English Court Allows Patents For "Complex" Software

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."

Complex?

[quanticle (843097)]

I'm not sure how this ruling makes sense, given that the article didn't actually say what the legal definition of "complex" was.

Re:Complex?

[spazdor (902907)]

In legal context, it probably means "Any technology which you can successfully confuse a jury by explaining."

In other news, the Church-Turing thesis has been declared false by judicial fiat. Any algorithms which are discovered to be functionally identical to any others are to be rounded up and shot in order to protect freedom.

Oh wow.

[jd (1658)]

I took it as meaning "any program that cannot be expressed as an integer, by means of a Turing Machine, but requires an imaginary component".

Re:Complex?

[Chrisq (894406)]

In legal context, it probably means "Any technology which you can successfully confuse a jury by explaining."

That's not so bad. I thought it might be any technology that a High Court Judge would be confused by.

Re:Complex?

[Alexander Sofras (1264020)]

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?

[perrin (891)]

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:

[s_p_oneil (795792)]

How about this definition? If the software is as complex as the EULA you had to accept to install it, then it's in.

Re:

[SlashWombat (1227578)]

It really seems to be a way of getting around the phones operating system taking too long to process DLL's. Doesn't sound particularly patentable, nor does it appear to be particularly novel!

The fact is, the original patent examiner seems to have made the correct decision. It is probable that the speedup method has prior art, although perhaps not in the context of phone operating systems. (Patenting something to speed up operations in your own companies crappy operating system seems a little narrow anywa

Re:

[Fluffeh (1273756)]

Not to be daft, and certainly not to promote a pro-patent view on /. but isn't this pretty much the exact purpose of a patent rather than the vague bland ones that seem to be making the way in droves? I say if you develop some tricky algorithm to make phones "work faster" than you should be allowed to patent it, and flog it off to the carriers.

If you ask me, it's the IBM Patent space Patent [slashdot.org] patents that we should all be worrying about. It someone invents something, power to them. If you patent something

A stupid idea....

[Joce640k (829181)]

Sometimes really simple ideas are the hardest to come up with.

What's wrong with patents is when they allow ideas that any competent person would come up with in a couple of minutes if they ever needed to do it, ie. the only reason nobody "invented" it yet is that nobody ever needed it.

Example: "Compact text encoding of latitude/longitude coordinates" - Patent 20050023524

(Guess who patented that one...)

Basically it's just base-64 encoding of lat/long coordinates.

It may be "new" (in the sense that it was neve

write to your MP

[johnjones (14274)]

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?

[argent (18001)]

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

[by Anonymous Coward]

The article was very clear, no wait, extremely fucking clear that this is a UK matter:

Court ruling strengthens patent protection for UK software

Technology companies will find it easier to safeguard their innovations in the UK after a court ruled that software should receive wider patent protection.

The Court of Appeal said today that complex software such as programmes designed to make mobile phones and computers work faster can be patented in the UK.

Previously, manufacturers could claim commercial exclusivity for their products under copyright laws but had less legal protection for underlying technical processes.

As a result of the ruling, developers are likely to find it easier to secure approval from the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which has traditionally been reluctant to grant patents to cover software.

William Cook, a partner at Simmons and Simmons, said the court's decision would bring the UK's patent regime into line with Europe, which is much more open to granting software protection.

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:

[QuantumG (50515)]

The article also happens to be wrong. The ruling was made by The Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

Re:UK != England

[owlnation (858981)]

Except... that the Scottish legal system is separate and rulings in English courts do not necessary apply to Scotland, there are also some exceptions for English rulings in Northern Ireland. Thus the use of England is reasonable, though it probably should say England and Wales. In this case, the use of either the UK or Great Britain would be wrong, the summary is mostly correct.

Re:UK != England

[beav007 (746004)]

Confusing England with the UK is like confusing California with the USA.

Are you saying that California has become a sovereign nation, or that England has become a state of the UK, and the UK has become a country.

A closer analogy is confusing England with the UK is like confusing Mexico with Northern America (the continent). The issue with that is that is that Northern America isn't a united kingdom.

The correct analogy is: confusing England with the UK is like confusing 'chassis' with 'car'.

Re:UK != England

[by Anonymous Coward]

Here is a handy Euler diagram. [qntm.org]

Re:UK != England

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

The diagram is outdated. I believe the British own Iceland now.

Why?

[Darkness404 (1287218)]

Amidst the fact that most of the world is going through a major crisis, who in world could think that what we need to do is give the corporations even more power while limiting competition? Wasn't the lesson we learned was that large corporations were bad and that you should give more power to the people? Apparently not.

Re:

[0123456 (636235)]

"That surely will motivate people to work harder and develop new products/processes so that others with better means will reap the rewards in their place!"

People work hard and develop new products because they make money from doing so; and few 'people' who develop those products actually make money from patents, it's primarily a means for companies to keep new competitors out of their markets.

I used to work in an area of IT where patenting hardware elements was common; the end result was that pretty much ev

Software Patents kill Innovation

[CuteSteveJobs (1343851)]

Software Patents make writing software in a particular country a risky proposition. There are so many things the USPTO has let be patented, that I doubt you can write a single program without violating someone's patents. You have to wonder, if Software Patents existed in the US from the beginning, if the US Software Industry would have grown into what it is today? Easier to move to and write your software somewhere else (which now doesn't include Britain).

This makes no sense.

[AndyCR (1091663)]

First of all, you don't "patent" software - you patent portions of software. Patenting entire pieces of software would make no sense, as it would do nearly the same darned thing as copyrighting it. Second, what defines complex? All software ideas are complex. Is a BSP tree sufficiently complex? I imagine so, and a patent on that would have decimated the game industry early on.

This sure clears everything up.......NOT

[Martian_Kyo (1161137)]

Pity most ingenious software solutions are simple.

This just complicates things, most complex software is combination of widely known design patterns, which part of it will be patented?

Judges will have to be real code gurus to judge in these cases.

Not to mention that things like this will could only stifle progress if actively enforced.

Re:Photoshop is Complex

[lysergic.acid (845423)]

that's a poor way to grant patents. just because something has market value doesn't make it an innovation or an invention. anything that is useful has market value--especially if you're able to patent it and force others to pay you licensing/royalty fees to use it. the ultimate goal of the patent and copyright system is to promote public good and societal progress. public interest should always be placed above economic interest, not the other way around.

one of the inherent flaws with most patent systems is that once something is patented, even if someone else with no knowledge of the patent filing independently invents the same idea, they will either, be forced to pay royalties to the first inventor, or simply forbidden from using their own invention. it's a means of excluding others from the use of the patented idea, essentially giving the patent holder a monopoly. but why should someone be prevented from implementing an idea they invented independently just because they came up with the idea later? should being born 10 years earlier give a person the right to monopolize an obvious concept?

software patents exacerbate the problem when companies are allowed to patent mathematical algorithms or trivial/obvious functionality. things like UI interfaces, JavaScript popups, portable e-mail, etc. should not be patentable. these patents do not benefit society in any way, and they have hindered technological progress rather than promote it.

at the very least, non-commercial uses of patented ideas should not be prohibited. give the first inventor exclusive rights to commercial the idea, but if someone else comes along and re-invents the same concept for personal use, they should be free to do so. otherwise the patent system is just restricting free expression and stifling innovation.

Re:

[PCMX (1029966)]

that's a poor way to grant patents. just because something has market value doesn't make it an innovation or an invention.

Notice that my statement started with "...create an INNOVATIVE, MORE DESIRABLE method of..." The fact that it had market value came as a consequence, though I see that the end of the sentence makes it seem that market value gives causality to IP rights. What I did mean was that an innovative better process has merit and deserves some kind of recognition. Whether the system in place is the correct one is a different point altogether.

the ultimate goal of the patent and copyright system is to promote public good and societal progress

While I agree that should be the ultimate goal, it is simply not the way