GO PRIMARY: check out an actual patent claim
We hear about patents a lot, but who ever looks at the things? Well, give it a try. Warning: you may find it difficult going, because they are practically unreadable.
The claim below is the key piece of recently granted US patent 8,090,532. The patent title is "Pedestrian Route Production" and it belongs to Microsoft. The application was submitted to the US patent office in 2007, and after 4 years (!) of mysterious percolation through that bureaucracy, was accepted in 2012.
This wording is now, in effect, a part of United States law. It, along with 14 additional claims, defines the extent of the protection conferred by the patent.
The patent excludes anyone but Microsoft from making, using, selling or offering for sale the subject matter defined by the claims. In short, for 20 years, you aren't legally allowed to do this, (if you can understand what THIS is) :
What is claimed is:This claim is ONE SENTENCE. It has 282 words.
1. Computer storage media having embodied thereon computer-useable instructions that, when executed, implement a system, the system comprising: a search component that locates at least one information source, retains pedestrian history from a plurality of pedestrians and addresses of at least one information source that has a history of providing reliable information, identifies low quality information sources that do not provide information used in route generation, and blocks information obtainment for the low quality information sources; a gather component that obtains information related to pedestrian travel including security information, weather information, and terrain information, wherein the gather component obtains the information from the at least one located information source; an artificial intelligence component that makes at least one inference regarding a route based on a previous pedestrian behavior; a filter component that determines, based on the at least one inference, the information that is likely relevant and deletes information that is commonly of little value in part through examination of previously produced routes; an analysis component that determines an importance of the information to a user, estimates how likely the information is to change, and chooses if the user should reach a destination through a pedestrian route and/or through a conventional route; a generation component that obtains the information from the gather component and produces a direction set for use by a pedestrian based at least part upon the obtained information; and a resolution component that resolves a conflict between an information source with a financial interest and an information source without a financial interest and instructs the generation component to produce the direction set based upon the information source that does not have a financial interest in providing the direction set.
The understandability of this sentence is a matter of some importance: the validity of the patent and whether or not a party is infringing upon it hinge upon its meaning. Millions or billions of dollars may depend upon its meaning in a patent lawsuit. A potential innovation may lay dormant because of fears that it may fall under this wording.
To me, this 282 word sentence is confusing - oddly inhuman and way too long. What do the experts say about sentence length? According to a guidebook for business and government people writing manuals:
Sentence Length and StructureThis claim sentence is TEN TIMES longer than a sentence should be! What is going on?
Keep your sentences short. Longer sentences demand greater concentration from the reader. If your sentence is longer than 25 or 30 words, have a second look at it. While we were often encouraged in school to write more complex and usually longer sentences to demonstrate our growing mastery of syntax, in business and technical writing, shorter is better. The best way to keep sentences short is by limiting them to expressing one idea. If you have two ideas, use two sentences.
Could such ultra-long sentences and arcane technical language help when dealing with such complex ideas? Maybe lawyers have invented a BETTER way of communicating, a way that eliminates ambiguity so that it's crystal clear what the patent really means. This way, patent disputes are quick and easy to sort out.
But hold on... in fact, patent disputes are the opposite of quick and easy: they are so long and complex that lawyers refer to patent litigation as "the sport of kings". Multi-month multi-million dollar courtroom battles between corporations are the norm: despite armies of top legal talent scrutinizing every word and diagram, they STILL can't agree on what a patent really means.
The US patent system, in which huge numbers of vague, obvious and over-broad patents are granted, is burdensome to innovators large and small - supremely ironic, since its original intent was to encourage innovation.
Burdensome because for the next 20 years, hardware and software creators who touch upon navigation functionality must take into account not only ambiguous software method patent 8,090,532 described above, but hundreds (who can even discover how many?) of other patents. They must avoid stepping on all claims of all in-force patents. They must not write code which can, in a court of law, be interpreted as being too similar to the methods vaguely described in these patents, or else risk ruinous legal costs.
It's a tragi-comic, massive burden upon the nation's productive forces, slowing human material progress with a defacto taxation of legal and clerical man-hours where engineering hours should be.
 |
| Don't Do This ... One of the Thousands of Patented Obvious Software Methods (5,278,985 Hewlett-Packard, 1994) |
In conclusion, consider Polaroid Corp v. Eastman Kodak Co , a patent battle which cost over $100 million and lasted 12 years. The case, involving 10 patents, was so complex it took the judge, Rya Zobel, 3 years after the trial to write the Memorandum of Decision. Niether company is doing so well; perhaps the money would have been better spent on R&D.
