The Use of USPTO 'Continuation' Applications in the Patenting of Software: Implications for Free and Open Source

This paper examines the role played by “continuations” (procedural revisions of patent applications) within software patenting and the implications that the use by patentees of continuations has for free and open-source software design. Our research analyzes data on continuations in software patenting 1987–99, providing information on the effects of changes made to the U.S. patent laws in 1995 intended to curb “submarine patenting.” Our analysis of all U.S. patents issued 1987–99 shows that the use of continuations grew steadily in overall U.S. patenting through 1995, with particularly rapid growth in continuations in software patenting. Sharp reversals in these growth rates after 1995 suggest that changes in the U.S. patent law were effective. We analyze the role of continuation patents in creating opportunities for patentees to engage in strategic “hold-up” of software adopters and follow-on software innovators, and extend the analysis to open-source software.

[1]  Daniel F. Attridge,et al.  Patent and Antitrust, Happy Together? , 2004 .

[2]  Robert P Merges.  A Comparative Look at Intellectual Property Rights in the Software Industry , 1996 .

[3]  Mark A. Lemley.  Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office , 2001 .

[4]  Christopher Heath.  The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights , 2003 .

[5]  Peter S. Menell.  An Analysis of the Scope of Copyright Protection for Application Programs , 1989 .

[6]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention , 1997 .

[7]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Is the Internet a US invention?—an economic and technological history of computer networking , 2002 .

[8]  Manuel Trajtenberg,et al.  Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look , 2000 .

[9]  Robert E. Cole,et al.  The Linux Kernel Development As A Model of Knowledge Creation , 2000 .

[10]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis,et al.  The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U , 2001 .

[11]  Deepak Somaya.  Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation , 2003 .

[12]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Post-Issue Patent "Quality Control": A Comparative Study of Us Patent Re-Examinations and European Patent Oppositions , 2002 .

[13]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Stylised Fact of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership , 1997 .

[14]  Mark Rettig,et al.  Preamble , 1996, INTR.

[15]  Robert E. Cole,et al.  From a Firm-Based to a Community-Based Model of Knowledge Creation: The Case of the Linux Kernel Development , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[16]  David C. Mowery.  Sources of Industrial Leadership: The Computer Software Industry , 1999 .

[17]  P Samuelson.  CONTU revisited: the case against copyright protection for computer programs in machine-readable form. , 1984, Duke law journal.

[18]  Stephen C. Glazier.  Patent Strategies for Business , 1996 .

[19]  Jennifer W. Kuan.  Open Source Software as Consumer Integration into Production , 2001 .

[20]  Robert P. Merges,et al.  As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform , 1999 .

[21]  Albert R. Teare.  Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights , 1960 .

[22]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Sources of Industrial Leadership , 1999 .