The worst patents in the US

In April the EFF launched a new campaign – the Patent Busting Project – to tackle what the civil liberties group calls the "chilling effect" that some patents are having on public and consumer interests.

The EFF says business method and software patents are granted by the USPTO on the basis that any question over the legality of the patent can be dealt with by the courts – putting the onus and the cost of ensuring that a patent is valid onto competitors of the patent owner.

The EFF said the patents on its list are dangerously overbroad and that some pose a threat to freedom of expression. The list is actually a list of 10 owners, some holding a suite of patents. Each owner, says the EFF, has threatened or sued small businesses, individuals, or non-profit organisations.

The Top Ten (in no apparent order)

• Acacia Technologies – for patents covering a widely used process of streaming audio or video files over the internet, cable and satellite.
• Clear Channel – for patents covering the recording and burning of after-concert CDs.
• Acceris Communications – for patents covering telephone calls over the internet.
• Sheldon F Goldberg – for a patent covering the playing of games, such as card games, upon a network.
• Ideaflood – over a business method patent for managing sub-domains.
• NeoMedia Technologies – for a patent covering the "automatic access of a remote computer over a network".
• Test.com – for a patent for a method of taking and scoring tests on-line.
• Nintendo – for a patent covering Gameboy emulation.
• Firepond – for a patent "covering the use of natural language processing to respond to customers' on-line inquiries by e-mail".
• Seer Systems – for a patent for the creation, storage, distribution and performance of musical work files.

"Patents are meant to protect companies against giant competitors, not to help them prey on folks who can barely afford a lawyer," said Schultz, who leads the Patent Busting Project. "We hope our project will not only assist the victims of these abusive patents but also help make the case for global reform of the patent system."

With its targets in sight, EFF's team of lawyers, technologists, and experts will now begin to research and collect prior art – proof that the feature being patented was already in the public domain.

Once the team has gathered enough prior art on a given patent, said the EFF, it will submit a petition to the USPTO in a legal process of re-examination. If the USPTO finds the prior art compelling, it can formally revoke the patent.