Slashdot Log In
Sept 24 Is World Day Against Software Patents
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Sep 24, 2008 06:57 AM
from the come-together dept.
from the come-together dept.
zoobab writes "Veteran European anti-software patent campaigners have launched the World Day against Software Patents. They say, 'The issue of software patents is a global one, and several governments and patent offices around the world continue to grant software & business method patents on a daily basis; they are pushing for legal codification of the practice, such as currently in New Zealand and India. We declare the 24 September as the World Day Against Software Patents, in commemoration of the European Parliament First Reading in 2003 with amendments stopping the harmful patenting of software, guaranteeing that software programmers and businesses can safely benefit from the fruits of their work under copyright law.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What to do (Score:3, Informative)
What to do?
1. Please sign or comment on our Draft Petition
2. Write to your Patent Office, Senators and Deputies
3.
4. Don't Profit!
Re:What to do (Score:5, Insightful)
unless you're the owner of a small software company which is having problems because you can sit down and write something useful you thought up yourself, sell it as your product and then get sued for infringing a patent held by some company which does nothing but patent vague ideas and sue people.
Parent
Re:What to do (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm okay patents & copyrights, but there should be a time limit.
7 years or maybe 14 years, but that's it. Plenty of time to make a profit & recoup the costs of the invention. If a company can't make money during 14 years time, then that company doesn't deserve the patent; it should go public domain.
Parent
WTF? Are you missing fingers or something? (Score:3, Funny)
What is the deal with all these base-7 solutions?
When I was a kid, I had a friend who only had 7 fingers, but his hands were deformed. Is that the case with you "14 year limit" guys too?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few places in every city that will do just that.
Nice job, editors (Score:2, Insightful)
Day of this, day of that... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Day of this, day of that... (Score:5, Funny)
We should also have official Day of Linux Desktop.
It's okay. Next year we have a whole year planned for that.
Parent
Re:Day of this, day of that... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not at all. It was talk like a pirate on a linux desktop day!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, that depends on your locale settings, particularly LANG and LC_TIME.
Patents and circles of knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a programmer, you probably come up with a myriad of ideas that are already patented by someone else. This is because your circle of knowledge encompasses programming and there are certain patterns and solutions that seem to emerge in the course of development.
Is it not also true for other circles of knowledge as well? There are only a few gun designs, but there are many types of guns. Same with refrigerators, pens, book bindings, and shopping carts. If you are an expert in any of those circles of knowledge, then any new patented invention will seem obvious and trivial.
So are we to throw out all patents because anyone who is an expert would consider a new invention to be trivial and obvious? Is "non-obvious" really a good measure of patentability?
Re:Patents and circles of knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
Is "being the first to file on anything" a good measure of patentability? That's the other alternative to a measure of "non-obviousness".
As for trivial and obvious, there are things you can patent that aren't trivial or obvious. They may seem like a logical step after the fact, but if no-one else has made that step then it isn't that obvious. If, however, hundreds upon thousands of software developers have had the idea of linking data objects in to a list in multiple directions for easy access then patenting it [slashdot.org] is patenting the obvious.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
if no-one else has made that step then it isn't that obvious
And assuming that the entirety of patents would contain all "steps" that have been made that can be patented, a step that has not yet been patented would be non-obvious, right?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Merely novel. There's three requirements for patentability. Usefulness, novelty, and non-obviousness. If a "step" hasn't been done before, it's novel. But it may not be non-obvious. The step of doing "X" on the internet, when "X" has already been done somewhere else, comes immediately to mind. Or, the step of doing "X" on a
Re: (Score:2)
They may seem like a logical step after the fact, but if no-one else has made that step then it isn't that obvious.
It may be that it isn't obvious, or it may be that it's the obvious solution to a problem no-one has previously wanted to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
Every now and then I see some piece of code which uses methods which I can honestly say I would never have thought of, really novel ideas. Those should be patentable but there's so much trivial shit that is only original to the extent that the patent examiner can't recognise it through the obfuscated drivel and legal challenges are far too expensive for the little guy. In such a situation riting a piece of software is akin to playing hopscotch through a minefield.
Re:Patents and circles of knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
No they shouldn't. Copyright exists on that code and that is more than enough "protection". Why should that code be protected by both patents and copyright? If you are going to issue a patent then you should not receive a copyright on it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The code does nothing but sit.
The hardware does stuff. No one has ever taken issue with hardware patents, I don't think.
Re:Patents and circles of knowledge (Score:5, Interesting)
But anyway, even if you can honnestly say you would never have thought of that, there are thousand of people who will have. Because they face the same problem and basically have the same culture/background/education.
The problem is even more subtle because, yeah, we are against "bad" patents but not against "good" patents (think "non-software"). But this is a bit stupid because any software method can be implemented in hardware. You invented a new lightbuld ? Fine, but if you never really make it, you only did a simulation on your computer as a proof of concept, is your lightbulb software or hardware ?
In fact, the "software" patent case is only the tip of the iceberg. With software patent, it is obvious that something is wrong. And then, we have the wrong conclusion that "software is not patentable".
This is not the case at all. The whole "first-to-get-its-paper-in-the-patent-office-win" process is wrong. All patents made a completely wrong assumption : if you do something as described in a patent, you are infringing this patent. This has nothing to do with software or not software.
And it is very simple to fix : enforce that anyone attacking someone else for patent infrigement should bring the proof that this someone else could not have done what he had done without reading the patent/reverse engineer your product/spy your documents. Just do that and you will discover that software patents are perfectly acceptable. It would means that you would not be able anymore to infringe a patent without even knowing that someone else patented it before. How can EvilCompany attacks you and bring the proof that you copied the ObviousMethod by looking at their product when everybody can think about ObviousMethod. Also, it still leave patent very useful for non-obvious thing (like drug industry, advanced design, ...).
Unfortunatly, I'm observing that companies do not even see what they are doing with patent. They are all trying to patent whatever can be patented. I see with my own eyes that the money spend just to read other patents is huge. Patenting need to be outsourced and cost a lot more money than anything else but is seen as the only way to make money in the future.
Having a good idea : from one day to a few weeks
Implementing a prototype of this idea : from 6 months to 1 year
Patenting the idea : 1 year of non full time work for the inventor but also for 2-3 people and for an outsourcing company
Unfortunatly, patent is also a visible output. Management often cannot understand something else from their R&D department. The department must produce X patents each year.
And because they always lived like that, you cannot even try to tell them you disagree. It's too deep in the culture, like a religion.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot that many take advantage of both patents and trade secrets.
How many of the patents filed could really be used to build a working example of the product? That's the goal yet companies will patent a vague description to make it hard for others to copy even using the patent material after it has expired.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The monopoly part is one of the big problems with patents. The patent holder gets to dictate every use of the patented material. And the default is "no" because that might hypothetically cost the inventors some of the just rewards of their work. You can't just use patented ideas first and compensate later, to do a proper job of it you have to seek out and beg for a "yes" upfront. This does not advance the useful arts and sciences.
Can't contact the patent holders? Can't even find them? Patent holders
Re:Patents and circles of knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is, guns, refrigerators, pens, book bindings, and shopping carts were all invented (and the patents ran out) long before corporations bribed their way into writing all the IP legislation so that patents/copyrights last (for all practical purposes) forever. Second, a patent is meant to apply to a device, even something so small as a new piece added to an old, existing device ("adding this flange prevents the breakage that has plagued previous designs"). Since software is, by definition, the expression of an idea, it shouldn't get patent protection. Since Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, does that mean that all other versions of boy-meets-girl, boy-falls-in-love-with-girl, things-end-badly should be precluded from being produced?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. New ideas for those products still come out to this day, and they are just as much squashed by patent law as software ideas. It bothers me to no end when programmers (or any other prof
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyrights last virtually forever. Patents last 10 years and can be extended 10 years. They're very different. A Copyright only covers the specific code as written, while patents cover novel and non-obvious ideas.
I don't have any problem whatsoever with software patents, myself. I don't understand why some folks insist on painting such a strong wall between a mechanism implemented in a Turing machine versus one implemented with wood and metal. It's the idea that's novel and non-obvious, and the substra
Re: (Score:2)
So are we to throw out all patents because anyone who is an expert would consider a new invention to be trivial and obvious? Is "non-obvious" really a good measure of patentability?
I would suggest non-obviousness is a decent measure. Consider that the goal of patents is advance arts and sciences by simultaneously rewarding those who come up with new advances and ensuring that thiose advances are publicly documented. There's not a lot of point if providing rewards to get people to publicly document advances that are obvious to anyone in the field. Nor is there much to gain by encouraging and rewarding obvious advances -- it will do far more to hold things back as people are forced to w
Re:Patents and circles of knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, yes. If an implentation is obvious, why would I be interested in paying for it? (Me being the public in general, and the method of payment being a time-limited monopoly on use of the concept).
Patents should never be awarded for small, iterative improvements in design that are obvious to any person with knowledge of the field. Patents should be awarded for concepts that, if the patent-holder didn't come up with them, would conceivably never have been thought of.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is "non-obvious" really a good measure of patentability?
Yes.
Patents in gun designs or refrigerators or pens or book bindings are typically on novel things -- designs that improve functionality, appearance or both. These also relate to a tangible product. Patent examiners can easily see the novelty involved (are there other guns that do what that gun does or are there other refrigerators that have as polished a finish?). In software patents, it's not so easy.
The problem with software patents is that software is not a tangible thing. It is also not manufactured
Interesting Idea... (Score:4, Funny)
But I can't see this as any more useful than trying to get everyone to boycott gas stations for a day.
Still, perhaps I can get a patent on this, before Jeff Bezos or some other bozo starts filling out those forms, yet again...
Awesome (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
(Anyway, congratulations and don't eat too much cake)
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. I think September is birthday season...
Preventing more software patents (Score:3, Interesting)
Rather than preventing a legislation from passing, why not attack the problem at the source: programmers and their corporations who file software patents?
How do you convince a programmer that software patents are bad, when he stands to gain substantial reward for a patent from the organization he works for, or negative consequences because of refusing to file a patent?
Why are _new_ software patents being filed in the first place?
My support (Score:4, Funny)
I am supporting this by not utilizing any patented items today. Well, except for this computer, its software, all the hardware and protocols between my computer and the Slashdot server, software running on the Slashdot server, the action of clicking a virtual button with a mouse to preview a information to be submitted to a server.
Addendum: the clicking of a "Continue Editing" button to correct information that is to be submitted to a server after first previewing said information.
Addendum: the clicking of a "Preview" button to preview newly edited information.
Addendum: the clicking of a "Submit" button to send information to a server.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that most of the protocols like HTTP were not patented?
Or pancake day! (Score:2)
What? Are pancakes not good enough to get their own day as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Please go away. (Score:5, Insightful)
My perspective on patents is simple: stop issuing patents.Patents should not exist.
We're all standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. The current patent systems
smack of arrogance and ignorance. Furthermore, I think that if such a system had exsisted 8000 years ago we'd still all be sitting in caves paying that one family that "invented" fire.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "A method of generating light and heat via the friction-induced combustion of a flammable material"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My perspective on patents is simple: stop issuing patents.Patents should not exist. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. The current patent systems smack of arrogance and ignorance. Furthermore, I think that if such a system had exsisted 8000 years ago we'd still all be sitting in caves paying that one family that "invented" fire.
Not 8000 years, but patents have been around for 2000. The Romans had patents, and I don't think innovation has really dragged since then.
Also, while software needs a good look, there are many good reasons for patents as an alternative to trade secrets. For one, it allows innovation by requiring public disclosure of the idea, and for two, it makes the idea pass into the public domain after a limited time. Neither of these apply to trade secrets, which is what we'd get if we abolish patents.
Re: (Score:2)
You completely miss the point of patents.
The purpose of patents is to ensure that inventions are published, and not lost simply because the inventor disappeared, failed to publish or actively kept it a secret. To give inventors an incentive to publish, they are granted a limited period of monopoly on that invention, in order to profit from it.
That period is 20 years, not the 8000 years you seem to think it is.
I agree that 20 years is far, far too long a period for software patents, and possibly for other
Arggg! (Score:2, Funny)
Just last week we had talk like a software pirate day.
Oh wait, that was the other kind of pirate.
Nevermind.
Announcements (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because of the USCentric nature of Slashdot
See also : World Series - a set of matches, played between teams in the USA and a very few surrounding countries, of a sport that the rest of the world has never heard of
Or, better known as.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you support it your way, I'll do it mine.
MOD PATENT UP (Score:2)