A US federal jury ruled in favour of Kodak last Friday, and the photography giant is now seeking damages of some US$1bn from Sun.
The case has outraged some opponents of software patents, who claim it is a textbook example of why software should not be patentable.
Kodak's case centred on three patents that it bought from Wang Laboratories in 1997, several years after Java was created. These patents -- numbers 5,206,951; 5,421,012; and 5,226,161 -- referred to the integration of data between object managers, and between data managers, and to the integration of different programs that were manipulating data of different types.
Kodak argued in court that these patents covered the method where an application "asked for help" from another application -- such as in Java's object-oriented programming.
Kodak could not immediately be contacted for comment. According to a report in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle on Friday the company has said it was "pleased that the court has validated Kodak's intellectual property rights".
Critics, though, have claimed that these patents should never have been granted as they appear to cover one of the basic tenets of modern computing: the interaction between different programs.
Pamela Jones, who runs Groklaw -- a Web site devoted to legal issues in the technology sector -- has been flooded with comments since the decision was made, mostly from people opposing it. Jones herself believes the case could have disastrous consequences.
"Software patents will destroy the industry in the US," wrote Jones on Sunday.
"The rest of the world will out-innovate US companies, because they won't be running with the patent ball-and-chain attached to their ankles, holding them back. Protect your software with copyright and trade secrets, but using patents for software inevitably blocks progress. If you must have it, rope it off severely so it doesn't hurt anyone like this. At a minimum, patents that aren't actively being used by the patent holder in any way in any product shouldn't be available as a weapon against a company actively bringing an idea to fruition and use."
The European Union is currently moving towards bringing in a system that would allow some software patenting, although this has not yet been ratified.
Opponents of software patents have been lobbying for some patents to be revoked.
Last week, the US Patent Office issued a preliminary rejection for a patent previously granted to Microsoft for its Windows FAT file format.
ZDNet UK's Graeme Weardon reported from London. For more coverage from ZDNet UK, click here.
Said it once, say it again. Software patents threaten _all_ forms of software, not just open source ones. Java is not open source. Java just got slapped.
- - -
http://www.osia.net.au/media_releases/osia_limited_linux_australia_aus_fta_a_danger_to_the_australian_software_industry
The entire Australian software development industry is at risk as a result of the Intellectual Property legal framework required on adoption of the AUS-FTA, Australia's Linux community and Open Source Industry bodies said today in a joint statement. It will increasingly hamper Australia's ability to efficiently compete in global markets. Much like the introduction of a flawed patenting regime for pharmaceuticals, adoption of a flawed patent regime for software is not in Australia's interests.
"Firstly and most importantly, this is not an open source issue, nor will it merely affect Australian-based open source developers," said open source spokesperson and lawyer Brendan Scott.
"The FTA may introduce obstacles and legal traps which will have serious and harmful effects on almost all Australian software developers. It's a whole-of-industry issue for Australia."
Here's why:
The wording in the FTA suggests that there will be a harmonisation of Australia's software patents law with the US laws. The US patent system for software has been broadly condemned as flawed by many industry observers, even by the former Patent and Trademark Office director himself [1]
Any non-trivial piece of software embodies possibly thousands of code processes, algorithms or software modules, any one of which could fall foul of one or many US software patents.
Most Australian developers have probably built products which 'infringe' on US software patents.
Introducing a system which makes it simpler for these patent holders to bring such legal hooks into Australia is very damaging to the local industry.
Australian developers face hefty fines if they re-create software processes unaware of the possibility that they may been patented. Ignorance of such patents is no excuse. In future, Australian developers may not be able to make any software without the fear of paying ransom.
Most Australian software developers do not have the resources to check their software code-bases against the tens of thousands of software patents which may flood the market if Australia degrades its stringent software patent laws.
US patent law allows for the imposition of punitive damages. If Australia adopted a similar law, local developers could be sued for many times more than any actual 'damages' they may have caused the patent holder, merely as a warning for others.
Obtaining software patents is expensive. Most Australian software developers do not have the financial or organisational resources to obtain them. Large software companies do have such resources The introduction of US-style software patenting will therefore be a one-sided affair, and definitely not in the local industry's favour.
Most Australian software developers lack the resources to go toe-to-toe with large firms on any IP legal issues. This includes situations where the Australian developer is the one which owns a patent.
Most software patents are owned by huge ICT firms, which storehouse them in legal battle chests, to be invoked when necessary to do an opponent serious damage or for legal leverage in deal negotiation. They are not used to 'extend the art and science' of technology.
Many or most software patents in the US have been granted on processes or algorithms which are exceptionally vague or even worse, quite obvious to most competent software development practitioners. They should not have been granted in the first place, as they are not 'novel'. By degrading Australia's patent system to match the US approach we will hadicapping our local developers needlessly.