Open Source programmer faces bill of $203,000 for code he wrote

[Kellanved]

MODEL-RAILROAD hobbyist, Ben Jacobsen, has becpme embroiled in a patent dispute with a Japanese software company which claims he nicked its idea.

Jacobsen wrote some software to let you connect your computer to your model railroad and control trains. He made the source code available and gave away the software for free.

KAM Industries, maker of commercial software that does something similar sent him a letter claiming that the software infringes its patent.

When Jacobson asked them how, the outfit sent him a bill for $203,000 claiming that more than 7,000 people had downloaded Ben's software and since it was really KAMs he should pay at least $29 for each of them.

Not satisfied with that, KAM sent a request to the author's academic sponsor requesting copies of all his email and other correspondence.
...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31120



Software patents are scary stuff indeed. I wish the US weren't so active pushing them on the rest of the world.

The details can be found here: http://jmri.sourceforge.net/pp/k/index.html

I found this one to be especially scary: http://jmri.sourceforge.net/pp/k/FOIA-20051027.pdf

[Hugin]

1. I should counter-sue...

KAM obviously hasn't heard about my patent on the "Bit".

[billyskank]

2. That is about how daft it is getting now

The US patent office seems neither to care about prior art, nor has the resources to check for it even if they did care. The only criteria for getting a patent these days seem to be:

1) Has it been patented already?

2) Have you got the money? (A few thousand, I think it costs).

It is indeed becoming a very troubling situation.

[Kellanved]

3. It's a real hazard for any project

The number of trivial patents is out of control and a six-digit (any length, really) invoice can seriously take the fun out of making free software.

[billyskank]

5. Takes the fun out of making commercial software too

software patents are bad for SMEs too. Anybody who can't afford a portfolio of thousands of patents is unable to play the cross-licencing game. This effectively means that software development is going to be confined to the few very large players that have already made it. Which I am sure is what they want. It's protectionism, pure and simple.

[tigereye]

4. that is a bizarre and scary argument

I'm betting his is not the same as their's - how similar do they have to be to make their claim stick?

There ought to be some protections built in for free imaginative innovation.

[billyskank]

6. Software patent applications are written by lawyers, not programmers

they are often deliberately worded to be as broad and vague as possible.

[tigereye]

8. that's what I hate about those types of laws

too many places for the unwary to be caught.... and no one to stop it until people start to get sued and someone bangs their head and says, hmmm, maybe that's a terrible law....


my husband used to write a lot of shareware back before this type of thing became common, now he hopes that his bosses will patent his software and give him a cut. It's kind of a Catch 22.

[billyskank]

9. Many programmers refuse to read about software patents, too

for a very good reason: wilful infringement (that is, when you already know about the patent you are infringing) carries triple penalty. :scared:

[no name no slogan]

10. They're patenting ideas and NOT software

Sounds like they're going after this guy because he wrote an application that does the same thing as the company's but on a smaller scale.

That makes about as much sense as the makers of Electric Pencil (very early PC word processing SW) suing WordPerfect because they're both word processors.

Ridiculous. X(

[tigereye]

11. I was looking for a comparison that would suit

but not being a programmer(just married to one) I really couldn't think of a good one. Thanks.

[Kellanved]

7. very general

Software always was protected like books and other intellectual property. Patents are another step.

Patents can describe very general and often trivial procedures. Depending on the quality of the lawyers writing the patent, it can be very difficult to prove prior art, even if it is obviously there.

[no name no slogan]

12. Indeed-- copyright is one thing, patent is another

holding a copyright on a block of code you created is perfectly normal and done all the time.

But holding a patent? Please....

Reminds me of Jeff Bezos at Amazon.com patenting "One-Click Ordering"-- and actually GETTING IT. Especially when other sites had been doing one-click LOOOOONG before Amazon ever did it.

Insane.

[ThomCat]

13. They claim to own the idea, not the code?

So if Microsoft had patented the idea of a spreadsheet nobody else would ever have been able to create an alternative to Excel?

That's sick. This is the definition of a frivilous, malicious lawsuit.

[Kellanved]

15. The problem is not so much that they claim to do so

It is more that they really do own the idea - until proven otherwise. And proving otherwise is expensive and dangerous - not the sort of thing your average small programmer will go through.

That's the joy that are software patents. Having more than one product from each type is communist. And products by individuals and small companies don't count.

[no name no slogan]

16. Yeah, Lotus should have patented it-- or better yet, VisiCalc

Lotus 1-2-3 was around WAAAAAAY before Excel was, and VisiCalc was around way before Lotus was.

[mainegreen]

14. Anyone who thinks software patents are a good idea should be shot.

Preferably with a good beating before hand. And then I will patent the process of doing just that.

On a computer.

:sarcasm: