I’ve long been skeptical about software patents. It’s not that I don’t think software engineers create innovations worthy of protection, but using copyright instead of patents did a pretty good job of protecting software IP for a long time. There are some unique inventions covered by software patents, which makes it appealing, but I’ve seen too many patents given to ideas (not even expressions of ideas) that seem pretty obvious.

So, when I look at the decision in the Apple-Samsung trial, I’m pretty torn. It’s clear that software patents are the law of the land and, indeed, are now a part of the business process all over the world. I can see why so many people want to defend these patents. I can also certainly see where Apple made huge innovations in mobile phones and why it feels Android copied many of those innovations. On the other hand, there are so many little things that add up to a modern smartphone (or almost any new technical product), that sorting out all the patents and assigning value to each innovation seems like an impossible task.

In this case, Apple successfully asserted that Samsung violated three of its software patents, all of which relate to multi-touch operations in some form.

In particular, the jury ruled on specific claims in three utility patents. These were cited in claim 19 of  Apple’s  ’381 patent, which covers  scrolling, scaling, and rotation and in particular the “bounce back” feature; claim 50 of the ’163 patent, which covers an interface for displaying structured documents, including tap to zoom and center; and perhaps most importantly, claim 8 of the ’915 patent on APIs for multi-touch scrolling operations, which lists zooming based on multiple input points, often referred to as “pinch and zoom.”

via Software Patents Mean More Litigation, Less Innovation.