English Court Allows Patents For "Complex" Software 132
jonbryce writes "The court of appeal in England has ruled that companies should be granted patents for 'complex' software products. In this particular case, Symbian had written something that makes mobile phones run faster. The court case has received very little attention because of the bank crisis, but it can be appealed to the House of Lords and then the European Court of Justice."
write to your MP (Score:4, Informative)
seriously what patenting simple things is wrong while complex things are good
software patents are simply not right for the patent system
if you live in the UK (only if so)
write to your MP simply by using this service
http://www.writetothem.com/
regards
John Jones
What is this actually referring to? (Score:3, Informative)
What is the actual technique that the patent is being granted for. If this is something like a compressin algorithm or an application of compression to mobile phones, I call shenanigans on the Judge.
UK != England (Score:4, Informative)
The article was very clear, no wait, extremely fucking clear that this is a UK matter:
Confusing England with the UK is like confusing California with the USA. It's especially unforgivable when the correct term is screaming at you from the page and you ignore it and write your own tripe instead. "UK" appears in that article nine times, England not once. Take the hint.
Re:UK != England (Score:5, Informative)
Re:UK != England (Score:3, Informative)
The article also happens to be wrong. The ruling was made by The Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
Re:UK != England (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Complex? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Complex? (Score:5, Informative)
What's even more worrying is that the judgement of the Court of Appeal does not EVEN ONCE mention complexity as an issue. Further, it can't be 'appealed' to the European Court of Justice, only a point of law can be queried there. Also, this case already brings the UK closer in line with the EU regarding software patents, and it's not easy to appeal to the House of Lords - they only hear about 90 cases per year and generally only on areas of law that are important to the public. This case is more of an argument about facts than an argument on a point of law.
The original High Court decision is here [bailii.org] and the Court of Appeal decision is here [bailii.org].
Basically, Symbian was denied their patent, which revolves around faster accessing of DLLs (more details of which you can find in my first link). The patent was denied because the patent officer in question argued that what they were patenting was nothing more than a different way to call a DLL's functions and not anything that alters the way the computer's resources are managed. The High Court decided that she (the patent officer) had understated the technical merit and effect of the patent.
The Comptroller General of Patents then appealed against the decision to grant the previous appeal, bringing us up to the case in the Court of Appeal. The general argument revolves around whether or not what Symbian have patented is merely a computer program or whether it has some additional effect - if it were just a computer program, it would not be patentable. The Court of Appeal more or less restates the edecision of the High Court, adding that the patent is not 'just' a computer program, because it has the 'knock-on effect of the computer working better'.
Whilst everyone here will have their own view on software patents (largely in consensus here, I imagine), this is a poor summary - although I think that is largely due to the very poor write-up by the Times, which is trying to write in a way that is understandable to regular readers rather than those with a technical background. As stated, patents aren't granted for any old program, but the courts considered this to be more of a software process which improves the way a system runs, rather than a simple program that is executed and terminates. Just how correct they are in this decision is a different matter, but the Court of Appeal decision is not very long at all, for those who are interested.
Anyway, this case wouldn't have received any news coverage even outside the financial crisis, since it's far beyond the understanding of the average person in this country - and doesn't have anything to do with a potential imminent apocalypse.
Re:Complex? (Score:5, Informative)
Every computer program can be interpreted to "improve the way a system runs", and therefore be patentable under this theory, which is exactly the point. They have been doing this slimy workaround the "mere program" rule for a long time, arguing that the invention is a combination of software and hardware components (because software has to run on hardware, duh), and it forms the very basis for software patents in the EU.
Re:English law is not American Law (Score:3, Informative)
A simple trip to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law, 3rd paragraph) would save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.
English law is most definitely based on precedent. If fact, the reason that American law has precedent is because it is, in turn, based on English law, as are most of the legal systems of the former commonwealth.
This law might be ultimately decided in the Lords, but that is only if it is appealed. If it is not appealed at this point in time, it may be used a precedent in another case (at which point an possible appeal might also be made).
Re:UK != England (Score:1, Informative)
Except that Wales isn't a country.
[Dons dragon-proof flame suit]