the specific written instructions. This patent was awarded, creating a precedent that was further litigated, and now nearly all software patents contain some form of the Beauregard claim.
Armed with some general knowledge on software patents, we can now examine where the problems lie. As I said above, the purpose of patents in the United States is to promote progress. Most generally, the problem is that software patents do not achieve their purpose. In fact, the argument can be made that they actually stifle innovation, having the opposite of the intended effect. They are stifling innovation because the USPTO awards patents for very standard software development methodologies. Techniques that any PHP programmer uses in their day-to-day coding can quite often be patented. This makes creating web applications an intellectual property minefield where one misstep could lead to a patent infringement lawsuit.
The most highly publicized case that illustrates this issue is the notorious Amazon one-click patent. The invention they claimed was the concept of storing a user’s personal and payment data so that, in one click, they could complete a checkout. They considered this idea so innovative that they applied for a patent. The scary part is that it was awarded. No prior art could be found, and it was considered nonobvious by a patent reviewer. Later, Amazon sued Barnes and Noble for patent infringement for providing similar functionality on their application. The lawsuit ultimately ended in a settlement requiring Barnes and Noble to remove this feature from their website. It now takes at minimum two clicks of the mouse to checkout on barnesandnoble.com. Anyone can imagine the millions of online stores which could benefit from this feature, but the Amazon patent prevents this from happening.
As developers, an example that might hit closer to home would be the lawsuit filed by Eolas against Microsoft Corporation. The lawsuit claimed that Michael Doyle, the president of Eolas, successfully developed a manner to seamlessly embed content into a Web page. We know these as the <embed>, <object>, and <applet> tags. Because of the victorious lawsuit and Microsoft’s failure on appeal, Microsoft was forced to change the functionality in Internet Explorer 6 surrounding how they activated ActiveX controls. Microsoft released the patch in 2006, and many websites stopped functioning correctly. Microsoft’s solution was to require the user to click any ActiveX control first to activate it, and then they could interact with it. My company, Barefoot Solutions, was managing several projects at the time that were affected. Most notably, embedded video players now had to be clicked twice in order to be played – once to activate, and again to play. This was infuriating. Fortunately for developers and users, someone developed a workaround in which Javascript was used to output the embed tags, and Microsoft never plugged that hole. But as Tim Berners-Lee pointed out in a letter to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2003, the problem was severe considering the millions of websites with historical significance that are no longer being managed. These were affected and never updated. Regardless, we see how much damage one patent can have on the Web.
These are only two examples of software patents with major implications in which ultimately the common internet user is the loser. Netcraft estimates that as of January 2007, 155,583,825 websites are violating at least one software patent. When these magnitudes of people are violating the law, it is natural to suspect that the law itself might be the problem.
Another major issue with software patents is that avoiding liability is impossible. Not just difficult, but literally impossible. First, there are millions of patents. The idea of reviewing all patents to ensure that your new invention does not infringe on one is just not feasible. The tools for patent research are still very ineffective. More importantly, in the United States, patent applications are not publicized. Even if it were feasible to research every patent to ensure that your invention did not infringe upon one, it would still be possible for a patent to finally be awarded – the application review can take several years – in which case your invention would then be infringing on a valid patent. This is a major flaw in the logic of the U.S. system and is unfair to any inventors, including software developers.
Finally, software patents are causing a huge drain on resources that otherwise could be used on innovation. The End Software Patents project estimates that 15% of all new patents are software patents. Their report shows that approximately $11.2 billion is spent annually on software patent litigation. This number refers only to those lawsuits which actually make it to litigation. Legal fees in the many lawsuits or licensing agreements that are reached before ever getting to litigation are not included, so the actual expense is much higher.
One significant cause for this drain on resources is the existence of so-called patent trolls. These firms buy up patents and seek out infringement cases as their primary means of revenue. Bruce Perens, a leader in the Free Software and Open Source community, dubs these firms patent parasites. Yet we cannot place the blame with these firms, but rather the system that incentivizes this behavior and makes it lawful. These parasites force patent holders to spend their resources on legal fees, as opposed to research and development, thus stifling innovation on a large scale.
Many would say however that we need software patents in order to protect inventors and provide incentives for major investments in innovation. There is evidence however that innovation will occur without the existence of software patents. Through the 1980s, software patents did not exist in the United States. Some of the most important concepts that we rely on today were created during this time, showing that we do not need a software patent system to allow for progress. These concepts include: the word processor, spreadsheet, database, email, the World Wide Web, audio-video compression/decompression, the basic elements of the graphical user interface and the fundamentals of all modern operating systems. Why then do we continue to support a system that stifles innovation and is unnecessary? As Bill Gates wrote, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.”
This paints a dismal picture for the future of the web development industry. So as developers, what can we do to protect our business? Unfortunately, the answer is not very promising. First, many lawyers will advise you to not read up on software patents. This seems counterintuitive, but is often the safest play. The reason is that willful infringement of a patent can involve much larger damages awarded in an infringement lawsuit. Further, U.S. law states that only patent attorneys can judge whether or not your concept infringes on a certain patent. Laymen are unable to properly determine the scope of a claim in any patent. So, if you were to read a patent and decide that your concept does not infringe, the federal court would not agree that you were able to make this judgment, and you could then be sued for willful infringement. Thus, in nearly all cases, the risks greatly outweigh any benefits, and it is best to not educate yourself on the current patents in software development.
Another recommendation is to be sure to place the liability for patent infringement in the hands of the owners of the intellectual property. In an earlier article I suggested that for a freelance PHP programmer, your development agreement should include a ‘Work for Hire’ clause that provides all intellectual property rights to the client. It is also important to include an Indemnity clause stating that the client will pay any legal fees or damages awarded due to a lawsuit for copyright or patent infringement. This will help shield you from some of the liability in the case that you unknowingly infringed upon a patent.
Another method of shielding yourself or your company is to purchase patent infringement insurance. These policies will pay for legal fees and/or any damages that are incurred as a result of an infringement lawsuit. Unfortunately, the premiums for this kind of policy are often very high, and as such this is not very feasible for freelance developers and small businesses.
In reality though, there is not much you can do to fully protect yourself from liability. In medicine, malpractice lawsuits are just part of the risk of being a doctor. In software development, patent infringement lawsuits are currently part of the risk as well. Ultimately what we must do is get involved to fix our broken system. Supporting organizations like End Software Patents (ESP) and the Free Software Foundation that fight software patents is a good start. Our very livelihood is in danger, and it is our responsibility to protect ourselves, our business, and the Web.
Read Article
The Fastest Growing App Categories – and How to Succeed in Them
People are spending an average of 3 hours and 23 minutes a day on mobile phones apps in 2017.
But, before you jump headfirst into building your next app, take a moment to “read the room” (or, read the app store, in this case) and get an understanding of which apps are hitting it big in the current market — and more importantly, why. We’re in the business of watching and analyzing app trends, and we’re here to help you stay on top of the app game.
In this list, we’ll cover the fastest growing app categories for this year, and the highly desirable features that drive successful apps in each category. If you’re trying to decide what type of app to focus on for your business, some of these categories definitely warrant a closer look.
Messaging & Social Apps
Growth: With a usage increase of 44%, social apps experienced the highest year-over-year growth from 2015 to 2016, according to Flurry Analytics. This category is booming, especially among younger generations who are constantly seeking new and exciting ways to create social connections with their friends.
The Features You Need to Succeed:
Comprehensive Modes of Communication: When it comes to their social lives, consumers are looking for as much as they can get in one app. Moving away from the one-app-for-one-purpose model, users are increasingly turning to messaging apps that also provide voice and video calling capabilities. Google Hangouts and Facebook Messenger are good examples of social media apps that have expanded to meet the growing need for comprehensive communication.
Communitainment: This term describes communication apps for the sole purpose of entertainment. Apps like Snapchat, live.ly, musical.ly, and Twitch allow users to stream mobile videos and create content to share with their friends. Consumers don’t just want to connect with their friends, they also want to be entertained and delighted while doing it.
Streaming Capabilities: Users, particularly younger ones, are turning to messaging and social apps for live streaming. Periscope, for example, allows users to set up a live stream in front of audiences. This meets an audience need for sharing their lives with others in real-time.
Business & Finance Apps
Growth: Usage increased a respectable 30% from 2015 to 2016, according to Flurry Analytics. These apps are rising steadily and reliably, as more convenient and enjoyable sources of information than traditional business news channels.
The Features You Need to Succeed:
Real-time Information: No business and finance app will survive in today’s market without real-time data capabilities for stock prices and business news. Consumers want information instantaneously, and if an app doesn’t give you a leg up on getting news fast, what’s the point or using it? Real-time data is the bedrock for leading apps in this space, such as Bloomberg and CNBC Business.
Analysis: The latest news is only part of the puzzle for business professionals. These apps must also provide users with analysis and commentary, as well as actionable steps to act on that analysis. The capabilities for analysis and data-driven recommendations is where these apps can truly shine.
Shopping Apps
Growth: Flurry Analytics reports that app usage increased 25% from 2015 to 2016. Shopping apps have become quite a threat to brick-and-mortar retail stores, as they have the digital edge of convenience, especially when capturing impulse purchases via mobile.
The Features You Need to Succeed:
Fast Loading Time: As more and more users turn to mobile shopping, they’ve come to expect fast loading mobile sites and apps. In fact, a 1-second delay can result in a 7% drop in conversion (purchase) rate.
Aesthetics: People judge the credibility of sites based on aesthetics, and can determine credibility in less than four seconds. This is more important for shopping apps, where people will be entering in personal payment information. Apps like Canopy are particularly known for their simple, refined look, giving off an instant impression of credibility and trust.
Personalized Shopping: The greatest disadvantage of online shopping is the inability to try on clothing. Apps like JackThreads have gotten around this by giving users a trial period, where they can receive, try on, and return clothing. Shoppers only pay for what they keep.
Health & Fitness
Growth: Flurry’s data shows health and fitness app usage increased 18% from 2015 to 2016. For consumers who don’t want to pay a personal trainer, or attend weekly check-in meetings in-person, an app is the next best thing for support and coaching in health and fitness goals.
The Features You Need to Succeed:
Progress Tracking: Users should be able to easily record their progress — whether it be improved time, increased sets, or weight loss. MyFitnessPal, for instance, includes a calorie counter and pedometer, meeting the consumer need for easily tracking activities.
Training Guidance: Knowledge of proper form and technique is important for people to avoid injury and ensure results. Fitness app Sworkit provides over 200 videos led by professional trainers to do just that. In order to fit into that personal trainer role, fitness apps must prove to users that they have reliable expertise in their area of health.
Competition: For many, competition is motivation in itself. Competitive running and cycling app Strava understands this, and includes a leaderboard so users can see how their times compare to other area athletes.
Utilities & Productivity
Growth: Flurry Analytics shows that utility and productivity app usage increased 17% from 2015 to 2016 – still well above the average year-over-year app usage growth of 11%. While the other most popular app categories support different facets of user lives, productivity apps bring everything together to make sure it all gets done.
The Features You Need to Succeed:
Offline capabilities: Lack of Internet connection shouldn’t keep someone from using your productivity app. Google Keep makes this a non-issue, by allowing users to add notes and checklists offline. Once connected to a network, the app will then re-sync added notes across all devices.
Cross-Device Synchronization: For a productivity app to be truly useful, it must not create more work for the user, and that means the ability to sync across all devices is key. Today’s busy workers may use their mobile device on the go, and then switch to their desktop or laptop once at the office. Productivity apps Microsoft Office and Google Drive accomplish this by letting users sign into one account on multiple devices.
Push Notifications: Leverage push notifications to make users feel like your app is an indispensable tool. Many apps, from daily task managers like Any.do to calendars like Outlook, use push notifications to great success.
Simplicity is Key
No matter the app category you choose, remember to keep your app simple and easy to use.
Sometimes, executives, developers, and entrepreneurs get carried away thinking about neat capabilities and third-party integrations for a new app. Remember, all decisions you make for you app should come down to creating the best experience for your users. Seeking outside feedback throughout your development cycle is crucial to ensure that what you’re designing will actually meet consumer expectations and deliver a delightful experience.
If you’re looking for a second opinion on your app idea, or an expert developer to steer you in the right direction for user experience success, reach out to Barefoot Solutions, where our experienced team is thrilled to help you get your app idea off the ground!
Read Article