• The Software IP Detective’s Handbook
• About Software Copyrights
• About Software Trade Secrets
• About Software Patents
• The Software Clean Room Process

I’ve been thinking about that, and I’ve come to three conclusions.  First, many programmers just aren’t very good at what they do. Many  of them have simply learned to copy others’ code (see  Is Googling Replacing Programming?) or maintain someone else’s code. Second, many programmers underestimate their abilities. Programmers tend to be introverted and not ones to brag about their skills. Of course there are exceptions, but programming is generally a solitary endeavor.

Third, many programmers believe that to be patentable, something must be very complicated. But that’s not true. Section 102 of the U.S. Patent Act states that an invention must be novel, and Section 103 states that it must be nonobvious. There is no requirement that it be complex.

Many inventions are very useful and yet also very simple. Searching Google, I found almost 4,000 patents involving paper clips. I found 27,000 patents with the word “needle“ in the title and over 9,000 patents for kinds of spoons. There are nearly 600 patents involving rubber bands. Some recent patents include a water sprinkler for dogs (USPTO # 7,997,229) and a waterproof cover for a camera (USPTO # 7,991,274). My point is that some inventions are simple and some are complex, but they all are novel and no one else thought of them. If you tend to dismiss software patents, remember that what makes an invention patentable is not whether you could have done that, but whether you actually did.

Grocery trolls produce no fruits, vegetables, or produce of any kind. They do not own farm land, they do not raise livestock. They do not harvest grains. Instead, they buy up the food items produced by small, independent farmers, and sometime large farm corporations, and force hungry consumers to buy them at higher prices. These greedy grocery trolls, going by benign names like Safeway, Lucky’s, Rainbow Grocery Cooperative, and Trader Joe’s have no farming skills whatsoever. And the consequences of not buying food from them? Starvation!

Patent licensors perform the same kind of service by buying up inventions from inventors and offering them for sale. The strength of their size, their sales force, their marketing budget, and their distribution channels ensures that they will be able to buy from small entities and sell to large and small entities and make a profit by charging for their services. Groceries buy from small farmers who could not otherwise reach large markets. Patent licensors buy from small inventors who cannot afford to license their inventions to other companies.

The analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s pretty darned good. Free commerce in a free society means that you or I can sell anything we like to anyone we please; there are no restrictions on having created the good in the first place. If that were the case, most transactions would be illegal. You wouldn’t be able to sell your house or buy a used car. You wouldn’t be able to trade baseball cards or collect antiques. The list is very long. That’s why restrictions on the sale of patents must never be allowed in any free market economy. Restricting the sale of any goods would be a curtailing of civil rights-an extremely dangerous precedent-and anyone who believes in civil liberties should be absolutely against such restrictions.

Overall the book covers the following topics:

• Key concepts of software intellectual property
• Comparing and correlating source code for signs of theft or infringement
• Uncovering signs of copying in object code when source code is inaccessible
• Tracking malware and third-party code in applications
• Using software clean rooms to avoid IP infringement
• Understanding IP issues associated with patents, open source, and DMCA

You can purchase your copy from Amazon.com here.

Peter Huber makes some contradictory and misleading arguments where he claims that non-practicing entities are ruining innovation in America. On the one hand, he acknowledges that only a small percentage of patents, roughly 2% by his own estimate, end up court. Yet he also believes that “[o]ur patent laws have drifted way off course.” He states that “[t]he patent office now grants more than 4,000 patents a week” but neglects to mention that the total number of patent applications and the number of patent rejections have both similarly risen. And one major goal of USPTO director David Kappos, appointed in 2009 by President Obama, is to reduce the backlog of 1.2 million patents around the time he took office. Many more patents are being submitted and examined than ever before-—a sign of the vigorous spirit of innovation in America.

Dr. Huber’s logic is equally baffling when he claims that companies rarely sue each other but that companies spend lots of money collecting patents. Why would a company spend so much on worthless patents? Patents are used to protect their investments in technology, and the vast majority of patent lawsuits are between large corporations like the recent ones between Oracle and Google, Apple and Samsung, Dish Network and Tivo, and many, many others.

Dr. Huber claims that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos somehow agrees with his view that patentability must be restricted. In fact, this decision did just the opposite. While business method patents were rejected by the court, as expected, the patentability of software was expanded.

Dr. Huber claims that plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas almost blindly reward plaintiffs in patent cases, but a recent study by the Stanford
Intellectual Property Clearinghouse showed that plaintiffs in that jurisdiction win only 40.3% of the time.

Finally Dr. Huber gets to his point. Patent examiners and juries just aren’t smart enough to figure out which patents are good and which are “sketchy.” So instead, he wants the patent system changed to restrict inventors from owning the fruits of their intellectual labor. As an individual inventor I object to his condescension and to his attempt to limit this constitutionally protected driver of American innovation.

DocMatch can be licensed as the full version or the LT version. The full version is the professional tool. It creates a database containing matching elements between two sets of documents. The full version can automatically search the Internet for all references to commonly used words and filter them from the database. Also, sophisticated statistics can be extracted from the database. The full version costs $150 for a one-year license. The LT version produces an easy-to-read HTML report showing words, sentences, and paragraphs that are identical or similar in every pair of documents. The LT version costs $30 for a one-year license. Register to download your copy here.

I found that these graduating students were adept at finding code on the Internet. When I gave assignments to code a particular algorithm, I was seriously impressed with how quickly they were able to find the code online. When I asked them to modify the algorithm, they struggled. Also, testing and debugging code often seemed beyond their abilities. Many of them were unaware of debugging techniques that allow them to focus in on the problem, such as using breakpoints to isolate chunks of code or forcing conditions that cause certain code paths to be executed.

The art of commenting also seems to have been ignored in most computer science education programs as well as in many companies. In my companies, our coding standard requires that every routine, no matter how small, must have a header comment that describes the functionality of the routine, all input parameters, the output of the routine, and any other information that someone using the routine would need. Yet most programmers out of school, and many working in the industry, produce uncommented code that is difficult to understand, difficult to debug, and very difficult to maintain.

Can you imagine a medical program that didn’t teach how to stitch up a patient after surgery or use the latest CT scanner? University computer science departments need to take a serious look at the skills they’re teaching. At my companies, I now require prospective employees to sit down at a computer and write a program that works correctly according to a written specification, is fully commented, and is completely their own code. I hope that the percentage of graduates passing this test increases in future years.

Now there is a caveat (we do need to make a profit after all). You can examine the graph and take a screen shot of it, but you can’t save the results to a spreadsheet without a paid license. The good news is that a license is only $500 for a 1-year unlimited license. You can download CodeMeasure here and purchase a license here. This way you get to try out CodeMeasure and see how the results can help you measure your software development effort.

One unique feature of online applications is that often the full source code is downloaded to the user’s machine. This makes it easier for your competitors to copy your code. It also makes it easier for us to detect that copying. Learn more about SAFE Online IP Screening here or email us for details about how we can protect you from unauthorized copying and dissemination of your code.

Which is Right For You?

Which product is right for you, CodeSuite or CodeSuite-LT? Click here for a table that compares the features of both programs so you can choose the right solution.