NZ Draft Bill Rules Out Software Patents 194
Korgan writes "In what must be a first in the face of ACTA and US trade negotiations pressure, a Parliamentary select committee has released a draft bill that explicitly declares that software will no longer be patentable in New Zealand. FTA: 'Open source software champions have been influential in excluding software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill. Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be patentable and includes the sub-clause "a computer program is not a patentable invention."'"
Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's good enough IMHO. Remind me, what exactly is the problem with embedded device patents?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep up the pressure. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still only a draft.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
too much pressure and your draft comes out all foamy. I have found about 8 PSI gauge to be about right for cornelius kegs.
Bad wording? (Score:2)
a computer program is not a patentable invention
OK, but what about a software concept? Can someone still patent "A method for preventing unauthorised access to files and system features through the use of a personal identification and verification system", as long as they don't have a single piece of software for this idea?
That imaginary patent was about password protection in case anyone missed it...
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely NOT. Software is copyrightable, not patentable.
Are you related to Bill Clinton, and learned to parse words to death?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But isn't a clever and non-obvious algorithm an invention that could deserve patent protection?
Arguing about patents in terms of 'deserving' tends to distort reasoning; monopoly rights ignore the cost factor of the equation, ie, why should everyone else not 'deserve' to implement the same invention freely when they come up with it?
Now, if you think certain non-obvious algorithms 'deserve' some kind of reward, then go ahead and argue we should pay the inventors rewards out of public funding or something. Or
Re: (Score:2)
Software isn't patentable. But isn't a clever and non-obvious algorithm an invention that could deserve patent protection?
No, math should not be patentable. Only physical object should be patentable.
Falcon
Actually I support abolishing all patents. I'm not sure about copyright monopolies. The reproduction costs of words, images, and other media are low relative to the cost of the original object. So they may deserve limited monopolies.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad wording? (Score:5, Informative)
--Donald Knuth
What I'm still not getting, is what could possibly make you think you know better than Donald Knuth...
Re: (Score:2)
He makes mathematically sound arguments, and backs it up with common sense. I think the opinion of Donald Knuth, who has invented more patents than you could ever dream of, is very relevant.
Nice job dodging the question though, you would make a good politician.
Re: (Score:2)
>>He makes mathematically sound arguments, and backs it up with common sense. I think the opinion of Donald Knuth, who has invented more patents than you could ever dream of, is very relevant.
He's also, apparently a religious troll. :)
Re: (Score:2)
He is religious, but how is he a troll?
Re: (Score:2)
Knuth explains why patenting algorithms is a terrible idea. You continue to suggest that algorithms should be patentable.
You don't see any contradiction there?
Go on, don't be afraid. Tell us why you think Knuth is wrong. It should be funny.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
I can claim that it is my opinion that the earth is flat, but that does not make me any less wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only opinion around here is whether or not mathematics should be patentable. Software being algorithms and algorithms being math is in fact established fact, not opinion. Current US law states that mathematics is not to be patentable, and any sane person agrees.
My quote from Donald Knuth neatly argues why patenting math is a Bad Idea(tm), but you have yet to respond to it. In reality, it is you who is unable or unwilling to effectively argue, or even defend, your opinion.
Fallacious reasoning of your own (Score:2)
Although the GP made an appeal to authority, that authority
So instead of responding to one fallacy with another, perhaps it would be instructive to demonstrate why Knuth is wrong.
Exactly why do you think you know better than Knuth? What is your respo
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I never said Knuth was wrong. Knuth has one opinion and I have another. We can have different opinions with one person being wrong and another being right. I've never said I know better than Knuth. You're acting as if whether patents should be allowed or not is a matter of fact, when it is a matter of opinion.
My main reaction to Knuth's argument is that it is far, far better than the dreck usually posted against patents. I agree with most of what he says and he makes a good argument. I don't think he
Re: (Score:2)
You're the first person to use the word "prove" in this discussion IIRC. Certainly the person who posted the Knuth quote didn't use that word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Software, reduced to it's most basic level, is nothing more than a series of zeros and ones. Numbers. Manipulating those numbers is what makes software work.
Now, what, exactly, is an algorithm? From the wikipedia: While there is no generally accepted formal definition of "algorithm," an informal definition could be "a process that performs some sequence of operations." For some people, a program is only an algorithm if it stops eventually. For others, a program is only an algorithm if it stops before a
Re: (Score:2)
Software, reduced to it's most basic level, is nothing more than a series of zeros and ones. Numbers. Manipulating those numbers is what makes software work.
A machine, reduced to it's most basic level, is nothing more than a collection of atoms. Particles. Manipulating those particles is what makes a machine work.
I'm not arguing for or against software patents here, I'm only pointing out that the "software is just an algorithm" argument isn't as perfect as a lot of people think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose you have a software patent on [algorithm]. I implement [algorithm] in LISP. Surely your patent applies to my implementation. Except that my implementation is nearly identical to an equivalent formula in Lambda calculus (except for syntax). Lambda calculus is math. Math isn't patentable. So your patent actually doesn't apply to my implementation. Which is absurd [wikipedia.org] (how is it that patents "care" which language you write in?).
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. There's nothing about a non obvious algorithm that demands or deserves patent protection. How to implement that efficiently on an ISIC, YES, but as a mathematical statement (which its implementation in software IS), NO.
Looking at it philosophically, what is "real world" if not a huge analog computer, anyway? And there are strong doubts whether it is even analog.
So any mechanical contraption could also be considered a program, written in the language (physical laws) of that computer...
reply to self (Score:2)
Broken URL syntax in the previous post brought to you by my favorite Fireflog plug-in Make Link. Which is why Boomtango has the slow horse in this race.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. I don't mind going off topic. The whole charade about where Teflon Bill stuck his peter was entirely off topic. Instead, they should have investigated why he was selling military tech to China, and why NAFTA and China's "most favored trading partner" status were "good" for us. I see Bill as a traitor. The rest of the world saw Bill as a philanderer. Which view has any pertinence to governing?
Yeah, Bill should have been impeached, but not for liking nookie.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard disclaimers - IANAL. I haven't RTFA.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I imagine you could still patent the concept as long as it was implemented as firmware but I assume the patent could not be used to stop others implementing the concept in software. Standard disclaimers - IANAL. I haven't RTFA.
You also apparently either don't understand what firmware is, or what software is. (Your software doesn't cease to be software if it's burned into non-reprogrammable memory. Not all software is firmware, but all firmware is software. It's just software recorded on non-erasable chip media. Heck, often these days it's erasable too. Not as easily as when it's saved on disk, but still... software doesn't cease being software merely because you change the media you save it on.)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, my wifi card's firmware is loaded from my HD by my driver, on every boot. So different firmware could be loaded with a simple reboot.
(Note: I'm agreeing with you)
Re: (Score:2)
And, as the title says, your patent is badly worded (in a good way for a company) since it also probably covers other methods of ID/verification (central logon via something Active Directory-esque, biometrics, etc)!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*shrugs* Dunno, never worked with LDAP. I just know that the last company I worked at used Active Directory and assumed there would be many similar implementations.
OK, but what about a software concept? (Score:2)
Originally to be granted a patent in the US a working model had to be submitted to the patent office, so no a concept wasn't patentable. Only specific implementations were.
Falcon
That's a relief (Score:2)
I'm so used to loading slashdot and reading bad news. It's a breath of fresh air to read something like this. Good job everyone from New Zealand.
Hope some of that common sense washes over to Aussie shores
Re: (Score:2)
It is bad news. You've just been brainwashed by the thousands of stories in the media about how patents are bad that bad news looks good to you.
Patents allow inventors to earn a living. How is making money by creating valuable things bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Patents allow inventors to earn a living. How is making money by creating valuable things bad?
Patents in general are a good idea, however Software is already copyrightable; there's no need for it to be patentable as well. If I can code your idea better than you, then your patent is stifling innovation, not promoting it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're clearly not a programmer.
I am - I make my living programming and yet I am against software patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that because [...] you like to [...] give the value of your efforts to your boss or your customers?
Isn't that why they're paying you?
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't John Carmack [slashdot.org] done anything worth of a patent? Or is he underselling himself?
Maybe you should think before recurring to ad-hominem attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it this way: if you copyright a wooden handle hammer, I can defeat it with a metal handled hammer. But if you were to patent the concept of a hammer, it would be harder/impossible for copycats to eat your marketshare for hammers
Way to miss the point of the second part of my post. If metal handed hammers work better than wooden handed ones, your patent is stifling my innovation.
And it's because some kid in their basement can come up with a better algorithm for doing the same thing that Software patents are broken. The barrier to entry is a lot lower than for hammers; the protection isn't needed as there is less risk to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
It is you who have been brainwashed. The intent of patents was NOT to allow inventors to earn a living, but to encourage innovation.
Can you give me a single example of a software patent where this has been the case?
Why Not? (Score:2)
As I understand it, the idea behind a patent is to encourage an inventor to invest resources in R&D and then to share their new techniology with society, in return for a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that new technology. This is arguably a bit broken at the moment -- largely because patents seem to be overly broad and to last too long -- but the basic idea seems
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because an algorithm/piece of software is essentially just a mathematical formula. And formulae are not patentable.
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Informative)
>Your garden variety software inventions has little to do with math.
No, all software *is* math. Completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is math. Even physical particles are just wave functions.
Re: (Score:2)
You can say that is operates because of mathematical principles (e.g. sending around electrons, which obey mathemati
Re: (Score:2)
I complete agree in preserving the current system ... which in my neighbourhood means software is unpatentable.
Once patents stop being absolute monopolies and lasting 20 years we can start talking about extending it to algorithms,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because, some poor sucker programmer, living in his mom's basement, could come up with the same idea tomorrow, and find a way to make it work so much better.But the poor sod, who has no idea that the base for his work has a patent on it, will have his ass kicked for his hard work.
Patents STOP progress, and are rewarding the WRONG people.. They should be kept out of the incredibly fast paced world of computer software.
If you can't capitalize on your idea fast enough, tough freaking biscuits..
Copyright on the other hand is a useful protective tool. It stops people stealing your work byte for byte, note for note, word for word... But even that has been abused by insane time limits.
I am a programmer, and what I'd give to have free reign over my creative process... what I could accomplish without having to worry about the bullshit associated with software patents in the Divided States of Assholica. Seriously, please someone nuke those jerks, starting with their patent offices..
Re: (Score:2)
Because, some poor sucker programmer, living in his mom's basement, could come up with the same idea tomorrow, and find a way to make it work so much better.
Better enforcement of the non-obviousness requirement should help this situation. Just like a machine that an average car mechanic could invent shouldn't be patentable, software that an average programmer could come up with shouldn't be patentable, regardless of how one feels about software patents in general.
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because it's far too easy to accidentally create a program that infringes on a patent, most software are made up of basic building blocks that together make a unique product, so if anything should be patentable it should be the building blocks, and only the ones that are not trivial, but who gets to decide this? Which means that we end up in court, which costs a lot of money and opens up for trolls.
Copyright (a short, say 2-5 years depending on product) and trademark should be enough to discourage competition, if competition can make a program just like yours without copying you and still sell it at a lower cost then you are doing something wrong or your product just wasn't unique enough.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me give you an oversimplified example:
* Take 100 programmers from this website (rookies, dinosaurs and everything in between)
* Assign them all the exact same task: write software to solve a specific business problem
* Require them all to work in isolation so there can be no sharing of ideas or solutions
* On your marks, get ready, go!
Chances are that most (if not all) will come up with a solution that addresses the specifi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpick: the GIF patent wasn't on the format, but on LZW compression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch [wikipedia.org]
LZW was used in TIFF as well, for a while. When Unisys started moaning everyone switched to Deflate (zip) compression instead, which actually works better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFLATE [wikipedia.org]
So in this case at least patents did encourage innovation, not because the holders had divulged their secrets (it was all published anyway), but by simply stopping everyone from usi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Even the simple GIF format, which wasn't particularly clever at all, got a patent.
No. Terry Welch's improvement on Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv's LZ78 algorithm was patented, making the LZW algorithm used for compressing the data in a GIF file a patented process. The GIF file format was never patented (I don't think that's even possible, but IANAL).
Re: (Score:2)
Terry Welch's improvement on Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv's LZ78 algorithm was patented.
This is what really pisses me off. Unless Welch invented Comp Sci, Algebra, AC/DC transmission, Language, and the fucking Wheel, what right does he have to claim that he "invented" the refinement of solution to a particular problem that only exists because of the existence of these things?
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents. I'm not trolling here, please help me understand. As I understand it, the idea behind a patent is to encourage an inventor to invest resources in R&D and then to share their new techniology with society, in return for a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that new technology. This is arguably a bit broken at the moment -- largely because patents seem to be overly broad and to last too long -- but the basic idea seems sound.
See http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/03/19/software-patents/ [redmonk.com]
The software patent system may be in need of repair, but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
It's too broken, too fundamentally broken, to fix.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Interesting)
If I invent a new physical device -- an array of levers and cogs to build something, or a new chemical process to manufacture something -- I can patent it.
I start a new hardware store in a growing town. It's a physical construction that nobody has done in that town before. Why can't I patent that idea and stop other people starting a competing hardware store when they see it's a success? Think carefully about your answer.
Personally, I am thoroughly sick of people who automatically assume that patents, a massive government interference in citizens minding their own business, will encourage innovation in every area of human endeavour when it's quite clear they don't. If they're going to argue for this government interference then they should at least have some scientific evidence that it is a net positive in any particular area. Not the usual childish handwaving about how an inventor won't invent without patents (history shows this is nonsense) and that patents have no harmful effect on society and the free exchange of ideas (also nonsense).
Conversely, there do seem to be advatages to keeping software patents.
A patent stops billions of people from using an idea that's probably going to be independently re-invented many times so that one (1) person can have additional incentive to invent something. Explain to me why this is a net positive? Particularly for software industry where the entry cost is so low? Keep in mind I'm well aware of patent proponents usual handwaving excuses.
Your example is just sad. The vast majority of inventors will never get that break and in addition they'll be held back by the patent portfolios of large companies. Patents are just a tool, large companies have more of them and patents in no way change the balance of power between corporations and individuals.
The software patent system may be in need of repair, but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
There is no baby. Your automatic assumption there must be without evidence is telling.
In addition to the above the patent system is based on very shaky intellectual foundations. They can't even objectively decide whether two shades of the color orange are the same or different, let alone whether two ideas are the same or different, a far more complex question and at the heart of deciding whether something is new.
---
Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.
Re: (Score:2)
I start a new hardware store in a growing town. It's a physical construction that nobody has done in that town before. Why can't I patent that idea and stop other people starting a competing hardware store when they see it's a success?
If you invent some new construction material or method that has some improvement over what already exists and that an average architect or engineer would never come up with, then sure, I'd be fine with you getting a patent for it. If you're talking about a patent on the concept of "a store that sells building tools and materials", then the fact that commerce has existed for a few thousand years probably qualifies as prior art.
Sorry, but this one would be horrible even for BadAnalogyGuy.
Re: (Score:2)
The major problem (as I see it) is the doctorine of sufficient change can't apply to software. In the case of your physical device (an array of levers and cogs), I can potentially come up with an alternate means of doing the same thing that is not covered by the patent. For example, when James Watt was improving the Steam Engine, the crank was patented by James Pickard, so he came up with planetary gears. Both were means of converting linear back and forth motion to rotary motion. It is a fundamental princi
Re: (Score:2)
I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents.
One measure of ethics, is what would happen if everyone did it?
If all software was patented, there would BE no WWW. You couldn't just say there would instead be a "Microsoft Web" and an "Apple Web" and a "Linux Web" that couldn't all talk to each other because it would require violating software patents to do so, because each of them would be a "web" and someone would have that patented as well. At best, you'd end up wi
Innovation? (Score:2)
I've been curious about the degree to which software patents help or hinder software / computer science innovation. (My money is on 'hinder'.)
However, some people measure innovation via the number of patents issued. NZ's bill might make their developers / computer scientists more productive, while ironically making it harder to convince people of that fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without patent protection, people tend to keep their innovations secret.
Then how on earth can they sell it? You have to at least advertise what your product does if you want people to buy it.
If merely telling people what your product does enables them to make something that does it too, then the product does not qualify for patent protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... let's discuss an example. Google came up with an innovation called the PageRank algorithm [wikipedia.org]. Google filed a patent, and therefore had to explain the PageRank algorithm in great detail so that nearly any programmer could implement the algorithm. If Google had not been able to file a patent, mightn't they have decided to keep the PageRank algorithm a secret instead of let their idea spread? They could keep it a secret if they decided because the software runs only on Google servers.
Let's say tomorrow so
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Happy to discuss your example.
Google (in this context) is a search engine - If you want people to use your search engine, you don't need to tell them HOW it finds results.
The PageRank algorithm is an implementation. Search algorithms existed long before PageRank, and new ones are dreamt up all the time.
Now, Stanford University didn't patent PageRank to release it to the public. It's not like PageRank was some sekrit sauce that would be lost forever if the algorithm had not been described. On the contrary, i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Say Adobe comes out with the next new 'font' thing and Apple and MS dont want to pay?
Say MS does not want to pay for some fancy digital optical storage format on its loss leader game units.
Say MS has a codec that ships with every fancy digital optical storage format?
Software patents are wonderful legal tools to tap into generational revenue streams or l
Beauregard (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US, software isn't patentable directly, either. If you claim "a program which causes a processor to perform the steps of...", then you get yourself a rejection under 35 USC 101, because a program isn't a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter.
One way that lawyers get around this is by claiming "a computer-readable storage medium storing a program which, when executed, causes a processor to perform the steps of...." A computer-readable storage medium (e.g., a hard drive) is generally considered to be an article of manufacture. This almost got tested in court several years ago, in In re Beauregard, but the USPTO decided to withdraw its rejection and issue the patent before the court got a chance to weigh in on it, and nobody has brought up the topic in litigation since then.
Re: (Score:2)
The Patent Troll Business Model is Subprime (Score:2)
Let the lawsuit mushroom clouds rise over the remains of USA's Tech industries [slashdot.org] the rest of the world will go their own free way.
Don't cheer yet (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a DRAFT of a bill. It's not even a bill yet. And while some are speculating that this is intended to get more public attention, I think it may be intended to get more private (funds) attention. With all the high pressure lobbying [read "involves a lot of money"] I imagine NZ's government may be feeling they aren't getting their share of attention from those in support of software patentability. The inclusion of this may only be there to rattle some cages.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely pedantic of me, but relevant. In New Zealand a Bill is always a draft. There is no difference between a "draft bill" and a "bill." Once the Bill passes its 3rd and final reading in the House, it becomes an Act at which point it is law.
In regards to your comment about "Big Money," New Zealand is very small, but it doesn't really have the same problems with lobbyists that the US or other large nations do. In fact, the majority of lobbyists in New Zealand are Greenies and Climate Change doomsayers t
Draft only (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New_Zealand (Score:2)
Documentation of this has been ongoing for a few months now:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New_Zealand [swpat.org]
A response to 'it's just a Draft' comments (Score:3, Informative)
Welcome to the club! (Score:2)
But... if it finally does pass, Welcome To The Club, NZ!
South Africa's IP law explicitly states that software is unpatentable. Not that this stops the like of MS trying anyway... This leads to some bizarre circumstances... about 10 years ago I spent several months doing development work in Switzerland for a South African client, all b
Re:Someone seeing sense at last i see (Score:5, Informative)
Software patents have never been allowed in Europe, and the UK like to make a big stand against such patents.
http://eupat.ffii.org/log/intro/ [ffii.org]
It's really only the Americas that have software patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you sure? I thought we had the stupid situation where companies were being granted patents in the UK in spite of the fact that Europe had banned them. IIRC one politician (who had obvious corporate connections) said it was only "right" and "fair" that they should be allowed more protection!
Maybe I'm just interpreting it wrong, but that is how I read it.
Re:Someone seeing sense at last i see (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Someone seeing sense at last i see (Score:4, Interesting)
That's right, rather like domain squatting, people have been randomly patenting stuff in the hope that they might have something valuable once software patents are allowed in the UK.
Fortunately (from my point of view, anyway, as an independent developer) software patents in Europe have been knocked on the head and these things will remain worthless for a few more years at least.
Re: (Score:2)
So, a bit like the big Tech companies threaten, we're currently all at risk under some ominous black cloud, but that cloud might end up not really being problematic in the long term? Well done lawmakers!
Re: (Score:2)
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent [wikipedia.org]
"Europe
Main article: Software patents under the European Patent Convention
Within European Union member states, the EPO and other national patent offices have issued many patents for inventions involving software since the European Patent Convention (EPC) came into force in the late 1970s. Article 52 EPC excludes "programs for computers" from patentability (Art. 52(2)) to the extent that a patent application relates to a computer program "as such"
Re: (Score:2)
Software patents have never been allowed in Europe
But if New Zealand is joining us only now on that point, how is that a "first" in the face of ongoing ACTA negotiations? The European Union is involved in ACTA too, and I have seen no hint that software patentability (or even patents in general) would be an important factor in ACTA.
I mean, if customs officers can't tell the difference between a fake Rolex and a genuine one, how are they going to tell whether the software in a truckload of laptops is covered by a patent or not? Will they cross-check shipping
Re:Someone seeing sense at last i see (Score:4, Informative)
Hey, not the Americas, just the US.
Brazil and most of South America have no concept of software patents.
In Brazil specifically, the law says that mechanism to protect software is the same as literary works, i.e. copyright. Business methods are also not patentable in Brazil.
Mexican law also states that software (computer programs) are not inventions and thus, not subject to patents.
In 2009 Canada also rejected software and business methods patents. As far as I know, this has not changed. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think they've completely outlawed software patents. The way I read it is that anything tied to a business model is not allowed (hence Amazon's silly 1-click being tossed.) It appears you can still patent a computer-implemented process, but not the program itself.
From what I've read, Canada generally will not allow a patent on software unless it's been t
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read, Canada generally will not allow a patent on software unless it's been tied to hardware in some way.
If it's tied to hardware, it's not really a software patent anymore, though. It's a device, part of which (perhaps most, in fact) is software. But if the basic claim of the patent references any hardware, there's no way you can infringe it simply by writing code - which is what we care about in the end, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, first you need a visa. Which probably requires a job or student-status. You haven't applied for that. I expect you'll also need a passport, which you still haven't applied for even though I've been reminding you for months. I mean, jeeze, you can get a passport photo at freakin' WALMART. So really it's just that you can't be bothered to start making progress on it.
Oh, and your mom called.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers are always trying to hollow out the non-obviousness test, TSM basically removes the expert opinion from obviousness. US supreme court bitch slapped the lower courts for going along with lawyers ... but they are already trying to find loopholes in the supreme court decision.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as a MS can keep you buying the "shrink wrapped" innovation its win win win.
A win for the USA, a win for MS and a win for the lobby/lawyer/political side.
Does the US gov see "US software" as too big to fail?
Re: (Score:2)
The second thing, that I learned at University, and I can't remember the exact term, but the patent must be put to use by the owner of the patent, or else they lose it.
IIRC That's trademarks, not patents.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing patent protection with copyright protection. Software is still covered by copyright law, and the licensing agreements you choose to put on your software product is still what defines how people can use your software product, and what their access to that software is.
If I write a program and release it under a license that does not allow access to the source code, and does not allow users to distribute it further, that is still perfectly valid. But if someone decides that they want