Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Software Your Rights Online

NoSoftwarePatents.com Industry Campaign Launches 65

Posted by timothy from the one-plus-one-is-mine-all-mine dept.
Halo1 writes "The NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign has officially launched today. It has industry support from 1&1, Red Hat and MySQL AB. The website is already available in 12 EU languages (more to be added soon), and contains a ton of information about the dangers of software patents, including the myths that surround them. Hopefully, more large companies will join this campaign in the future."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NoSoftwarePatents.com Industry Campaign Launches More

NoSoftwarePatents.com Industry Campaign Launches

Comments Filter:

  • Main Page (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zoobab ( 201383 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @09:01AM (#10574864) Homepage
    Would be nice if this article can move to the main slashdot page, and does not stays only in the YRO section.

  • The History of Software Patents (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mstrgeek ( 820200 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @09:04AM (#10574884)
    This is a great site dealing with The History of Software Patents

    http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html

    It has some great information hope you enjoy it and find it to be a help in supporting the need for software patents

    • The Supreme Court stated that in this case, the invention was not merely a mathematical algorithm, but was a process for molding rubber, and hence was patentable. This was true even though the only "novel" feature of this invention was the timing process controlled by the computer.

      Hopefully the Supreme Court today realizes the ramafications of the decision they rendered over twenty years ago. Here's an excerpt of the courts opinion:

      Although their process employs a well-known mathematical equation, they
      • And how the Patent Office construed that ruling as meaning that any "invention" with the word computer in it gets a rubber stamp is absolutely mind boggling.

        Huh? I don't think you're understanding the history.

        The court's ruling was that patent claims for algorithms could not be categorically rejected as non-statutory subject matter - i.e., as non-patentable inventions. In addition to all of the other tests of patentability (novelty, utility, non-obviousness, etc.), the algorithm also had to have at lea

    • http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.htm l [bitlaw.com]
      supporting the need for software patents

      Buahahaha. I don't think there is anything in there supporting software patents. It merely documents how the 5 member majority on the Supreme Court screwed up in Diamond v Diehr when they ordered the US patent office to issue an invalid patent. The entire case was about the patent office rejecting it as invalid.

      If you actually read Diamond v Diehr, the 5 member majority supporting such a patent discussed at grea
      • There is no "need" for software patents. Software is protected by copyright. Why the heck should software be the only thing on earth with broken double coverage and broken double restrictions of both copyright and patents?

        If either form of protection should get canned, it's copyright. A functional set of instructions, or a work of art - which better describes software? In which context is it overwhelmingly applied?

        I'll give you two other reasons for software patents over software copyright:

        • Patents exp
        • If either form of protection should get canned, it's copyright.

          So long as software patents exist I would not oppose you if you want to fight for exempting software from copyright. It's a dumb idea, it would be seriously broken, but it would be an improvement and less broken than the US's current broken double coverage.

          which would you, as its inventor

          Since when have mathemetians and programmers called themselves "inventors"? As a programmer I am a software author. Every programmer I know of considers t
          • So long as software patents exist I would not oppose you if you want to fight for exempting software from copyright.

            I'll take that compromise. Double coverage is nothing but a fencepost perch.

            Since when have mathemetians and programmers called themselves "inventors"?

            I doubt that the creators of engineering schematics would prefer the term "inventor" to "author." Nevertheless, a schematic is a strictly functional document - certainly some aesthetic concepts might be taken into account, but its primar

            • Sigh. Every single time I debate software patents, the software patent advocate completely ignores the fundamental example and question. Usually I explicity ask a certain question and throw a neon sign around it saying I will simply repeat the question if it is ignored. For some reason I forgot to draw attention to it this time and it was almost hidden in my post. I was also phrased more like a retorical question. It's quite frustrating having the same point and a direct question simply ignored time after t

  • Trolls? TROLLS! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @09:08AM (#10574928) Journal
    Intel's [chairman] Grove derides such patent holders for showing little interest in producing goods with their inventions in favor of demanding licensing fees from others. "We call them trolls," he said.
    The Washington Post

    As an occasional troll ( Think of it as a hobby ), I am insulted. >:(

  • Go Software Patents! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @09:12AM (#10574966)
    Patent mathematics.
    + is .0002$ per use
    - is .0002$ per use
    * is .001$ per use
    / is 1.00$ per use
    mod() is 10$ per use
    sqrt() is .009$ per use

    We acknologe that these mathematics are the only ones you can use, and all derivatibe works are subject to this cost times amount of operations done. EG: Limits are infinite +, so you are incessantly in the hole.... (enter lawyer BS)
    • Patent mathematics.
      + is .0002$ per use
      - is .0002$ per use
      * is .001$ per use
      / is 1.00$ per use
      mod() is 10$ per use
      sqrt() is .009$ per use

      Now I'm boned, I keep writing infinite loops...
    • Hi, I own the patent for the use of the lowercase letter "a", rates are currently $.005 for first use and $.001 for each subsequent usage. You would owe me $0.023, however since I used some of your patented mathematics in calculating what you owe me this amount is reduced by .0002 for one use of + plus .001 for use of * which makes the total, eh .0002 + .001, which brings the total on eh .0002 + .001 + .0002, which brings the total on eh .0002 + .001 + .0002+ .0002.... Ah well screw it...
      • I've patented the use of the letter e in conjunction with a computational device. that "in conjunction with a computational device" makes my patent infinitely more defensible in a court of law than yours, so there!

    • + is .0002$ per use
      - is .0002$ per use
      * is .001$ per use
      / is 1.00$ per use
      mod() is 10$ per use

      $10 for mod? Bah!

      int cheapAssModOperation(int X, int Y)
      {
      int A, B, Z;
      Z = X / Y;
      A = Z * Y;
      B = X - A;
      return B;
      }

      Total cost = 1 division, 1 multiplication, 1 subtraction = $1.0012.

      • Act quick! Patent it!

      • Hmm, what about getting savings on the
        division and multiplication too?

        1 mult = .001
        1 add = .0002

        so if you're multiplying by less than 5,
        you might as well use addition instead. ..of course, if you were to automate that
        detection, you'd lose the savings...

        what about patenting the if statement?
        patenting howver-many-million color
        variations on 1 pixel?
        patenting "on" and "off"? ^^ ..of course all of the above are
        "in conjunction with a computational device".

        -evilme

  • Sanity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mark_MF-WN ( 678030 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @10:48AM (#10575913)
    Maybe if Europe banned the practice of software patents, our leaders here in North America will wise up and do the same.

    I'll be if we required software makers to publish the source code of any project containing patented code, that software patents would die a quick and decisive death.

  • Can we get a US effort like this started? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by borgheron ( 172546 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @11:47AM (#10576661) Homepage Journal
    All of the anti-patent stuff I'm seeing is from the EU, which is frustating since it does nothing for those of us here in the United States.

    GJC
    • Actually it does, otherwise the USPTO wouldn't try to influence [ffii.org] the European discussion. You can bet that if Europe does not legalise software patents, this will have quite a profound effect on the US situation. At least the whining "abolishing software patents is not realistic" whiners might shut up, for a start.
    • Actually I do expect it to have an effect on the US. We are sitting on a software-patent time bomb. Once the bomb goes off, once we start seeing a non-trivial number of such patents enforced, we will see a huge migration of software development to the EU. You will also see all sorts of US industries handicapped by the inability to use all sorts of "infringing" software. Imagine when would happen if every company in the US had to stop using Linux - and thus using every peice of software that runs on Linux.

      B
    • Ohh, it will benefit you americans too, if we succeed that is. It will be a very strong signal to your politicians.

  • Software patents not inherently evil (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rufus88 ( 748752 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @12:34PM (#10577299)
    It's not that software patents are, in principle, bad. It's that the idiots in the USPTO are letting trivial ones through the syste. Some software patents are completely legitimate. Take, for example, this [uspto.gov] patent on the "Marching Cubes" computer graphics algorithm. The paper [acm.org] describing this algorithm made it into SIGGRAPH's Seminal Graphics [siggraph.org] collection of most important papers in computer graphics. Not all software patents are trivial and obvious.
    • Why do we need software patents, though?

      If they're to protect only an implementation of an idea, as they say they are, then copyright already offers perfectly good protection.

      And if they're protecting more than that, then they shouldn't be!

      Either way, they're unnecessary. And given the sort of flagrant abuses we're seeing so often, what reason is there for keeping them?

      • Why do we need software patents, though?

        Because the kind of hard work and knowledge and investigation and thought that goes into devising a solution to a difficult problem in matter-space is exactly the kind that goes into devising a solution to a difficult problem in information-space. One type of problem solving shouldn't be protected more than the other simply because you need bolts and motors and lubricant to implement it.

        If they're to protect only an implementation of an idea, as they say they are

        • Because the kind of hard work and knowledge and investigation and thought that goes into devising a solution to a difficult problem in matter-space is exactly the kind that goes into devising a solution to a difficult problem in information-space. One type of problem solving shouldn't be protected more than the other simply because you need bolts and motors and lubricant to implement it.

          It has indeed nothing to do with implementation. It has everything to do with the economic effects:

          1. Are patents nece
          • Are patents necessary to get enough investments in the IT-sector?

            The IT sector as a whole? Probably not, but that's like asking whether patents are necessary to get enough investments in manufacturing. The point is that there may be particular endeavors in IT whose value may be dependent on being able to be the sole supplier of the technology for a while after it is developed.

            In software, the description is the implementation (since software is nothing but a description of something).

            I strongly disag

            • The IT sector as a whole? Probably not, but that's like asking whether patents are necessary to get enough investments in manufacturing. The point is that there may be particular endeavors in IT whose value may be dependent on being able to be the sole supplier of the technology for a while after it is developed.

              Patent law is not just about the value that some monopoly has, but also whether the positive effects of granting such monopolies actually stimulates the sector in which they are granted, consid

              • Patent law is not just about the value that some monopoly has, but also whether the positive effects of granting such monopolies actually stimulates the sector in which they are granted, considering the inherent downsides of granting monopolies.

                When was the last time an otherwise-valid patent was rejected because the economic sector to which it pertained was doing just fine at the moment and didn't need any further stimulation?

                The effort to create working code is also protected by copyright (and not in

                • When was the last time an otherwise-valid patent was rejected because the economic sector to which it pertained was doing just fine at the moment and didn't need any further stimulation?

                  You do not decide this patent per patent, but over a whole class of subject matter. If something is not patentable subject matter, you cannot have "an otherwise-valid patent" on it. It's true that patentable subject matter has been extended in the US to include software-described algorithms and business methods, but in

            • The problem is that software is not an invention. It is a calculation. You do not need a computer to run software, an software can (slowly) be carried out mentally. Lets say I select some suitable sort example of software which you claim to be patentable. I then in fact carry out that short patent. Did I violate that patent? Are you seriously suggesting that pure thought can/should be against the law?

              And if not, there's nothing patentable or inventive in the simple and obvious step of using an ordinary com
              • The problem is that software is not an invention. It is a calculation.

                1) You unjustifiably trivialize the complexity, novelty, and non-obviousness of some valuable computer algorithms by referring to them as "calculations". Even if technically correct, it is somewhat misleading to give the impression that we are talking about a mere linear sequence of arithmetic operations, like computing the tax on a restaurant bill.
                2)I don't accept your premise that the terms "calculation" and "invention" are mutually
                • You unjustifiably trivialize the complexity, novelty, and non-obviousness of some valuable computer algorithms

                  No I don't. I freely acknowledge that math can be quite complex, quite non-obvious, and entirely novel.

                  The entire world, and the US up until the 5-4 Supreme Court goof, consistantly and properly agreed that math and calculations and mental steps were not inventions and were not patentable. It was well established, and with good reason. Any attempt to say that thoughts are against the law is just

  • Skeptical (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @01:12PM (#10577811)
    Hopefully, more large companies will join this campaign in the future.

    Since it's precisely large companies that are most benefiting from the abuse of the patent system to obtain frivolous software patents, I doubt this will happen. It won't gain much corporate support outside of open source firms.
    • 1&1 is not an open source company. And if you look at the signatories of this (Dutch) press-release [softwarepatenten.be] of Belgian companies protesting against software patents, you'll find a bank and 9 companies, none of which is particularly open source. And at least the top two ones (EVS [evs-global.com] and The IRIS Group [irislink.com] are quite big.
      • And if you look at the signatories of this (Dutch) press-release [softwarepatenten.be] of Belgian companies protesting against software patents, you'll find a bank and 9 companies, none of which is particularly open source.

        Well, the international community has been able to hold on to some sense of reality with patents/copyright far better than the US.

  • Best anti-patent argument I've read (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dk.r*nger ( 460754 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @03:34PM (#10579435)
    I've been searching for a really good argument against softwarepatents, and they all seen to center around some semi-marxist anti-large-corporation basis, such as "GIF and MP3 is patented and OBVIOUSLY that is bad". Really, that isn't obvious in any sense or way. Neither GIF nor MP3 is trivial, and PNG and Ogg Vorbis took years to emerge and mature. This may og may not be a good counter-argument, but nobody cared to explain why LZW and MP3 is trivial ..

    Anyway, the argument, as presented [nosoftwarepatents.com]:
    Patents on software are just as wrong as expanding the patent system to literature.
    With patents on story elements, no movie could be published without having to firstly check whether there is any general idea in the storyline that someone patented during the last 20 years. Here's an example: At first sight, Dirty Dancing and Titanic are two very distinct movies. However, if there were patents on story elements, then the makers of Dirty Dancing could have sued the studio of Titanic. Both movies have a scene in which a poor boy takes a rich girl from a party of her social peers to a dancing party of his group, and she enjoys it. Dirty Dancing came out only nine years before Titanic, so any patent would still have been in force. No one knows whether James Cameron had that Dirty Dancing scene in mind as he wrote the Titanic script. Maybe Cameron never saw Dirty Dancing but the patent (if it existed) could be used against him anyway.
    • You are partly right that the reasons are not always thoroghly explained. However, software patents are also wrong for other reasons than being trivial or the argument you quote. Let's look at the GIF example you mentioned: UNISYS who owned the patent on the LZW algorithm (which is used among other things to greate compressed GIFs) just sat around waiting for the GIF format to become a defacto standard on the net before they started saying they had a patent on it. From their point of view it made sense to
    • I've been searching for a really good argument against softwarepatents

      All you have to do is look back before we instituted this absurd system of granting software patents. It happened in the 1980's in a hotly disputed 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Diamond v Diehr. That ruling was a goof that squeaked through by a single vote.

      Prior to that the US patent office, and essentially every other patent office in the world, consistantly and properly rejected all attempts to patent software. Specificly the USPO reje
      • I can't believe you actually believe this. You think any software can be run mentally??!

        You're not talking about running software mentally. You're talking about thinking about what software does mentally. Try running mathematica mentally sometime. It won't just be slow, I think it would be thousands of years before you could complete some fairly straightforward operations through mentally manipulating the binary code.

        Your post is complete BS.
        • You are looking at it backwards. It does not matter how long the longest supposedly valid software patent would take to run mentally. The question is how long would it take to carry out the mentally fastest supposedly valid software patent.

          The answer is that many of the "mentally fastest" software patents can in fact be carried out in a matter of minutes or less.

          I merely need to find a single patent I find suitable. When I do carry out that supposedly valid patent mentally you are faced with the fact that
    • Software is different from other industries in that a single individual can produce very good software without specialized machinery, etc. Consider shareware, freeware, and other such software. There is also free (as in "freedom") software and open-source software. Production of software does not require a large company. Software patents could be difficult if not impossible for an individual or a small company to deal with.
    • "Ogg Vorbis took years to emerge"

      Can we stop making fun of gentoo people for once!

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close