ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Patent Absurdity/日本語 (Japanese)
- edit this box
- Questions: To contact the film-makers with questions about subtitles, email press@patentabsurdity.com
[NOTES]
- The English text as I heard it is included for reference (and
for timing the subtitles); if there are any errors in the
English transcription, they are probably reflected in the
Japanese as well, so please let me know and I will correct
them. The transcription is fairly literal, including vocal
pauses and such; if you use it for English subtitles, you'll
probably want to take those out.
- There were a couple of places I couldn't understand what was
being said; I've marked those with [inaudible]. I think I
understood the intended meaning from context, but if you could
clarify those, I'll double-check.
- Except where otherwise noted (or where they replace English
text already in the film), Japanese subtitles should be placed
at the bottom of the screen and centered. Where the subtitle
is more than one line long, all lines should start at the same
horizontal position.
- I've tried to keep the Japanese text to a length that will fit
readably using a standard font (Gothic is suggested), but if
any lines are too long, they may be shrunk horizontally as
needed. (Make sure to shrink all lines by the same ratio if
there are multiple lines.)
- A few places I have inserted Japanese text in double angle
brackets, e.g. <<氏>>. If possible, such text should be in a
slightly smaller (about 25%) font. The angle brackets
themselves should not be displayed.
- There are also some cases of Japanese text in double braces
separated by a colon, e.g. {{特異値分解:とくいちぶんかい}}.
This indicates "furigana", a way to indicate the reading of
uncommon Chinese character compounds; the text after the colon
should be displayed at half size, immediately above the text
before the colon. So the above would look something like:
とくいちぶんかい
特 異 値 分 解
Again, the braces and colon should not be displayed.
- The parentheses around subtitles for text spoken by reporters
is intentional.
- For the top subtitle at 00:02, I have added "U.S. Supreme
Court" since Japanese viewers will likely be unfamiliar with
the image. The line can be split at the space if necessary.
- I presume the "Patent" in the title "Patent Absurdity" is a
pun with the secondary meaning of "obvious", but this pun does
not work in Japanese, so I have simply translated it as
"Absurdity in Patents".
- There is an ellipsis (three-dot leader) character "…" in the
line at 13:58. Please make sure this is shown in a Japanese
font (which has the dots centered vertically), not a Western
one (which places the dots on the baseline).
- Can you please confirm the pronunciation of these names:
* "Meurer" at 22:49 (is it like "mew-ruhr" or "moy-ruhr"?)
* "Mullin" at 26:07 (is it like "muh-lin" or "moo-lin"?)
The Japanese subtitles will change depending on the
pronunciation.
- Hello. Thank you for translation. Can I contact to you? I'd like to check this translation with gnu translation team and release it as official one. Yusei TAHARA <yusei@domen.cx>
[00:02-00:07 text on screen, top]
WASHINGTON D.C.
ワシントンＤＣ 米国連邦最高裁判所
[00:02-00:07 text on screen, bottom]
NOVEMBER 9, 2009
2009年11月9日
[00:09-00:16 text on screen]
THESE PEOPLE ARE
LINED UP TO HEAR THE
ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THE FIRST
SOFTWARE PATENT CASE
TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT IN
ALMOST 30 YEARS
ソフトウェア特許裁判を
傍聴しようと、人々が
列を成している。
最高裁でソフトウェア
特許が審理されるのは
約30年ぶりのことである
[00:14.2-00:17.9]
(Reporter 1) You guys want to just introduce yourselves and
spell your names?
(Reporter 2) Names and spellings and titles and all that good
stuff?
（自己紹介していただけますか？ スペルとか肩書きとか）
[00:18.1-00:21.3]
(Bilski) Yeah, um, Bernie[?] Bilski, B-I-L-S-K-I.
バーナード・ビルスキ（Bilski）です
[00:23.7-00:29.9]
(Warsaw) Rand, R-A -- Rand, R-A-N-D, Warsaw, W-A-R-S-A-W.
ランド・ウォーソー（Warsaw）です
[00:30.7-00:33.1]
(Reporter) Could you guys tell us in a nutshell what your
invention is?
（今回の裁判で争われている発明は？）
[00:33.8-00:43.1]
(Warsaw) The in -- the invention is a guaranteed energy bill,
which is like a budget bill without a true-up, and it's a
method of hedging both sides in the transaction.
補償付きエネルギー商品です つまり売買後の精算が要りません
買い手・売り手双方のヘッジができます
[00:43.3-00:48.3]
(Warsaw) So, behind giving consumers, energy consumers a
guaranteed energy bill --
エネルギー商品に補償を付けるには――
[00:49.2-00:58.5]
(Warsaw) -- there's a lot of mechanics. And the mechanics
involve financial transactions between energy consumption or
ener -- energy consumers, and the energy providers.
エネルギーの提供者と消費者の金融取引を
管理する複雑な仕組みが必要です
[00:58.5 text on screen]
THESE MEN HOPE
TO GAIN A PATENT ON A BUSINESS METHOD OF
HEDGING COMMODITY RISK
この二人は、商品取引リスクをヘッジする
ビジネス方法特許を取得しようとしている
[01:03.9-01:05.9]
(Warsaw) And that's what the invention is in a nutshell.
つまり――
[01:06.1-01:12.9]
(Warsaw) It's a method of generating, uh, guaranteed bills for
consumers, and also protecting energy company earnings.
消費者のエネルギーコストを補償しながら
エネルギー会社の収入も守れるというものです
[01:15 text on screen]
THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE WILL
HAVE PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS
FOR SOFTWARE
この裁判の結果は
ソフトウェア開発に
大きな影響を与える
[01:17.1-01:24.9]
(Ravicher) The Bilski case itself is, someone applied for a
patent on a business method, or software, and the patent office
rejected it.
今回の裁判は ビルスキ氏が申請したビジネス方法
つまりソフトウェアの特許が認められなかったので
[01:18 text on screen]
Dan Ravicher Public Patent Foundation
ダン・ラヴィッチャー<<氏>> パブリック・パテント・ファウンデーション
[01:25.1-01:30.2]
(Ravicher) And now this is that person suing the patent office
saying, you have to grant me that patent.
特許庁を相手取って特許を認めさせようと
訴訟を起こしたものです
[01:30.4-01:33.7]
(Ravicher) This case is about, what does it mean to be a
patentable process?
つまり 特許が認められるプロセス（方法）とは
何なのかを争っています
[01:34.1-01:44.6]
(Ravicher) And so, since software patents fall into the
category of processes, because they're not the machine, they're
not a composition of matter -- which are some of the other
categories of things that are patentable --
ソフトウェアも機械などではないので
特許から見ればプロセスに当たります
[01:44.9-01:48.1]
(Ravicher) -- this case will define what it means to be a
patentable process.
そして今回の裁判で、特許が認められる
プロセスの範囲が定義されます
[01:48 text on screen]
PATENT ABSURDITY
how software patents broke the system...
「特許」の不条理
仕組みの脆さを露呈させたソフトウェア特許
[01:52.2-01:53.9]
(Reporter) What about Justice Roberts? He said, you know --
（今回の特許についてロバーツ判事が――）
[01:53 text on screen]
J. Michael Jakes Attorney for Bilski
Ｊ．マイケル・ジェイクス<<氏>> ビルスキ氏の弁護士
[01:54.1-01:57.3]
(Reporter) -- basically, your patent involves people picking up
the phone and calling other people.
（特許内容は 人が他の人に電話するだけだと言っていたが？）
[01:57.6-02:02.9]
(Jakes) It could be reduced to that level, as the certain acts
that are performed, but it's much more than that.
実際の行為は そういうことになるかもしれませんが
それは特許内容のごく一部にすぎません
[02:03.1-02:12.5]
(Jakes) It has to do with selling a commodity at a fixed price
to one party, selling, uh, to a different party at a different
fixed price, identifying counter-risk positions...
ある人には一定値段で 別の人には別の値段で商品を売ったり
反対リスクのポジションを割り出したりしています
[02:12.8-02:18.3]
(Jakes) If you look at claim 4 in the patent -- we have a thing
called claims, which describe really what the invention is --
特許では、発明の内容をクレーム（請求項目）というもので
詳しく説明しますが 本件の第4クレームを見れば――
[02:18.5-02:27.9]
(Jakes) -- there's a long mathematical formula in there, that --
it didn't exist in nature, or -- or anywhere in the literature,
that these very inventive folks came up with.
今までどこにも存在しなかった 大変複雑な数式を
この二人が新たに発明したのです
[02:28.3-02:34.3]
(Klemens) Once upon a time, math was not patentable. And so
nowadays -- yeah, I mean we can have somebody like Bilski coming
in and saying, yes, uh...
以前 数学は特許の対象にはならなかったけれど
今ではビルスキ<<氏>>のような人が――
[02:33 text on screen]
Ben Klemens author, 'Math You Can't Use'
ベン・クレメンズ<<氏>> 「使えない数学」の著者
[02:35.5-02:41.2]
(Klemens) "You know, I worked hard on this mathematical
equation, and therefore I should -- I should have a patent on
this information processing method here."
「時間をかけてこの方程式を開発したのだから
この情報処理方法に特許を認められて当然」と言ってきます
[02:41.8-02:46.0]
(Reporter) You mentioned in your claim that there's a very long
calculation shown there.
（クレームには長い計算式が書いてある）
[02:45.3-02:46.0 display under previous line]
(Jakes) There is.
あります
[02:46.2-02:51.4]
(Reporter) Do you think a strong calculation or good math is a
basis for a -- for a patent?
（意味のある計算式や数学が特許の基礎になり得ると？）
[02:50.8-02:51.4 display under previous line]
(Jakes) It can be.
はい
[02:51.6-03:00.1]
(Klemens) The basic process of -- of writing software is, you
take... a broad algorithm of some sort -- so, you know, some
means of doing something with abstract data --
ソフトウェア開発というのは アルゴリズム――
つまり抽象的なデータで何かをする方法を考えて
[03:00.5-03:02.1]
(Klemens) -- and then you, you apply variable names.
そのアルゴリズムの変数に名前を付ける
[03:02.5-03:11.4]
(Klemens) So for our first derivation, let's start with just a
simple matrix, uh, a matrix of values, and we'll -- we'll find
the mean of each column... mu -- mu 1, mu 2, mu 3.
まずは 簡単な行列からやりましょう
各列の平均値を計算します μ1 μ2 μ3
[03:12.9-03:21.8]
(Klemens) And we're going to find -- define Y to be X minus X --
I'm sorry, X minus mu for each column.
そして各列において ＹをＸ−μと定義します
[03:22.0-03:29.1]
(Klemens) Now if we have some -- some other vector X, we can
take X dot S and find the projection of X onto this space.
別のベクトルXがあれば XとSの内積を計算することで
この空間へXを投影できます
[03:29.4-03:34.6]
(Klemens) This is called a singular value decomposition.
Now, here's the trick -- here's the great part --
これを{{特異値分解:とくいちぶんかい}}と呼びます
これがなぜ役に立つかと言いますと――
[03:35.0-03:51.5]
(Klemens) Now let's say -- let's say this first row, X1, equals,
uh... sexuality. Let's say X2 equals, do you own cats? And X3
equals, I don't know, uh, affectionateness.
最初の行 X1を性的指向として
X2はネコを飼っているかどうか X3は愛情の深さとします
[03:55.0-04:09.9]
(Klemens) Okay, so now we'll also say that, that -- let, let --
let's take a vector, uh, J1 equals Jane, Jane's responses on
this, uh, on this survey. Let's say J2 equals Joe's responses.
そしてベクトルJ1を このアンケートに対するジェーンさん回答
J2をジョーさんの回答とします
[04:10.6-04:21.0]
(Klemens) Now let's do the same projection as we did before.
We're going to take X dot -- we're going to take J1 dot S, we're
going to take -- subtract that from J2 dot S.
ここで 先ほどの投影をしましょう
J1とSの内積から J2とSの内積を引いて――
[04:22.3-04:26.8]
(Klemens) We're going to find the distance between these two
points, and we're going to call that compatibility.
つまり この2点の差を計算します
その差を「相性」と呼びましょう
[04:28.6-04:36.4]
(Klemens) And in that simple step, we have derived patent number
6,735,568.
そして今の簡単な計算をするだけで
米国特許第6735568号を導き出しました
[04:38.2-04:44.3]
(Klemens) Uh, the trick, the trick of our derivation was that
before, with the singular value decomposition, we had abstract
numbers.
我々が先ほど行った特異値分解は
あくまで抽象的な数値での計算でした
[04:44.8-04:49.6]
(Klemens) What the guys at eHarmony did to get this patent was
to assign names to our variables.
eHarmony社が何をやったかと言いますと
我々の変数に名前を付けることです
[04:49.9-04:55.9]
(Klemens) So instead of just an abstract X1, we have sexuality.
Instead of an abstract X2, we have a preference for cats.
つまり 抽象的な「X1」や「X2」ではなく
「性的指向」や「ネコを飼っているか」にしたんです
[04:56.3-05:05.7]
(Klemens) And by making those assignments -- by setting variable
names in this manner -- they were able to take an abstract
concept and turn it into a patentable device.
こうして変数に名前を付けることで
抽象的なアイデアを特許の対象にすることができました
[05:06.6-05:12.1]
(Klemens) What we want to do, according to the, the -- you know,
the, the heads of, of our patent institutions --
今の特許制度のあり方では――
[05:12.6-05:17.7]
(Klemens) -- is take mathematics and slice it up into as many
slices as possible, and hand those slices out --
言ってみれば 数学を細切りにして
なるべく多くの人に配ろうというものです
[05:18.2-05:26.3]
(Klemens) -- and say, well, if you do a principal component
analysis, if you multiply matrices for, uh, for dating sites,
well, okay, you can -- we'll give that to eHarmony.
たとえば{{主成分分析:しゅせいぶんぶんせき}}とか 行列の掛け算をすれば
出会い系サイトのためならeHarmonyのものにしよう
[05:26.8-05:32.6]
(Klemens) Uh, if it's for equities, we'll give to State Street.
Uh, and so on and so forth. And, uh...
証券のためならステートストリートのものにしよう
そういったものです
[05:34.7-05:44.8]
(Klemens) What we're giving out is basically exclusive rights to
use mathematics, to use a law of nature, in whatever context.
And what we're getting in return is basically nothing.
つまり 数学という自然法則を排他的に使う権利を認め
その見返りとして 何ももらっていません
[05:45 text on screen]
HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT?
どうしてこんなことに？
[05:46.3-05:52.1]
(Webbink) The patent's -- it is a government grant -- in the
U.S., it arises out of the Constitution.
特許は 政府が認める権利です
アメリカでは憲法で定めています
[05:48 text on screen]
Mark Webbink Center for Patent Innovations
マーク・ウェビンク<<氏>> センター・フォー・パテント・イノベーションズ
[05:52.6-06:01.1]
(Ravicher) The Framers included the provision for granting
exclusive rights to inventors in the Constitution, and the, the
belief was that --
技術を進歩させることで 社会に貢献した人に対して
何らかの報酬が必要という考えで――
[06:01.3-06:07.8]
(Ravicher) that was important in order to reward people who had
made technological advances that would benefit society.
発明者に排他的な権利を与える制度を
アメリカ建国の父たちが憲法に組み込んだのです
[06:08 text on screen]
Patent Act
Federal Hall
April 10, 1790
An act to promote the progress of useful Arts
特許法 1790年4月10日成立
「有用技術の進歩に寄与するため」という名目で、
米国で最初の特許法が成立した。
[06:12 text on screen]
Mark Webbink New York Law School
マーク・ウェビンク<<氏>> ニューヨーク法律学校
[06:12.7-06:21.2]
(Webbink) The rights that they are granted are not the rights to
do the thing that they -- that they invent, but the right to
exclude others from doing that thing.
発明者の権利というのは 自分の発明を利用する権利ではなく
他の人がその発明を利用することを拒む権利です
[06:21 text on screen]
Eben Moglen Software Freedom Law Center
エベン・モーグレン<<氏>> ソフトウェア・フリーダム法律センター
[06:21.4-06:28.4]
(Moglen) So the idea was, you have a machine or a thing, which
is not previously described in any literature --
考え方として 今まで文献に出たことがなくて――
[06:28.8-06:36.3]
(Moglen) and which no skilled mechanic could figure out how to
make given what is described in the literature, and for that you
get a patent.
文献に詳しい技術者でも考えつかないような機械とか
そういうモノを作れば 特許がもらえるんです
[06:36.6-06:46.5]
(Webbink) The, the -- the basis for determining what is
patentable subject matter has continued to evolve over the last
two hundred years of our national existence.
何が特許の対象になるのかは 200年の歴史の中で
常に変化し続けてきました
[06:46.7-06:57.5]
(Moglen) In 1953, the Patent Act was modified by Congress to add
the words "or processes" to the word "product" in describing
what could be patented.
1953年には 議会が特許法を改正して
特許の対象に「プロセス」を加えました
[06:58 text on screen]
Patent Act amendment
Capitol Building
July 19, 1952
Along with 'machine', 'manufacture' or 'composition of matter',
a 'process' is included as patentable statutory subject matter.
改正特許法 1952年7月19日成立
特許の対象を定義する条文で、すでに対象となっていた
「機械」「製作物」「物体」に「プロセス」が追加された。
[07:04.6-07:14.1]
(Moglen) The Congress which did that was plainly thinking about
processes of industrial manufacture, processes that produced
something at the other end.
その改正をした議会が言っていたのは 明らかに産業のプロセス
つまり最後に何かモノが出るプロセスなんです
[07:14.4-07:19.6]
(Moglen) Float glass on molten tin and it will become flat, or
whatever.
溶融スズにガラスを浮かべると平らになるとか そんな感じです
[07:19.8-07:24.6]
(Webbink) And it's unlikely that anybody thought of "process" at
that time in terms of computer software --
「プロセス」という言葉をコンピュータに関連づける人は
その改正当時はいなかったはずです
[07:24.8-07:36.3]
(Webbink) because we didn't, uh, have applications and computer
software for, uh, many years after that, that, uh -- the last
revision of the Patent Act.
コンピュータソフトウェアやアプリケーションが出てきたのは
改正後何年も経った頃でしたから
[07:37 text on screen]
Gottschalk v. Benson
Supreme Court
1972
Respondents' method for hexadecimal conversion merely a series
of mathematical calculations or mental steps and does not
constitute a patentable "process" within the meaning of the
Patent Act
Gottschalk v. Benson（1972年） 米最高裁判決
被上告人の16進数変換方法は数学的計算や思考上の手段にすぎず、
特許法でいう特許対象の「プロセス」には当たらない。
[07:45.9-07:51.0]
(Bricklin) Back in the late '70s, the patent law was interpreted
such that you couldn't patent software.
1970年代の特許法解釈では ソフトウェアは特許の対象外でした
[07:48 text on screen]
Dan Bricklin co-creator of VisiCalc
ダン・ブリックリン<<氏>> VisiCalc共同開発者
[07:51.4-07:54.5]
(Bricklin) It was considered a mathematical algorithm, a law of
nature.
数学的アルゴリズムというか 自然法則という解釈でした
[07:55 text on screen]
Parker v. Flook
Supreme Court
June 22, 1978
A mathematical algorithm is not patentable if its application is
not novel
Parker v. Flook（1978年6月22日） 米最高裁判決
数学的アルゴリズムは、その適用が革新的でなければ
特許の対象とはならない。
[08:02 text on screen]
the first PC spreadsheet
最初のパソコン用表計算ソフトウェア
[08:01.8-08:10.8]
(Bricklin) The legal, uh, world changed. Uh, the environment
was quite different starting with some, um, some decisions by
the Supreme Court like Diamond v. Diehr.
法的環境が変わりました Diamond v. Diehrなどの
最高裁判決がかなりの変化をもたらしたんです
[08:11 text on screen]
Karen Sandler Software Freedom Law Center
カレン・サンドラー<<氏>> ソフトウェア・フリーダム法律センター
[08:11.2-08:16.3]
(Sandler) The, um, the patent applicant was coming with a new
process for curing rubber.
この発明は コム硬化の新しいプロセスでした
[08:16.6-08:28.3]
(Sandler) The temperature and the preciseness of the temperature
is essential in, in -- in curing rubber well. And the
innovation that that was being patented in this case was, um,
was a, uh --
うまく硬化させるためには 温度の細かい調整が不可欠で
温度計を使って ゴムをいつ冷却するか判断していました
[08:28.5-08:36.9]
(Sandler) an algorithm to monitor a thermometer that, that was
basically in the process and determined when the rubber needed
to be released, um, and cooled.
そして特許を取ろうとしていたのは
温度計を監視するアルゴリズムです
[08:37 text on screen]
Richard Stallman Free Software Foundation
リチャード・ストールマン<<氏>> フリーソフトウェア財団
[08:37.5-08:47.3]
(Stallman) And they said -- processes for curing rubber are
patentable, there's nothing new about that. The fact that they
use a computer in implementing it shouldn't change anything.
そして判決で ゴム硬化プロセスは特許対象だから
コンピュータを使ったからといって 何も変わらないと判断しました
[08:48 text on screen]
Diamond v. Diehr
Supreme Court
March 3, 1981
The working of a machine is patentable, whether it is
controlled by a human or a computer
Diamond v. Diehr（1981年3月3日） 米最高裁判決
機械の操作は、その操作を行うのが人間であれコンピュータであれ
特許の対象となる。
[08:56 text on screen]
Mishi Choudhary Software Freedom Law Center
ミシ・チャウダリ<<氏>> ソフトウェア・フリーダム法律センター
[08:55.8-08:58.7]
(Choudhary) The Supreme Court makes it clear that you cannot
patent software,
ソフトウェアは単なる命令の羅列やアルゴリズムにすぎず
[08:58.9-09:10.7]
(Choudhary) because it is only a set of instructions or an
algorithm, and, uh, abstract laws of nature, algorithms are
unpatentable in the U.S. itself. And, um --
アメリカでは 自然法則やアルゴリズムに特許が取れないことを
最高裁が今までも明確に示してきました
[09:11.5-09:17.6]
(Choudhary) However, there is -- then there was the creation of
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
ただ 連邦巡回控訴裁判所ができてから状況が変わりました
[09:17.8-09:26.9]
(Moglen) The problem being solved, in some sense, begins with
the fact that trial court judges always hate patent cases.
問題の発端は
初審裁判所の裁判官は 特許訴訟が嫌いだということです
[09:27.8-09:36.8]
(Moglen) And the reason the trial court judges hate patent cases
is, for a single trial judge, a lawyer who has spent his or her
life doing litigation --
裁判官というのは つまり法律家です
訴訟に関わることが仕事であり プライドです
[09:37.4-09:49.1]
(Moglen) A patent case, in which she or he is going to be
required to find detailed facts about how paint is made or how
computers work or how radio broadcasting operates --
しかし特許訴訟では ペンキの生成方法とかコンピュータの設計
ラジオ放送技術などの専門的事実を 自ら判断しなくてはいけません
[09:49.4-09:52.6]
(Moglen) -- is an opportunity just to be made into a fool.
そして一歩間違えば 大バカにされてしまうんです
[09:53 text on screen]
Creation of US Court of Appeals
Federal Circuit
April 2, 1982
Creation of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1982年4月2日
米国連邦巡回控訴裁判所が設置される
[10:00.1-10:05.2]
(Moglen) Congress is attempting to change the system in which
patent cases are litigated.
議会は 特許訴訟のあり方を変えようとしました
[10:05.8-10:13.3]
(Moglen) But instead of changing who tried patent cases,
Congress left the non-specialist district judge in charge of the
trial --
しかし初審の担当者を 専門知識のない
地方裁判所の裁判官のままにしておいて――
[10:13.7-10:21.6]
(Moglen) and then created a new court of appeals, called the
Federal Circuit, whose job it was to hear all appeals from
patent cases.
連邦巡回控訴裁判所という 特許訴訟の控訴審を担当する
新しい裁判所を設置しただけです
[10:22.1-10:29.8]
(Moglen) Rapidly, of course, this court filled up with patent
lawyers. And the patent lawyers then made the law in the Court
of Appeals --
当然ながら この裁判所に特許専門の法律家が集まりました
そしてその法律家は 新しい判例を作っていきました
[10:30.1-10:37.5]
(Moglen) -- that applied to all those district judges who were
still making non-specialist decisions of which they were afraid.
専門知識もなく 新しい判例にも縛られる
地方裁判官だけが取り残されてしまいました
[10:38.4-10:42.3]
(Moglen) Naturally, the Federal Circuit turned out to be a place
which loved patents.
連邦巡回裁判所は やはり特許が大好きでした
[10:42.9-10:52.9]
(Moglen) And its chief judge, Giles Rich -- who lived to be
very, very old, and died in his late 90s -- was a man who
particularly loved patents on everything.
特に 初代裁判長を90歳代後半まで務めたジャイルズ・リッチ<<氏>>は
何にでも特許を認めようという考え方の持ち主でした
[10:53.4-11:00.1]
(Moglen) The Federal Circuit Court under Giles Rich sort of
broke Diamond against Diehr loose from its original meaning,
リッチ<<氏>>の下で連邦巡回裁判所は
Diamond v. Diehrを拡大解釈して――
[11:00.3-11:05.2]
(Moglen) and came to the conclusion that software itself could
be patented.
ソフトウェアそのものが特許の対象になる
という結論に至ったのです
[11:05.4-11:09.4]
(Choudhary) The Supreme Court basically left everything to this
court to decide.
最高裁は何もかもを この新しい裁判所に任せました
[11:09.6-11:16.3]
(Ravicher) The PTO actually used to reject patents on software,
like in the early 1990s, and they did not allow them --
1990年代の始めまで 特許庁はソフトウェア特許の申請を
対象外として却下していました
[11:16.5-11:19.4]
(Ravicher) -- and the applicants would appeal those rejections
to the Federal Circuit.
しかし申請者はすぐさま連邦巡回裁判所に控訴しました
[11:20 text on screen]
In re Alappat
Federal Circuit
July 29, 1994
Installing software on a computer makes a "new machine", which
is patentable
In re Alappat（1994年7月29日） 連邦巡回裁判所判決
コンピュータにソフトウェアをインストールすることによって
新しい機械が完成し、その新しい機械は特許の対象となる。
[11:28 text on screen]
In re Lowry
Federal Circuit
August 26, 1994
The data structure of a computer's hard drive constitutes a
"machine" that is eligible for patentability
In re Lowry（1994年8月26日） 連邦巡回裁判所判決
コンピュータのハードディスクに記録されたデータの構造は
特許の対象である「機械」に当たる。
[11:36 text on screen]
State Street v. Signature Financial
Federal Circuit
July 23, 1998
A numerical calculation that produces a "useful, concrete and
tangible result", such as a price, is patent-eligible
State Street v. Signature Financial（1998年7月23日） 連邦巡回裁判所判決
数値的計算は、値段などの「有用、具体的かつ実体的な結果」を
出すものであれば、特許の対象となる。
[11:43.1-11:51.4]
(Moglen) In the world of machines, you showed the patent office
the machine, and you got a patent office [sic] whose claims were
"I claim this machine".
機械の特許を取る場合 特許庁に機械そのものを見せたし
特許のクレームもあくまでその機械の特徴でした
[11:52.9-11:56.9]
(Moglen) In the world of computer software, there was no way of
defining what the "unit" was.
でもソフトウェアの場合は
特許の対象になる「モノ」がはっきりしません
[11:57.4-12:00.2]
(Moglen) I don't claim a program, I claim a technique --
クレームはプログラムそのものではなく
プログラムの動作やアルゴリズム つまり技法です
[12:00.4-12:06.3]
(Moglen) -- that any number of programs doing any number of
things could possibly use.
同じ技法を使うプログラムが
他にも多数考えられるにもかかわらず です
[12:06.7-12:18.8]
(Moglen) The consequence of which is that very rapidly we began
to build up as real estate -- which somebody owned and could
exclude other people from -- a whole lot of basic techniques in
computer programming.
その結果 プログラミングにおける様々な基本的な技法が
まるで不動産のように所有権を主張され 使えなくなりました
[12:19 text on screen]
James Bessen author, 'Patent Failure'
ジェームズ・ベッセン<<氏>> 「Patent Failure」の共同著者
[12:19.3-12:24.4]
(Bessen) What happened was, starting in the mid-'90s, the -- the
numbers of patents on software started soaring.
90年代半ばから ソフトウェア特許が急増しました
[12:25.1-12:27.7]
(Bessen) Uh, and industry attitudes started changing, too.
そして業界の意識も変わり始めました
[12:28.2-12:32.6]
(Bessen) So you have Microsoft -- which originally didn't deal
with software patents very much at all --
マイクロソフトは元々ソフトウェア特許に無関心でしたが
[12:33.1-12:40.7]
(Bessen) I guess they got sued in the early '90s by Stac and
lost a, uh, a significant judgment against them -- they started
patenting.
90年代前半にスタック社に訴えられて
痛い敗訴判決を受けた後は特許を取り始めたんです
[12:40.9-12:49.0]
(Webbink) They're going to have their own, their own set of
patents, so that if a major patent holder threatens them, they
can fire back.
多くの特許を取ることで もし他社から特許侵害を主張されても
自らの持つ特許で反撃できる
[12:49.5-12:55.2]
(Bessen) Gradually, companies like Oracle were forced to set up
patent departments just for defensive reasons --
結局 オラクルなどが自己防衛のために
特許部門を設立せざるを得なくなりました
[12:55.4-13:00.4]
(Bessen) -- they had to patent their stuff so they had something
to trade with, uh, companies that had patents.
特許を持つ他の企業と取り引きをするためです
[13:00.6-13:10.9]
(Bessen?) And so the arsenals start to develop. And by the two
thou -- year 2000, 2001, Microsoft now holds, you know,
thousands of software patents.
そういうわけで 企業が特許の兵器庫を増やしていきました
2001年頃には マイクロソフトは何千件もの特許を持っていたし――
[13:11.4-13:17.8]
(Bessen?) Oracle was probably approaching a thousand software
patents. Adobe... you know, all of them had become more and
more aggressive patenters --
オラクルも千件ぐらいは取得していたはずです
アドビとか 他の会社も積極的に特許を取っていました
[13:18.0-13:22.2]
(Bessen?) and some of the ones who were against software patents
ended up suing other companies --
元々ソフトウェア特許に反対していた会社も
結局他社を提訴せざるをえなくなって――
[13:22.4-13:27.7]
(Bessen?) And so, you -- what you -- what you had is an
explosion of patenting first, and then an explosion of
litigation.
要するに まずは特許取得の爆発が起きて
それに訴訟の爆発が続きました
[13:32.2-13:37.5]
(Bessen) By the late '90s, uh, about a quarter of all patents
granted were software patents.
1990年代の終わり頃には 申請して認められた特許のうち
4件に1件ぐらいはソフトウェア特許でした
[13:39 text on screen]
Percent of patent lawsuits involving software patents
特許訴訟のうち、ソフトウェア特許に関する訴訟の比率
[13:38.4-13:44.0]
(Bessen) Uh, about a third of all litigation, patent litigation
involved software patents.
特許訴訟も 3件に1件ぐらいは
ソフトウェア特許に関するものでした
[13:44 text on screen]
Probability patent is in lawsuit within 4 years of issue
Software patents
All patents
特許許可から4年以内にが訴訟で争われる可能性
ソフトウェア特許
すべての特許
[13:44.6-13:50.1]
(Bessen) About 40% of the cost of litigation is attributable to
software patents.
訴訟費用の約4割はソフトウェア特許関連に使われます
[13:50.3-13:51.6]
(Bessen) And those numbers have been going up.
そしてその数字は上がる一方です
[13:52.3-13:57.4]
(Bessen) So, uh, Charles Freeney invented a -- a kiosk that goes
in retail stores.
チャールズ・フリーニーという人が
小売店に置けるキオスクみたいなものを発明しました
[13:57.6-14:08.0]
(Bessen) Uh, and the idea is you'd come in, you could select a
music selection, swipe your card, put in a blank 9-track tape --
and this is, this is how long ago this patent was --
そこに入ると音楽を選択して カードを通して
9トラックテープを入れて… それだけ古い特許ですけど――
[14:08.4-14:12.6]
(Bessen) -- uh, and it would write that music selection onto the
tape, and you could go away with it.
機械がカセットテープに音楽を書き込んで
そのまま持ち帰れるというものです
[14:13.3-14:25.7]
(Bessen) Uh, the patent was drafted in a very, you know, this
very vague language, so there was -- there were terms like
"point of sale location" and "information manufacturing
machine", and --
特許自体は かなり曖昧な表現で書かれていて
「販売場所」とか「情報製造機械」とか そういう感じで――
[14:27.3-14:36.4]
(Bessen) Freeney, uh, eventually sold this patent to somebody
who wanted to interpret those terms very broadly, uh, to
basically cover e-commerce.
フリーニー<<氏>>は結局その特許を売ったけれど 買い手は
表現を拡大解釈して 電子商取引に当てはめようとしたんです
[14:36.6-14:49.6]
(Bessen) Uh, so he -- here was this -- you know, this -- this
very limited invention for, uh, this kiosk, and he wanted to
interpret those terms in such broad -- in such a broad way that
it would cover transactions that take place over the Internet --
本来はキオスクだけというちょっとした特許なのに
インターネットでの取り引きも特許の範囲内だと主張しました
[14:50.0-15:00.5]
(Bessen) -- that you could, they, they could be -- you could
make them in your office, in your bedroom, in your house,
anywhere, uh, and so it covered virtually all of e-commerce.
事務所だろうが 自宅だろうが 寝室だろうが
どこでやってもこの特許に触れると
[15:02.3-15:09.1]
(Bessen) The courts initially didn't agree with that
interpretation, but he -- they appealed it, and the appellate
court largely agreed with them --
訴訟は初審では負けましたが 控訴して
控訴審では勝ちに近い判決が出ました
[15:09.5-15:15.9]
(Bessen) -- uh, and they were able to extract, uh, some
settlements out of ov -- well over a hundred companies.
その判決によって 100以上の企業から
和解金をもぎ取りました
[15:16.9-15:24.2]
(Bessen) But the, the, the -- the significant thing is, he --
here is this patent; you can't tell what its boundaries were
until you get to the appellate court.
一番の問題は 特許がちゃんと出ているのに
控訴審までいかないと その範囲が分からない
[15:24.7-15:28.9]
(Bessen) What most people thought the -- its boundaries were
turned out to be wrong.
今回は 多くの人が考えていたより遙かに広かったんです
[15:29 text on screen]
Timothy B. Lee Princeton University
ティモシー・B・リー<<氏>> プリンストン大学
[15:29.6-15:32.2]
(Lee) One of the key properties of a programming language is,
it's very, very precise.
プログラム言語の特徴の一つは とても精密だということです
[15:32.4-15:40.5]
(Lee) You can look at any, any programming language -- in any
language, you know, any, uh -- C, Python, or any language like
this -- and you know exactly what it's doing.
C言語 パイソンなど どの言語でも
一目見れば 何をしているのか分かります
[15:40.7-15:46.0]
(Lee) And you can say -- can look at two pieces of source code,
and you can say, you know, are these doing the same thing or
different things?
2つのソースコードを見れば 同じことをしているのか
それとも動作が違うのか これがはっきりします
[15:46.4-15:53.1]
(Lee) Um, and -- and we do this because computers are picky and
-- and we need to, uh, tell the computer exactly what we need to
do in order to accomplish some task.
正確な指示を出さないとコンピュータはうまく動いてくれないから
そういう精密さが必要なんです
[15:53.6-15:57.6]
(Lee) Um, the -- the patent -- uh, the language the patent
lawyers use is almost the opposite.
でも特許で使われる表現はその逆です
[15:58.0-16:05.7]
(Lee) Um, there's an advantage in being vague and in being broad
and being nonspecific, because the broader your language, um,
the more, uh, things you sort of catch in your net.
あえて曖昧な表現を使うことで より多くのことを
特許の範囲内に収めることができるからです
[16:06.1-16:15.6]
(Ravicher) So it is a large problem in our patent system, just
defining simply what is the context or the borders of the
patent, and -- you know, what does it cover, what does it not
cover.
特許の範囲というのは 今の特許制度の大きな問題点なんです
ある物事が特許の範囲内なのか 範囲外なのか
[16:16.0-16:19.0]
(Ravicher) And that ambiguity causes a lot of chilling effects,
because --
その曖昧さが大きな萎縮効果をもたらしてしまいます
[16:19.4-16:26.8]
(Ravicher) -- people are going to avoid doing anything that
could possibly be covered by the patent, even if -- where in
reality, the patent wouldn't cover what they want to do.
やりたいことが 実際には特許の範囲外であっても
境界線がはっきり見えないから控えてしまうんです
[16:27.1-16:40.4]
(Stallman) Let's imagine that in the 1700s, the governments of
Europe had decided to promote the progress of symphonic music --
or as they thought, promote it -- with a system of musical idea
patents.
18世紀 ヨーロッパ各国の政府が交響音楽の進歩を図るつもりで
「音楽アイデア特許」のような制度を作った と仮定しましょう
[16:40.8-16:49.3]
(Stallman) Meaning that anybody who could describe a new musical
idea in words could get a patent, which would be a monopoly on
that idea.
つまり 新しい音楽的な発想を言葉で表現できれば
特許をもらえて そのアイデアを独占できるんです
[16:49.6-16:54.6]
(Stallman) And then he could sue anybody else that implemented
that idea in a piece of music.
そして他の人が同じアイデアを音楽で使ったら
その人を訴えられるわけです
[16:56.0-17:04.8]
(Stallman) So a rhythmic pattern could be patented, or, uh, a
sequence of chords, or, uh --
だからリズムのパターンとか 和音の進行とか
[17:06.6-17:11.3]
(Stallman) -- a set of instruments to use together, or any idea
you could describe in words.
同時に使う楽器とか 言葉で言えれば何でもいいです
[17:11.6-17:15.3]
(Stallman) Now imagine it's 1800, and you're Beethoven --
そんな中 1800年のベートーヴェンの立場を考えましょう
[17:16.3-17:25.0]
(Stallman) -- and you want to write a symphony. You're going to
find it's harder to write a symphony you won't get sued for than
write a symphony that sounds good.
交響曲を書こうにも いい交響曲を書くより
訴えられない交響曲を書く方がよっぽど難しい
[17:25.6-17:33.8]
(Stallman) Because to write a symphony and not get sued, you're
going to have to thread your way around thousands of musical
idea patents.
訴えられないためには 何千もの音楽アイデア特許の間を縫って
作曲しなければならないから
[17:34.8-17:38.7]
(Stallman) And if you complained about this, saying that this
was getting in the way of your creativity --
もし 特許が創造の邪魔になっていると文句を言っても――
[17:39.3-17:46.6]
(Stallman) The patent holders would say, "Oh, Beethoven, you're
just jealous because we had these ideas before you. Why should
you steal our ideas?"
特許を持つ人たちは 「特許が羨ましいだけじゃないか」とか
「人の発想を盗むな」と反論してくるでしょう
[17:46 text on screen]
Ciaran O'Riordan End Software Patents
シアラン・オリオーダン エンド・ソフトウェア・パテンツ
[17:46.6-17:53.5]
(O'Riordan) People have been making music for, for thousands of
years. There were never -- there was never any need for patents
in the field of music.
人は今まで 何千年も音楽を作り続けてきました
特許も何も必要ありませんでした
[17:53.8-18:03.6]
(O'Riordan) And since the computer industry has made programming
possible, people have developed software as well, for, you know,
since -- right since the beginning.
コンピュータにしても プログラミングが可能になった当初から
人はソフトウェアを作ってきました
[18:03.8-18:10.3]
(O'Riordan) There was never a need to have [inaudible] patents
in this field in order for the, uh, the activity to happen.
プログラミングの分野でも 特許は最初から要らないのです
[18:10.5-18:20.8]
(Bricklin) Most everything were were doing back, uh, before 1980
-- before 1981, those things -- patents played no, no role in
it. Uh --
1981年以前にやっていたことは 特許とは無関係でした
[18:21.3-18:31.7]
(Bricklin) Cut and paste, um... uh, the -- the embedded ruler in
word processing, uh, word wrapping -- a lot of the things that
are real important, that we take for granted --
切り取りと貼り付けとか ワープロで表示されるルーラー
ワードラップなど 今ではあって当然だけれど――
[18:32.2-18-37.9]
(Bricklin) -- and that are much -- much more innovative in many
ways than many patents that we have today.
今日認められている特許よりも遙かに先進的でした
[18:38.1-18:44.0]
(Bricklin) Those patents can be on some very -- very minute --
uh, minute things, and that's the way the law works.
最近の特許は取るに足らないものも多く見かけます
まあ そういう制度になっているわけですが
[18:45.3-18:49.7]
(Bricklin) That -- those things happened -- we had great
advances without patents.
特許がなくても 技術が大きく進歩したんです
[18:50 text on screen]
Robert Tiller Red Hat
ロバート・ティラー<<氏>> レッドハット社
[18:50.1-18:57.0]
(Tiller) One of the world's most, uh, respected computer
scientists, Donald Knuth, has said that, um --
コンピュータサイエンスの最高権威の一人
ドナルド・クヌース<<氏>>が言うには――
[18:57.3-19:06.9]
(Tiller) If software patents had been available in the 1960s and
'70s, when he was doing his work, that it's probably the case
that computer science wouldn't be where it is today.
彼が活動していた1960〜70年代にソフトウェア特許があったなら
コンピュータ技術は現在ほど進んでいないはずです
[19:07.4-19:17.4]
(Tiller) Uh, there would be blockades on innovation -- they
could seriously have prevented the kinds of, um, technical
solutions that we, uh, take for granted today.
技術革新が止められ 今では誰もが使っている技術の開発も
ことごとく阻止されていた可能性もあります
[19:17.6-19:25.9]
(Moglen) The programmer writing a long program might conceivably
need to check whether five hundred or a thousand different
techniques are patented --
大きなプログラムを書いている開発者は 特許を避けるためには
500あるいは1000もの技法を確認しなければならないんです
[19:26.1-19:28.6]
(Moglen) -- and there's no way that she possibly could.
もちろん 無理な話です
[19:28.8-19:33.1]
(Ravicher) The patent office issues hundreds of software patents
all the time.
特許庁は常に多数のソフトウェア特許を許可しています
[19:33.4-19:38.1]
(Ravicher) Every Tuesday, they issue 3,500 patents, and a large
number of those relate to software.
毎週火曜日 3500件の特許が降りますが
その多くはソフトウェアに関連しています
[19:38.5-19:43.2]
(Ravicher) It's just impossible to review all those patents
every week to make sure you're not doing something that could
infringe them.
それだけの特許を侵害しないように 毎週確認するのは
明らかに無理です
[19:43.4-19:57.6]
(Sandler) So there's a, um, a provision in the U.S. patent laws
that basically holds patent infringers, um, at a -- I, I guess
-- imposes greater liability if they're shown to willfully
infringe.
米国の特許法では 特許を侵害した人に対して
特許を知っていた場合に より厳しい制裁を科す条項があります
[19:57.8-20:06.7]
(Sandler) So basically the idea is that if you knew about a
patent and you infringed on it, you should have a stricter
penalty than if you didn't know about it.
つまり 知らずにたまたま侵害した場合に比べて
知っていて侵害したなら罪が重いという考え方です
[20:07.3-20:17.8]
(Sandler) But what this results in is the situation where
there's a real disincentive to follow what patents have been
made, and, and -- you -- what new inventions there have been
through the patent system.
でもこれだと 逆に特許を読むべきではない
新しい発明を調べてはいけない という状態になります
[20:18.1-20:26.8]
(Sandler) Because if you read every patent, then -- or there's
evidence to show that you've read patents -- then you are liable
for willful infringement --
もし特許を全て読んでいた あるいは特許を読む証拠があれば
情を知って侵害したということになります
[20:27.0-20:32.1]
(Sandler) -- then you knew about the patent and you infringed it
anyway. And the penalty is treble damages.
そうすると 賠償金額が3倍に引き上げられます
[20:33.2-20:40.4]
(Reporter) A number of the, um, people who filed briefs in this
court suggested that software should be removed from the scope
of patentability. Any comments on that?
（裁判所に意見書を提出した人の中には ソフトウェアを
特許の対象から除外すべきとの意見もあるが？）
[20:40.7-20:45.5]
(Jakes) Yes, well, I obviously disagree with that, and I don't
believe that software should ever be removed.
もちろん反対です
ソフトウェアを特許対象から除外すべきではありません
[20:45.9-20:54.7]
(Jakes) It's one of our greatest sources of technical innovation
in this country, and to come up with a test that would somehow
eliminate software would, I think, be a disaster for the economy.
ソフトウェア特許は技術革新の最大の原動力の一つで
仮に除外すると 経済は大打撃を受けてしまうでしょう
[20:53 -- text on screen]
WOULD
IT
THOUGH?
本当に？
[20:55.1-21:03.4]
(Bessen) You know, Mark, Mike, and I estimate that, uh, outside
of pharmaceuticals and chemicals, that patents sort of are --
are acting like a ten to twenty percent tax.
製薬会社や薬品会社を除けば 特許というのは
10〜20％程度の税金のように働いていると見ています
[21:04.9-21:10.7]
(Bessen) You know, so you, you can think of that as, that -- you
know, the small developer who's developing something, down the
road, he's going to have to pay that tax.
だから小さな開発会社とかは 何かを開発すれば
いずれその税金を払うことになります
[21:12.0-21:26.2]
(Bessen) Every small company I know, in -- in software -- a few
-- you know, as long as they've been around a few years and, and
hit the market -- somebody is, is, uh, asserting a patent
against them -- they're running into some potential difficulties.
僕が知っているソフトウェア会社は 数年ぐらい活動していれば
誰かに何かの特許侵害を主張されて困っているんです
[21:26.6-21:31.1]
(Bessen) They feel -- very frequently feel obligated to get
patents themselves for defensive purposes.
自己防衛のために自ら特許を取らないといけないとも考えます
[21:32.2-21:40.6]
(Bessen) So all of that activity is -- is a tax. It's -- it's
something that's not helping them innovate -- uh, it's -- it's,
you know, an unnecessary activity.
そういう活動は つまり税金のようなものです
技術革新には繋がらない 不要な活動です
[21:40.8-21:45.6]
(Vincent) The primary thing we do is, uh, an issue tracking
system called RT, or Request Tracker.
我々の主力製品は「RT」という要求管理システムです
[21:43-21:52 text on screen]
Jesse Vincent Best Practical
ジェシー・ヴィンセント<<氏>> ベスト・プラクティカル社
[21:46.1-21:54.5]
(Vincent) So it's customer service, help desk, bug tracking,
network operations -- anything where you've got a whole bunch of
tasks that need to get kept track of --
顧客サービスやヘルプデスク バグ管理 ネットワーク管理など
多くのタスクを同時に管理しなければいけないときに役立ちます
[21:55.4-22:04.4]
(Vincent) -- and you need to know what happened, what didn't
happen, who did it, who didn't do it, when -- um, it's kind of
like a to-do list on steroids, designed for a whole
organization.
何が出来たか出来ていないか 誰がやったか いつやったかなど
いわゆる「やることリスト」を組織用にパワーアップしたものです
[22:04.7-22:10.1]
(Vincent) Pretty much everything -- everything is open source or
free software, um, under one license or another.
ほとんど全てがオープンソースやフリーソフトウェアで
いずれかのライセンスでソースコードを公開しています
[22:10.4-22:21.4]
(Vincent) We'll get cli -- you know, we will get consulting
customers or support customers who add indemnification language
to our sta -- to our standard contract, or need us to sign
theirs --
たまには 我々の契約書に保証条項を要求するお客さんがいます
[22:21.9-22:33.3]
(Vincent) -- and it says that, you know, in the standard
legalese it's going to say something like, uh, we indemnify and
hold them harmless and agree to pay their legal fees and
sacrifice our firstborn --
いつもの堅い契約書表現で もし我々のソフトウェアが
他者の特許を侵害していることが判明したら――
[22:33.7-22:41.3]
(Vincent) -- if something happens and someone discovers that our
software is violating a patent -- is violating somebody else's
patent.
全責任を負うとか お客さんの訴訟費用を肩代わりするとか
子供を生贄に捧げるとか いつもの内容です
[22:41.6-22:47.8]
(Vincent) It's very, very rarely the case that we end up signing
something that has that kind of language in it, but it eats up a
lot of legal fees.
そういう契約を結ぶことは滅多にありませんが
それでも多額の費用がかかります
[22:48.4-23:54.6]
(Meurer) Look at the innovative people in software, in ICT --
ソフトウェアやICT分野で技術革新をリードしている人を見て――
[22:49-22:57 text on screen]
Michael Meurer author, 'Patent Failure'
マイケル・ミューラー<<氏>> 「Patent Failure」の共同著者
[22:55.7-23:00.5]
(Meurer) -- and ask, would they be better off if the patent
system was abolished?
特許制度を廃止したら 彼らのためになるのか考えてみてください
[23:01.1-23:02.5]
(Meurer) The answer's probably yes.
おそらく「はい」という結論になるでしょう
[23:03.1-23:07.1]
(Bessen) Who's benefiting? Um, patent lawyers, number one.
今の制度が誰のためになっているのかといえば
まずは特許を扱う弁護士
[23:08.3-23:17.2]
(Bessen) Uh, number two, you -- you have a small number of
so-called trolls who -- who are benefiting, but it's not clear
that even most of them make -- are making much money.
次いで いわゆる「特許トロール」
といっても 彼らでさえ儲かっているのかはっきりしないけれど
[23:17.9-23:30.6]
(Bessen) Uh, you're seeing most -- more recently, in the last
four, five years, companies like intellectual ventures and hedge
funds who are acquiring large volumes of these trash patents --
ここ4、5年は 知財ベンチャーやヘッジファンドが
いわゆる「ゴミ特許」を大量に取得して――
[23:30.8-23:38.1]
(Bessen) -- and using them to extract hundreds of millions of
dollars from companies. They're benefiting -- they may be the
biggest benef -- beneficiaries.
他の会社から何億ドルというお金をもぎ取っています
彼らこそ 最大の受益者かもしれません
[23:38.7-23:46.4]
(Ravicher) There's a lot of bad press in the last few years
about the harm that's caused by software patents, and we think
that's had a political influence on the PTO to get them to --
ここ数年 ソフトウェア特許がもたらす悪影響が大きく報じられ
特許庁に対して 特許申請をただ機械的に許可せず――
[23:47.5-23:51.2]
(Ravicher) slow down their issuance and start rejecting them.
And that's what's resulted in the Bilski case.
却下すべきものを却下するように影響したと思います
その結果がビルスキ事件です
[23:51.2-23:59.9 text on screen]
In re Bilski
Federal Circuit
October 30, 2008
Inventions must be "tied to a particular machine" or transform
something. "Useful, concrete and tangible result" of State
Street is inadequate
In re Bilski（2008年10月30日） 連邦巡回裁判所判決
発明は、特定の機械に結びつけられているか、特定の対象物を変換
しなければ、特許の対象とはならない。State Street判決の「有用、
具体的かつ実体的な結果」だけでは足りない。
[23:59.9-24:05.1]
(Ravicher) Well, the biggest, first bad press story was the
Blackberry patents --
最初に大きな問題になったのはブラックベリー特許です
[24:05.3-24:12.4]
(Ravicher) -- where all the Congressional representatives had
their Blackberries, and there was a company called NTP that sued
the manufacturer of Blackberry --
連邦議会議員がみんなブラックベリーを使っているところへ
NTPという会社がブラックベリーの開発会社を相手取って――
[24:12.6-24:15.0]
(Ravicher) -- saying that all Blackberries infringed its patent.
全てのブラックベリーが特許を侵害していたと
主張してきました
[24:15.2-24:21.3]
(Ravicher) Well, NTP was this company which was just a
one-person holding company. They didn't make any products or
services themselves.
そのNTPというのは 一人だけのホールディング会社でした
商品を作ったり サービスを提供したりしていませんでした
[24:21.8-24:27.2]
(Ravicher) And so, you know, this got a lot of attention -- it
was in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and --
ウォールストリート・ジャーナルとか ワシントン・ポスト紙とか
メディアで大きく報じられたんです
[24:27.7-24:34.2]
(Ravicher) -- and Congresspersons were really upset that they
may lose their Blackberries, and they may not be able to
communicate efficiently. And so that caused a lot of attention.
議員も ブラックベリーが使えなくなったら連絡が滞ると大慌てで
とにかく大きな騒動になりました
[24:34.7-24:43.0]
(Ravicher) Then you had all these patents on, like, banking
methods and imaging for checks, that those patent holders have
been asserting against the banking industry.
あと 銀行関連のビジネス方法や小切手の画像処理特許です
その特許権者が銀行に対して特許侵害を主張し出したんです
[24:43.2-24:48.8]
(Ravicher) And the banking industry has a lot of influence on
Capitol Hill, and so they've been going down there and saying,
look, these types of patents are causing us lots of harm.
銀行は議会にかなり影響力を持っているので
そういう特許は有害だと議会に言い始めました
[24:49.3-25:00.8]
(Ravicher) Then you add into that the whole patent troll
phenomenon in the eastern district of Texas, with small patent
holders suing large IT companies like Google and Microsoft and
IBM and Hewlett-Packard --
そして「特許トロール」ですね テキサス州の東地区で
小さな特許所有会社がグーグルやマイクロソフト IBM HPなど――
[25:01.1-25:04.1]
(Ravicher) -- and all these companies also have legislative
influence, and they've said, you know --
巨大なIT企業を訴えています
そういった企業ももちろん議会に影響力を持っています
[25:04.3-25:11.7]
(Ravicher) -- these types of patents are causing real harm to
our business, they're costing us jobs, they're increasing the
price of products and services that we offer to our customers --
そして議会に対して そういう特許の問題点を指摘しています
雇用を維持できないとか 商品やサービスの値段が上がるとか
[25:11.9-25:13.5]
(Ravicher) -- and you need to do something about it.
なので何とかしてくれ と言っているわけです
[25:13.6-25:17 text on screen]
Bilski v. Kappos
Supreme Court
2010
Supreme Court may affirm their previous rejections of software
patents, or decline to decide this issue.
Bilski v. Kappos（2010年）
最高裁は、過去と同様にソフトウェアを特許の対象から
除外するかもしれないし、あえて判断を示さないかもしれない。
[25:18-25:30 text on screen]
Peter Brown Free Software Foundation
ピーター・ブラウン<<氏>> フリーソフトウェア財団
[25:21.2-25:31.8]
(Brown) The -- the situation that we find ourselves in is that
the lower court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
is essentially a court for patents, for hearing patent cases.
現状はといいますと 下級裁判所である連邦巡回裁判所が
特許裁判所のようなものになりました
[25:32.6-25:45.9]
(Brown) And this is the first time that the Supreme Court has,
um, taken up, uh, that scope of patentability, and specifically
this -- this test that was invented by the lower court.
今回は最高裁が 連邦巡回裁の設置後初めて審理する案件です
特に 連邦巡回裁が作った指標が審理される点が大きいですね
[25:46.3-25:55.5]
(Brown) It does talk to software patents, and so -- there's
basically a twenty-year history of software patents being
granted due to the -- the -- the lower court.
あの20年前の指標が作られたために
ソフトウェア特許が多数認められてきました
[25:55.9-26:06.2]
(Brown) And so we are hoping that the Supreme Court will clear
up the mess that the lower court created and restamp its
authority, which basically said that you cannot have software
patents.
今回の案件で 最高裁が以前の判例で示したように
ソフトウェアに特許が取れないことを再確認してほしいと思っています
[26:06.5-26:09.7]
(Mullin) When you saw the arguments that were brought by
Bilski's lawyer, uh --
ビルスキ<<氏>>の弁護士の主張を見てみましたが――
[26:07-26:15 text on screen]
Joe Mullin IP Law & Business Magazine
ジョー・マリン<<氏>> IP Law & Business誌
[26:10.1-26:13.9]
(Mullin) The patent bar is in some sense an organized lobby,
and a, uh --
特許弁護士というのは ある意味でロビー組織のようなものです
[26:16.2-26:24.6]
(Mullin) -- an expansive subject matter that's available to be
patented is in their interests -- um -- it's clear that that was
frustrating to some of the justices.
特許が認められる範囲が広ければ広いほど 自分たちにはいい
それが最高裁判事の何人かにとって もどかしかったようです
[26:24.9-26:28.7]
(Mullin) Some of them were frustrated by how expansive
patentable subject matter has become.
特許範囲の広さがあまり気に入らないような印象を受けました
[26:29.0-26:34.5]
(Reporter?) I mean, they seemed somewhat dismissive of the idea
that you can patent this particular idea.
（今回審理されている発明が特許に値するという主張が
あまり通らなかったようだが？）
[26:35.7-26:40.5]
(Jakes) I think that people have a hard time getting over the
idea that you could get a patent on hedging commodity risk.
商品取引のリスクヘッジで特許が取れること自体
あまり認識されていないからだと思います
[26:41.1-26:47.0]
(Jakes) But if you actually look at the claims and look what's
in there, it is a process, and it's no different than any other
process.
しかしクレームを見れば ちゃんとプロセスとして成り立っています
他のプロセスとは何ら変わりません
[26:47.2-26:51.3]
(Jakes) It just may be that it's not the way that they thought
of patent law in the past.
ただ 判事の皆さんの認識とは少し違う形になった
それだけのことです
[26:51.9-26:56.3]
(Brown) We're encouraged by -- by the comments by the justices
which -- which showed that they were skeptical --
判事の皆さんの懐疑的なコメントには勇気づけられました
[26:56.7-27:04.9]
(Brown) -- and which suggested that they understood that
software is little more than a series of steps, uh, that could
be written out as a mathematical formula --
ソフトウェアがあくまで一連の動作のリストにすぎず
数式として表したり 紙に書いたり――
[27:05.3-27:11.1]
(Brown) or written out on a piece of paper, or -- as was
mentioned by one of the justices -- typed out in a typewriter.
判事の一人が言ったように タイプライターで打ち出したりできる
ということを理解していただけたようです
[27:11.5-27:16.5]
(Mullin) Software patents on a general-purpose computer have
never been explicitly endorsed by this Court.
汎用コンピュータにおけるソフトウェアの特許は
最高裁に明確的に支持されたことはありません
[27:17.0-27:23.2]
(Mullin) And this Court has also shown no compunction about
reversing rules that have held for a very long time.
そして 長期間維持されてきたルールを変更することにも
躊躇しないということも明らかにしています
[27:23.6-27:29.5]
(???) They clearly thought that the petitioners here were trying
to get a patent on something very basic, some basic forms of
human activity.
上告人が ごく基本的な人の行動に特許を取ろうとしている
そういう認識を持ったように見えました
[27:30-27:36 text on screen]
MORE THAN 200,000
SOFTWARE PATENTS
HAVE BEEN GRANTED
IN THE U.S.
米国では20万件以上の
ソフトウェア特許が
許可されている
[27:36-27:42 text on screen]
PROGRAMMERS FIND IT
INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT
TO WRITE SOFTWARE THEY
WON'T BE LIABLE TO BE SUED FOR
特許訴訟の危険を回避しながら
ソフトウェアを開発することが
次第に難しくなってきている
[27:42-27:48 text on screen]
NOW IMAGINE...
さて ベートーヴェンは――
[27:59-28:35 music patent text]
PATENTED CRESCENDO
PATENTED クレッシェンド
PATENTED GROUP OF 3 EIGHT-NOTES
PATENTED 8分音符の3連続
PATENTED PIANO DYNAMICS
PATENTED ピアノ強弱法
PATENTED QUARTER REST
PATENTED 4分休符
PATENTED QUARTER NOTE IN C3
PATENTED 中央ハの4分音符
PATENTED SFORZANDO
PATENTED スフォルツァンド
PATENTED MAJOR THIRD
PATENTED 長三度
PATENTED TIED HALF-NOTE
PATENTED タイされた2分音符
PATENTED TREMOLO
PATENTED トレモロ
PATENTED HORN IN E-FLAT
PATENTED ホ短調ホルン
[28:36 credits]
DIRECTED, SHOT, AND EDITED BY:
監督・撮影・編集
LUCA LUCARINI
ルカ・ルカリーニ
PRODUCED BY:
プロデューサー
JAMIE KING
ジェーミー・キング
ANIMATIONS:
アニメーション
CHRISTOPHER ALLAN WEBBER
クリストファー・アラン・ウェバー
SOUND MIX:
音声編集
MATT SMITH
マット・スミス
