The above is my first use of NetNewsWire's Post To Weblog feature. :)
6:42:04 PM    

"Microsoft has won a patent for an instant messaging feature that notifies users when the person they are communicating with is typing a message " [News.com]

Another stupid, obvious patent. AOL's AIM and Apple's iChat software infringe.

On the other hand, a News.com article from 2002 says:

America Online has quietly secured a patent that could shake up the competitive landscape for instant messaging software.

The patent (6449344), originally filed in 1997, and granted in September this year, gives AOL instant messaging subsidiary ICQ rights as the inventor of the popular IM Internet application. The patent covers anything resembling a network that lets multiple IM users see when other people are present and then communicate with them.

So it looks like AOL can fight back if necessary (I don't know where that would leave Apple and others).

This is why companies that are responsible to their shareholders have no choice but to get software patents -- so they can fight back if necessary. The problem isn't with companies that get software patents, the problem is the environment. The PTO is so mindless in its inability to distinguish obviousness that way too many software patents are a joke, and do indeed have huge potential to obstruct industry progress. And software patents should be 3 years in duration rather than 20 because software evolves so quickly.

I am in complete agreement with Jeff Bezos on these issues. He's only doing what he has to do to uphold his fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders when Amazon gets patents. Arguably, he could be sued by irate shareholders if he didn't get them if it meant that Amazon didn't have the bargaining chips it needs to deal with patent lawsuits from others. (And it would mean that.)

Bezos argues that the system should be changed, and so do I. But while it exists as it does, he's going to do what it requires. So am I.

For the reasons stated above, plus a desire not to have Microsoft copy our hard-won ideas, Transpose, too, has software patents pending that could be considered to be "business method" patents. My current thinking on the issue, if those patents are granted, is to give free license to implementations which are free or result in only small profits, but retain the freedom to fight back against Microsoft and other large companies. I have begun to explore possible ways to build such licenses into the patents so that they couldn't be revoked.

Software patents suck, but if you're trying to be responsible to people who depend on you to make the right decisions financially, you gotta do what you gotta do. I'll report here as my thinking (and the thinking of my company), evolves with respect to these issues.

9:42:15 AM