India Quietly Introduces Software Patents

bain_online writes " The Business-Standard of India reports: The Cabinet is expected to clear the promulgation of an Ordinance for the introduction of a product patents regime, which will also cover embedded software and hardware, next Wednesday. There are other news sites reporting the same. Unfortunately, the majority of the Indian people are not the least bit concerned, resulting in very low coverage for this important development."

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, amazing, patent laws in most countries are completely ignored by the general populace.

Re:Really?

[nkh]

It seems that the only country left who don't want patents is China (and Don't forget Poland!) Jobs were outsourced to India but Indians' jobs are even outsourced to China. Will these laws render this outsourcing process faster now?

The Intellectual Property Law of China

[westlake]

It seems that the only country left who don't want patents is China

For an introduction to the intellectual property law of China: Ministry of Science and Technology: Laws and Regulations [most.gov.cn] Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, etc. Why does it always come as a surprise on Slashdot when an international trader brings it's laws into synch with it's major trading partners?

its and it's

[westlake]

it and it's

the meaning is always clear in context and the rule violates ordinary usage of the 's to indicate possession. leaving the grammarian little hope that the rule will be remembered outside the classroom.

Re:Really?

[superpulpsicle]

I hate it when people assume China is so corrupted that patents can't even be created.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en. ht ml

You better check this list. As of 2004 China is no where close to Haiti and Bangledesh, which is bottom of the global corruption list every year.

Soon to be heard in Wipro Offices on speakerphones

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Welcome to Bangladeshi Software Outsourcers. May we take your order for Open Source Windows XP?

Re:Really?

[Pratiz]

This is an ordinance not a law. By Indian Constitution an ordinance must get an approval from the parliament before it can become a law. An ordinance has a lifespan of six months. It has to get an approval from the next parliamentary session (Feb - Mar 2005)

AFAIK there are serious differences even among the ruling coalition about the patent issues, but the media coverage has been mainly on the pharma and biotech patents.

Re:baaaaaaa

[HiThere]

Try thinking of it differently, thus:
People have a varyable amount of attention and intention to apply to things, and they must choose how to allocate whatever amount they have.

If you spend you time thinking about computer laws, you can't spend that time thinking about how to get your next meal, unless you do this by operations within the system of computer laws. Very few people do this.

If you are a computer professional, computer law changes may easily affect your ability to earn exchange tokens (hereaf

Another one bites the dust

[KlomDark]

Another confirmation that all government activity is only for the rich. Sure, it's naive to think otherwise, but it would be nice if they told the truth about it rather than filling us with utopian bullshit about how it's for the "greater good of all".

Re:Another one bites the dust

[erroneus]

I REALLY REALLY want to disagree with you. I can't completely disagree, however, because we'd need a public awakening to test for truth.

I believe the governments serve those that are the most vocal. The "rich" leverage their resources to become louder than the rest of the populace. I see that demonstrated on a regular basis. Additionally, however, I see that any attempt to equalize the voice of the populace against that of big business is suppressed which kind of adds evidence to the notion that govern

Perhaps you can elaborate on how it can "work"

[expro]

It does work, exactly in the way the legislators ultimately mean for it to work, destroying competition. Please elaborate how you think it could be revised to increase rather than destroy competition.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[SerpentMage]

That is such a pile of BS! Patents do not protect little guys from the big guys. That is a figment of our imagination. Maybe 100 years ago that was the case, but it is definitely not the case today.

To file a patent you need a lawyer, which costs money, then you need more money to defend your patent. A patent in North America costs about 20K USD, and in Europe 40K Euro's. The only "little" people who can do this are lawyers themselves. Notice how many times Slashdot covers the story of a small company with a broad patent? And notice how those small companies are lawyer driven. That is the reality folks!

Patents need to undergo a radical change because the premise of a patent is that a single person comes up with a single unique thought that is not obvious. Well, that is impossible in this day and age!

Re:Another one bites the dust

[khrtt]

Patents do not protect little guys from the big guys.

I know a guy who actually patented something (a brake pad thickness meter) and sold the patent to Ford for a $100 or so. Would've never been possible without a patent system.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[khrtt]

Sorry for typo, make that $100K. That patent was for a very concrete and useful device that would've never gotten manufactured otherwise. I mean, I'm not sure they ended up actually using the device in any of the production cars, but at least the invention has been published.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Air-conditioned cowh]

Sound like Ford decided to be nice to him that day. They didn't have to be.

If Ford had just stolen his idea then what could he have done? How much would it have cost him to take any action?

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Pantero Blanco]

A lot of automotive companies paid a good bit of money for patents like that...Then proceded to sit on them for decades, defeating the whole purpose of inventing something.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Laser Lou]

To file a patent you need a lawyer, which costs money, then you need more money to defend your patent. A patent in North America costs about 20K USD, and in Europe 40K Euro's. The only "little" people who can do this are lawyers themselves.

That's quite wrong! Where did you get those figures from? I had a teacher who filed patents for himself every few years, and made money from them. You can file one yourself; a lawyer or even a patent agent is not required. In the US it costs $75 for a small entity t

Re:Another one bites the dust

[SerpentMage]

You are right in theory. Try defending your "hand written" patent in a court of law! Been there, done that, and got the t-shirt. You need a lawyer, if you have anything worth patenting for larger sums of money.

But I am glad you point this out. The original intent was to allow the little person to profit from patents. However, the legions of lawyers will make mince meat of you if you try to defend your patent. So what do big companies do? Simple, "I will pay you X and you give me the patent". If you try to say no they will bury you in the courts.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[MacDork]

That is such a pile of BS! Patents do not protect little guys from the big guys. That is a figment of our imagination. Maybe 100 years ago that was the case, but it is definitely not the case today.

No. Not now. Not 100 years ago. [wingsoverkansas.com] Not ever.

• They [The Wright Brothers] had hoped that their patent would be respected from the start. When that did not occur, they placed their hopes in defending their patent in court. With the patent defended, they assumed that when other manufacturers at last began turning out aircraft in reasonable quantity, paying a royalty on each one, they could devote themselves to other research, not necessarily in aviation.

What? You thought the German's payed the Wright brothers a royalty for every airplane manufactured in WWI?

Re:Another one bites the dust

[SerpentMage]

Sorry, but I did not make myself clear. I am not saying that everything has been patented. I am saying that the patent was to protect "copiers". The problem is that we are six billion people.

When you have six billion people, multiple people will be thinking the same thing. However, the patent system is based on the fact that only one person will be thinking of the idea. So now comes the question, why should somebody who came up with the same idea not also get a patent? This is my problem with the pat

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Artifakt]

It's more like saying "Nothing gets invented by a lone inventor anymore - It's all collective work.". Now just to piss off the Libertarians ;-), I'll argue that position.
With costs to file and defend running what they are, a lone inventor takes a huge risk in marketing for himself (or herself). The most effective way to bring that risk into line with general business start up risks is to have (at the very least) a design engineer and a marketer also involved. Both of these will be having imput into the

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Waffle Iron]

The US Patent system, had it worked correctly, would have saved a number of budding software companies from Microsoft.

Yes, if software patents had been widespread from the start, there would be no Microsoft as we know it. In fact, we would just be entering a golden age of computing right now:

The Visicalc spreadsheet patents would have just expired a few years ago, allowing Lotus-123 to get started.

The Xerox GUI patents would have recently expired, so Apple could have introduced the Mac at the turn of the millennium.

The id first-person-shooter patents would be expiring in a few short years from now. The whole gaming industry would be abuzz with anticipation of 3D games from more than one vendor!

We would have only about 8 more years of paying royalties to CERN for browsing the web. In a few years, software vendors would be starting to plan features for a long-awaited successor to the Mosaic browser.

Linux would just now be able to host the kinds of server tasks that were common in the mid 80s, and more capabilities would become legal each year!

Driven by the demands created by the burgeoning patent-protected software market, Intel would be introducing the Pentium I just about now.

And what about licencing?

[Teun]

Virtually all your examples were overcome by companies licensing said patents, something likely possible in any patent system.

But this is not to say that software patents are very destructive to development.

A short term cure would be to forbid the exchange of (software) portfolios as this greatly prefers large corporations.

Re:And what about licencing?

[Waffle Iron]

Virtually all your examples were overcome by companies licensing said patents, something likely possible in any patent system.

Assuming the patent holder deigns to license the patents rather than using them simply to protect their market position while they sit on their laurels.

Re:And what about licencing?

[Alsee]

Virtually all your examples were overcome by companies licensing said patents

LOL! Software logic was not patentable until the 80's, and the entire decade only a trickle of such patents were applied for or issued. The first such patent upheld was in Diamond v Deihr in 1981*. It is physically impossible that the listed examples were "overcome" by licencing patents which did not exist.

The software and computer industry exploded in a complete absense of software patents. The only reason such progress is con

Re:And what about licensing?

[Teun]

A (large) company these days does not need to license major parts of the licenceable code they use, mainly because they have agreements with (the) other large companies.
It's only the little ones that (need to) fight for their part of the cake.
It is this inequality between large and small developers in the present system that I find especially unfair.
This is not to say that some of these litigating companies have nothing to trade with, rather excist purely on the basis of their legal department.

You are r

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

You are correct as far as near-clones of existing software. What you forget was the original intent of patents.

With a guaranteed monopoly for creating something new and no chance of copying old ideas before they become too unprofitable, the bright minds of these decades would have been brainstorming and coming up with new ideas to patent them for themselves. Imagine what could have been done if Linus Torvalds had spent his energy on developing a new paradigm for operating systems instead of just cloning th

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Waffle Iron]

Maybe the software industry would have creaked along with heavy patents, but I think that the average software product would have needed far more resources put into licensing negotiations, license accounting and pointless evasive coding techniques than into actual productive development. The bottom line is that people would have paid more for fewer features.

I disagree that forcing everyone to be different from any previous products is inherently good. If everybody has to invent a new blue-sky user experie

Re:Another one bites the dust

[johannesg]

Imagine what could have been done if Linus Torvalds had spent his energy on developing a new paradigm for operating systems instead of just cloning the existing Unices.

He would have been unable to copy _any_ idea that had been created before. Multitasking? Nah, is patented. Commandline? Same. GUI? Same. Memory protection? Virtual devices? Filing system? All patented. Good luck coming up with alternatives to some of these. And don't tell me a poor finnish student could have afforded licensing fees for hundreds of diverse technologies.

Imagine if Bill Gates had used his genius to code more and clone/buy less.

For Bill Gates very little changes. He just needs to spend some money on patents _and_ software.

But if software patents had been in effect since the early 1980s, the market would've had a lot less simple repetition and much more true innovation or actual improvements on existing products.

I strongly disagree. The first guy to realize that he owned a vital piece of the action (just imagine a patent on "interactive IO") would (or at least, *could*) have leveraged it to own the computer world. Simple software would bear pricetags comparable to cars (to pay off all the patent holders).

For any class of application, only one version would exist, unchanging no matter how bad it is for the first twenty years. Computers would never even have entered the home, since noone could afford them and there would no interesting software anyway.

And the same would be true for the tools we use to work with computers. There would be no Java or Perl or C++ (who could afford to develop a language when the compiler-patent is still valid?). In all likelyhood we would be program in assembler, _maybe_ using a terminal, but possibly still using punchcards. Which is no big deal - computers would only be available in specialized environments such as research institutions. I'll leave the knock-on effect to other technologies (cars, planes, telecommunication, etc.) to your imagination, but it will be huge.

In other words, we would be at the same technological level of development that we were in the sixties. Some people would no doubt consider that a good thing, but frankly I like our current level of development. At least now I can engage in stimulating discussion about various subjects with people from other continents (ok, that was a euphemism ;-) ).

SW patents offer no "protection" for "small" devs.

[jbn-o]

he US Patent system, had it worked correctly, would have saved a number of budding software companies from Microsoft.

You are repeating a myth that is easily debunked by examining how cross-licensing works from the perspective of the "budding software compan[y]". Quoting RMS from his talk on the danger with software patents [cam.ac.uk] (or listen to the speech [gnu.org]):

This phenomenon of cross-licensing refutes a common myth, the myth of the starving genius. The myth that patents "protect" the "small inventor". Those terms are propaganda terms. You shouldn't use them. The scenario is like this: Suppose there is a brilliant designer of whatever. Suppose he has spent years starving in the attic designing a new wonderful kind of whatever and now wants to manufacture it and isn't it a shame the big companies are going to go into competition with him, take away all the business and he'll "starve". I will have to point out that people in high tech fields are not generally working on their own and that ideas don't come in a vacuum, they are based on ideas of others and these people have pretty good chances of getting a job if they need to these days. So this scenario, the idea that a brilliant idea came from this brilliant person working alone is unrealistic and the idea that he is in danger of starving is unrealistic. But it is conceivable that somebody could have an idea and this idea along with 100 or 200 other ideas can be the basis of making some kind of product and that big companies might want to compete with him. So let's see what happens if he tries to use a patent to stop them. He says "Oh No, IBM. You cannot compete with me. I've got this patent." IBM says "let's see. Let's look at your product. Hmmm. I've got this patent and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one, which parts of your product infringe. If you think you can fight against all of them in court, I will just go back and find some more. So, why don't you cross license with me?" And then this brilliant small inventor says "Well, OK, I'll cross license". So he can go back and make these wonderful whatever it is, but so can IBM. IBM gets access to his patent and gets the right to compete with him, which means that this patent didn't "protect" him at all.

Also, note how the difference in the number of patents obtained: IBM has the most patents (so many that they can insulate themselves from the damage the patent system causes). Most "inventors" are not multinational corporations like IBM, HP, Apple, Microsoft, etc. and if they have any patents at all they only have patents that cover the wonderful something they're working on.

Therefore, when IBM gets a license by pressuring a small developer into cross-licensing, IBM gets virtually 100% of the small "inventor"'s patents but gives a license for a very small percentage of its patents. When multinationals cross-license they don't have this imbalance, so they cannot be bullied into cross-licensing all that they have. The imbalance and ill effect for the small "inventor" point out how what you are saying is a myth. Your post is highly overrated.

There goes

[MemoryDragon]

the outsourcing industry of India...

Indeed, but think it through a little further

[mark-t]

So this puts an additional burden on Indian developers to avoid stepping on other people's patents, resulting in increased costs, which are passed on to the American organizations that are outsourcing in the first place.

As the costs of outsourcing rise, its attractiveness will diminish, leading to an eventual about-face in the industry as organizations once again hire local programmers.

Re:Indeed, but think it through a little further

[HiThere]

No. The programmers will come from Nepal, or Bangladesh, or Pakistan, or someplace that doesn't have software patents. But India will have a lock on the Help Desk, as you will be protected by patents if you share information with them, so there won't develop any local use for the information.

Prior art

[Quiberon]

Make sure the whole of 'ibiblio', all of 'debian', and the Knoppix DVDs are filed with the Indian patent office as prior art to any patents that may get filed. Please !

Re:Prior art

[Chandon Seldon]

Yea, because when someone patents qsort for their embedded system it's a *really* big leap to go after other software implementing the same algorithm.

Probably got other things on their mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Most folks are more worried about the after effects of the tsunami, and aftershocks than patents right now.

Re:Probably got other things on their mind

[savagedome]

Please mod parent up. Please.

How many people remember Michael Jordan's comeback announced on 9/11?

I am happy that nobody is giving a crap about patents right now with the kind of destruction that happened. It would have been sad if patents were given more importance admist all that is happening right now.

How naive

[Baki]

What is really sad is that patent lobbyists use times like these to push through their ways quietly, while public attention is looking elsewhere. It is very naive to not give a crap about it, even now.

Re:How naive

[rsidd]

The product patent part of the ordinance was necessitated by India's WTO obligations: this needed to be done by Jan 1, 2005. It has nothing to do with sneaking something through past a disaster. The Indian press has been covering it for days before. As for the embedded-software bit: as far as I know that wasn't necessitated by the WTO obligations, but it was probably bundled here for convenience, not because they wanted to sneak it past anyone.

Re:Probably got other things on their mind

[TheoMurpse]

"How many people remember Michael Jordan's comeback announced on 9/11?"

Apparently you do. Asshole.

Re:Probably got other things on their mind

[HiThere]

It is true for EVERY country that almost nobody knows enough about computers to worry about the effect of a law that technically changes who is allowed to do what on them.

Fact it, nobody protested the DMCA's restriction of fair-use, and that affected many more people in an obvious and direct way. The effects of this law are uncertain and will be seen far in the future, and almost everybody will only be affected in a very indirect manner. Even after-the-fact almost nobody will know that this law affected

Since the vast majority of programming there goes

[human bean]

on with open source software tooling, and everyone borrowing things from each other, one would think that the technical folks there would have a clue.

I suspect this is proposed as a way for the larger corporations who attempt to control the Hindi programmer "market" to shut out the smaller split-offs and startups.

Funny. I guess they didn't suffer enough through the British raj and so now they do it to themselves.

Re:Since the vast majority of programming there go

[drspliff]

I agree, most software developers have 'a clue' about software patents. But most 'normal' people and MPs or government officials really don't (do you remember some of those whacky government schemes to introduce 'dont spam me' whitelists?).

The last thing India needs right now is for software patents to be introduced, this for one will mean that large american/european corporations will be investing in patents in India, whereas most small Indian software firms will be locked out due to the legal costs invo

Re:Since the vast majority of programming there go

[node 3]

Since the vast majority of programming there goes on with open source software tooling, and everyone borrowing things from each other, one would think that the technical folks there would have a clue.

I bet they do. It's just that they aren't the ones who make the laws.

Thank you. What do you all call yourselves...

[human bean]

when you speak in english? Is the preferred term Indians?

Well that and

[LiNKz]

They're busy dealing with this [ksbitv.com].

Re:Well that and

[LiNKz]

Specifically, they're dealing with this [msn.com]. The first link was more generalized.

First wave of software patents

[Gopal.V]

Patent office of India has a section in Patent Law (rev 1998) [patentoffice.nic.in], which states

1.3.8 Computer Programs
1. Computer program is not patentable invention as computer program is
a set of instructions for controlling a sequence of operations of a dataprocessing
system. It closely resembles a mathematical method .It
may be expressed in various forms eg. A series of verbal statements, a
flow chart, an algorithm, or other coded form and may be presented in
a format suitable for direct entry into a particular computer, or may
require transcription into a different format (or computer “language”). It
may merely be written on paper or recorded on some machine-readable medium such as magnetic tape or disc or optically scanned
record, or it may be permanently recorded in a control store forming
part of a computer. Thus it is evident that a program may be presented
in terms of either software or firmware.

With such a clear law stating about firmware, how can patents be applicable to embedded systems ?. The normal programmer need not fear yet. But this is just the first wave.

An invention consists of hardware along with software or computer
program in order to perform the function of the hardware ,such
invention may be considered Patentable

Maybe this is the clause they are exploiting ?.

I'm mailing my ministers [kerala.gov.in] immediately !!... If you are an Indian, do the same immediately.

Re:First wave of software patents

[Gopal.V]

I'm considering mailing the president [presidentofindia.nic.in] himself. He's an OSS supporter who has quite a good idea of what this means for FOSS in this world.

Even if you are not Indian, consider doing that - for the sake of another country with a 3% population of techies.

Re:First wave of software patents

[Halo1]

With such a clear law stating about firmware, how can patents be applicable to embedded systems ?

Keep in mind that this is about a rewrite of the patent law.

I'm mailing my ministers immediately !!... If you are an Indian, do the same immediately.

You might find some interesting background information here [ffii.org].

Lack of interest?!?!

[FreeLinux]

Imagine, the Indian people aren't interested in the patent issue. Could it have anything to do with the fact that 3000 or more people were killed by a tsunami? [go.com]

If I were in India, I wouldn't be to concerned with patents right now either.

A little more than 3k

[Safety Cap]

More like 23k or more.

Re:Lack of interest?!?!

[Chandon Seldon]

Because obviously two things can't both matter at the same time.

I'm not saying that tens of thousands of people dying in a natural disaster isn't very tragic, but it doesn't make the software patent issue any less important.

In fact - because of the tendancy to focus on easily-understood problems - issues like software patents become even more relevent when there's some event to distract from them.

The people died from the tsunami already. Whatever processes are going to rescue surviors and rebuild are al

Yeah sure.

[jotaeleemeese]

The full 1 billion of Indian people (including people in the IT fields) are all idiots that can't carry on with life and become emotional shrecks because 3000 died in a natural disaster.

If the Indian IT industry has allowed this to happen (or perhaps they are happy to oblige?) the lamest of excuses is to be unable to do anything because the disaster has go to their heads.

I am sure some folks have been directly affected by this, but I am pretty sure most folks were not and would be capable to following up

Great news for Americans and Europeans!

[tap]

Hopefully a huge land grab for IP will turn India's software industry into a litigation industry.

India won't be able to start a software industry of it's own, when American companies "own" all the ideas software is based on. They'll just keep being a source of cheap labor to make American CEO's richer.

Re:Great news for Americans and Europeans!

[RealBorg]

Sooner or later the rich will learn that all the money they own cannot safe them from the rage of the starving population, one way or the other.

Re:Great news for Americans and Europeans!

[HiThere]

The french monarchy didn't have robots armed with shotguns. (They probably aren't very effective yet, but the one in the field is an early beta undergoing development tests.)

Re:Great news for Americans and Europeans!

[HiThere]

There were a lot of people hurt there, but how many were rich and important.

I'm skipping over the evidence which indicates that SOMEONE with a lot of money was behind it, because Oligarchies have gang rumbles just like lesser gangs do. (And our reaction was quite interesting if it was intended to "punish" those who financed the event. It sure wasn't a one man operation, though I suppose it could be a one-fall guy operation.)

It was the same in Europe...

[Rauchbier]

The patent lobby tried to introduce software patents in Europe silently as well. Thanks to the FFII [ffii.org] there was enough noise to wake up politicians. Now we have additional support from sites like No Software Patents [nosoftwarepatents.com], but it took a lot of time to get this support.

Hopefully there is a chance to postpone the decision so the indian people and politicians can catch up on software patents.

WIPO relevance?

[PornMaster]

Did they do this to gain international protection in any manner? If Indians are slaving away at coding, perhaps this is to gain from internal development things outside their own country.

Very Important

[MyLongNickName]

Yes, when hundreds of millions of people are living in abject poverty, this important development gets ignored.

Methinks some people need to gain a bit of perspective. In the hierarchy of human needs, I do not remember reading about software patent issues.

Re:Very Important

[Flyboy Connor]

In the hierarchy of human needs, I do not remember reading about software patent issues.

What you forget is that industrialisation is a way out of poverty. The software market requires little monetary support, and lots of human labour. Human labour is available plenty in India, but money is scarce. Therefore, the software industry is ideal for India to help itself become richer. By introducing software patents, they set themselves up to let most of the gains from the software industry flow to the US. Not a

Why should they care ?!!?

[Adeptus_Luminati]

Having just spent an entire month travelling through India, I am not at all surprised at the low media coverage. The vast majority of the population is extremely poor... the (on average) dozen beggers that approached me daily, don't even ask you for money, they ask you for food my friends! *That's* how you know they are really poor and what's really on their minds.

The vast majority of people don't even know how to turn on a computer, and many haven't even seen one in their lives, so it is not surprising that the media would think their people would not care so much about patents; they have far bigger logistical and core problems than caring about software patents.

Re:Why should they care ?!!?

[The Cydonian]

Yes, abject poverty exists in India, but all the same, that's not the only reason for the low media coverage; here in Singapore, we're about to have software patents ourselves starting Jan 2005, but you don't see that being covered in the media either.

Let's face it:- media apathy towards IPR issues isn't a rich-poor divide. It exists everywhere.

Mt. Dew for Thought...

[Thunderstruck]

India enacts software patent law... nobody seems to care.

The United States enact ... nobody seems to care.

Poland blocks IP law ... nobody seems to care.

The common thread here is really a lack of concern by the masses about what the law is in this area. Is this really an issue of law being made only for the big corporations, or is it a question of lack of education & information among the rest?

Perhaps the real solution to the problems of IP law, as almost universally recognized on /. even by AC's is that we direct our energy away from our respective governments and toward our friends and neighbors.

That officials enacting IP law will seldom see the /.er as anything more than a wanna-be pirate. Legislators look at those who have the knowledge to tinker but are not corporate engineers being paid to testify with suspiciion. They must surely be self-serving software pirates worthy only of scorn.. at least until the timer needs to be set on the VCR. Geeks are not a voting block.

The solution then, is to explain to Grandpa why software patents are bad. Grandpa is no dummy. If we can survive working tech-support over the telephone, we can explain IP to Grandpa in person when we visit for Christmas.

It will be easier than it sounds. People love to have rights, even if they don't fully understand them. Show a man his rights are being violated and the righteous indignation begins to swell. All Grandpa needs to really understand is that, when IP laws are toughened, when copyrights are extended, that takes away something from HIM... then he will speak up. When granpa speaks, the government listens.

Re:This isn't about software patents....

[Halo1]

TFA is talking about modifications to process patents, not software patents. While it may affect embedded software (and there's still a question about whether or not that will be legal, according to a previous poster), it won't affect normal software until the law gets changed further.

They try to mask it in exactly the same way in Europe. "Software as such will remain unpatentable, only computer-implemented inventions will become patentable!". Now what is a "computer-implemented invention"? A computer

This may not be that bad...

[eamacnaghten]

It all depends on what is to be patented. It is arguable that some software are legitimate inventions and should be patentable. Like the RSA algorithm (patent now expired). That is a legitimate invention and it is only fair that those who invented it should be awarded in the form of a 20 year exclusive ownership in return for making the algorithm publicly known.

However, things like the recent Microsoft "IsNot" patent should not be patentable. That is an attempt at a land grab. Also the patenting fil

Re:This may not be that bad...

[latroM]

Like the RSA algorithm (patent now expired).

Mathematics is by definition not patentable. Math is not invented, it is discovered.

Re:This may not be that bad...

[AstroDrabb]

I don't understand your logic about software patents. You state:

Like the RSA algorithm (patent now expired). That is a legitimate invention . . .

Then you continue:

However, things like the recent Microsoft "IsNot" patent should not be patentable. That is an attempt at a land grab. Also the patenting file formats in order to try and collect "tax" revenue from the Internet should not be permitted.

The MS IsNot operator patent and other software patents are _all_ bad. They are all just instructions to a computer. So you either have to allow the patenting of _all_ instructions to a computer or _no_ instructions to a computer. You cannot allow some and not the others.

You probably think the RSA algorithm is OK to patent because it is a little complex to you. Well it is not complex to everyone. We cannot allow "complex" software instructions to be patented while not allowing "non-complex" software instructions to be patented. Exactly who gets to pick which set of software instructions are "complex" vs. "non-complex"? As it is now, it is a non-technical patent examiner. To him, _all_ software instructions are complex.

IMO, no software should be patentable. All software are just computer instructions. Can I patent the instructions to cook chicken soup? How about the instructions to brush your teeth? If I were allowed to patent those, I would be a very rich man! I say allow HARDWARE to be patented, but not software. Neither allow a hardware/software combination. Just the hardware please.

[Insert argument about how big companies spend a lot of time and money on writing software instructions here].

Well, I could spend a lot of time and money on writing instructions to brush your teeth, tie your shoes or install your own home security system. Why should I not be allowed to patent those instructions while a software company is allowed to patent their instructions?

Re:This may not be that bad...

[eamacnaghten]

Comparing the RSA algorith to the IsNot operator is like comparing a motor car engine with a spoon. You can claim that both of those are the same because they are made out of metal or other material.

There are some that say all patents are bad. I am not one of them. It has been proven that patents (outside the software world) has, to a lesser or greater degree, encouraged inovation and publicizing of them and has made the world a better place.

However, the patent system is open to abuse, where over-g

Re:This may not be that bad...

[AstroDrabb]

There are some that say all patents are bad. I am not one of them. It has been proven that patents (outside the software world) has, to a lesser or greater degree, encouraged inovation and publicizing of them and has made the world a better place.

I agree, patents are good for physical objects. Patents are not good for software.

However, if there was a way to grant genuine software patents while rejecting the "land-grabbing" ones . . .

And who gets to say what a "genuine software patent" is? You? Me? M

Re:This may not be that bad...

[Wolfbone]

"I am a mathematician and DO understand the RSA algorithm and how it encrypts data. To say it was "discovered" and not "invented" is silly..."

No it is not. The philosophical viewpoint of mathematics as discovery is ancient, well known and well respected (cf. Plato, Godel, Penrose et al). I should hardly need to point that out to a mathematician!!! Unless of course you are some weird, pre-Godelian Formalist dinosaur ;-)

Re:This may not be that bad...

[SCHecklerX]

Indeed. I posted about this on a similar topic a couple of days ago. Business method patents, and software patents are both ridiculous. Patents should be for physical inventions, and physical inventions only. You can patent your circuitboard, but not the method used to communicate with it.

Furthermore, you should have to come up with a prototype within a reasonable amount of time. Patenting ideas is stupid. I shouldn't be able to patent a time machine, for example. If you can't come up with a workin

Re:This may not be that bad...

[GlassHeart]

You probably think the RSA algorithm is OK to patent because it is a little complex to you. Well it is not complex to everyone.

It only needs to be non-obvious to somebody with "ordinary skill in the art". To require only absolutely unique inventions for a patent is the same as abolishing the system.

Exactly who gets to pick which set of software instructions are "complex" vs. "non-complex"? As it is now, it is a non-technical patent examiner. To him, _all_ software instructions are complex.

So use peopl

Re:This may not be that bad...

[AstroDrabb]

So use people (with "ordinary skill in the art") who can more accurately judge what deserves patent protection. There's still no need to throw everything out.

Yeah, that will work until these people with "ordinary skill in the art" get bribes and kickbacks or get pressure from a superior to grant a patent to $BIG_CORP.

The first one probably has prior art, so it's not "novel". The second one is probably "obvious". Even mechanical devices have to be "novel" and "non-obvious" to be patentable.

Are you actually familiar with these issues?

You are quoting how the patent office _should_ be, not how it currently is. Are you familiar with these _current_ issues? Or do you just assume the system is functioning as it should? Are you familiar with the Amazon one-click patent? As a computer programmer with "ordinary skill in the art", I an say that the Amazon one-click is not "novel" and is ceraintly "obvious", yet is was awarded a patent. I am sure the geek /. crowd could barbard you with tons of obvious patents and/or patents with prior art.

Re:This may not be that bad...

[GlassHeart]

Yeah, that will work until these people with "ordinary skill in the art" get bribes and kickbacks or get pressure from a superior to grant a patent to $BIG_CORP.

Honesty among civil servants is not a new requirement. For laws to work, people have to obey the law, or be made to. I don't see what you're arguing against.

Additionally, it can be made similar to a jury system. Software engineers can be licensed, and as a corresponding duty to that license be asked randomly to serve on a patent "jury". There ar

Re:This may not be that bad...

[runderwo]

Software engineers can be licensed,

I hope for the sake of your plan that you meant "certified" here. Requiring engineers to acquire a license to practice engineering is an extremely bad idea for numerous reasons.

Re:This may not be that bad...

[HiThere]

It couldn't be a "good thing". With proper care and appropriate implementation it could be "not all that bad".

The problem is that software has a marginal reproduction cost of $0.00/KB. (It's not zero, but the first no-zero digit is probably in the thousanth's or ten-thousanth's position. Possibly further out.) For this kind of a creation the appropriate protection SHOULD be copyright. Unfortunately, the copyright laws have also be upgefucked by "special interests" who have caused them to be extended t

Re:This may not be that bad...

[Wolfbone]

"However, things like the recent Microsoft "IsNot" patent should not be patentable. That is an attempt at a land grab. Also the patenting file formats in order to try and collect "tax" revenue from the internet should not be permitted."

Patent examiners do not and cannot look at patent applications and say; "Oooh! Naughty! - this guy seems to be engaging in an attempt to impose a bit of extra taxation on internet users - we'd better deny this application." They are not the morality police and if you underst

Re:This may not be that bad...

[Flyboy Connor]

Like the RSA algorithm (patent now expired). That is a legitimate invention and it is only fair that those who invented it should be awarded in the form of a 20 year exclusive ownership in return for making the algorithm publicly known.

Every patenting law has, until now, excluded the patenting of mathematical constructs. There are many reasons for this, not least of which the fact that mathematics can be considered a force of nature. The problem is that there is no real difference between a mathematical f

While India gets it backwards...

[ventonegro]

Brazil is getting more and more involved with Open Source software. The Ministry of Communications has just offered to sponsor the development of an open source software they need. This can put us seriously ahead.

Re:While India gets it backwards...

[jbn-o]

I see a bit of conflict there--the open source movement primarily speaks to business (its why they crafted the message and philosophy centering on practical endeavor like building programs cheaper, making them run faster, and have fewer bugs). Multinational corporations want software patents. So, the conflict is between what you're suggesting (open source makes software patent adoption less likely) and who the open source movement is built to talk to. Hence, I have a hard time believing that a focus on t

Re:And what has brazil contributed to the world?

[js3]

yep. absolutely nothing.

It's not Software that worries me.

[Kream]

The current dispensation in India has come to power with the support of leftist parties, who, along with commentators, non-governmental organisations and members of civil society organisations oppose the promulgation of this ordinance or the enactment of the Patents Amendment Act for a major reason.

Medicines.

With the establishment of this ordinance, which will expire after a time and have to be reintroduced as a bill in Parliament, medicines in India, including lifesaving ones, will cost up to four times to a hundred times more than they do now.

The current government is forced to enact this law under it's obligations under the WTO's TRIPS [wikipedia.org]. However, the draft Bill not only fails to use the flexibility available within the TRIPS Agreement but also goes beyond TRIPS. In other words, the draft Bill proposes patent protection more than what is required under TRIPS.

Civil society organisations believe that draft Bill provisions would give monopoly rights to pharmaceutical companies at the cost of accessibility and availability of drugs under the product patent regime. It's worth noting here that the Right to Health is a Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution.

Here's a link [altlawforum.org] which details the situation. Here's a fact sheet [altlawforum.org] on the issue of Generic Drugs as well as a document called the Myths and Realities of the Pharmaceutical Industry [egagenerics.com] that the European Generic Medicines Association [egagenerics.com] has prepared. The movement against the amendment in the law is being spearheaded by the Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign [lawyerscollective.org]. Here's a letter [altlawforum.org] to the Prime Minister of India that you can send if you wish to help out as well as one letter [hrw.org]to the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission.

What bothers me is that when asked to bend before Intellectual Property Rights, we have begun to crawl. Aniruddha "Karim" Shankar

A good thing

[mysterious_mark]

What will US companies who outsource to India do when they start getting sued left and right for violating patents? Seems like India is determined to make all the same mistakes we have and they will kill their own tech industry. This and the imminient collapse of the dollar will only help us US programmers. M

That's because they don't respect them

[crovira]

Patents and copyright are very low on the totem pole of the things they care about. (Always have been.)

I see arm twisting...

[fromme]

Commerce ministry sources said the government still had a week's time to comply with the deadline but a failure to do so could result in punitive action on textiles.

So, if India doesn't comply with the WTO on software patents, their textiles are to going to cost more abroad? Hmmm!

I wonder if the WTO would do the same with China?

Microsoft in China

[westlake]

Microsoft was the first foreign corporation admitted into the China Software Industry Association (2002). Microsoft Joins in China Software Industry Association [china.org.cn] World traders play by world rules.

Principles Vs Homeland

[teetam]

As a principle, I oppose software patents. However, for some time now, western countries have been bullying India under the guise of Intellectual Property Rights. May be it is time for India to get patents of its own and level the playing field.

For doubters, consider the field of encryption and the amount of tight control US government has over it.

Re:Principles Vs Homeland

[HiThere]

Only if their laws don't recognize any patents issued before the effective date of the law. And do recognize valid prior art.

If they were to do those two things, then matters could quickly become quite humorous.

This would, of course, mean that basmati rice would have trouble with Indian patents, but I believe that this isn't what has been happening, so they don't seem to properly evaluate prior art.

On the bright side of life...

[Anonymous Coward]

By 2010 corporations will have patented every possible thing that humans have done so by 2045 when they all expire we can get on with progress.

The reason why this is ignored is because..

[xot]

..even though India has a huge software industry(IT is one of the few industries thriving right now), most of the software is produced for oversees companies which is the software exports industry.Software patents do not mostly apply to this genre of IT.
The local software industry is too small to care for patents which will be applicable locally.Thats the reason why no one really cares about patents.

Media coverage

[DarkDust]

Unfortunately, the majority of the Indian people are not the least bit concerned, resulting in very low coverage for this important development.

Well, that's not different here in Europe (at least in Germany, where I'm from). There has been no media coverage about software patents discussions/issues at all. Not even about the foul things the Netherlands are currently doing in the European Council to force software patents on the EU although the European Parliament and the national parliaments voted agains

Cut down on the offshoring?

[IBitOBear]

Well, they wanted a chunk of our economy, and we wanted to make sure we didn't ship all of our money over there in terms of off-shoring. Now "everybody wins".

The economic colonialism of the US will "take back India for the West" and while tomorrow is India, we may get the rest of the world sometime shortly there after... if not for Poland... 8-)

The facts are simple, countries can sell off their economic future for small cash bribes today, and they seem willing to do so. They _believe_, because they were told, that these software patents are how the US got our IT industry. That belief needs must be cold comfort in the years ahead.

You can't really blame the US or its most important corporate citizens. They understand at a visceral level that the "software patent" is a huge mistake, but their two choices are to admit that the money spent so far needs to be tossed out and the software patent regime overturned OR they have to get the rest of the world to make the same mistake to re-level the playing field. The patents represent tangible power so they are unwilling to un-make the mistake, and instead have, by anonymous consent, decided that the best bet is make sure the rest of the world is equally plagued.

I am put in mind of the monkey trap. You build a box that a monkey can barely put its hand into, then put a nut in the box, the monkey reaches in and grabs the nut and then cannot get its nut-filled fist back out of the hole. The monkey could be free if it just let go of the nut, but it is biologically incapable of doing that. Its instincts are not wired up to sacrifice the nut to save its life. Its a short-comming in the whole essence of monkey-hood.

In our scenario, the companies are the monkeys, the law and its trappings are the box, software patents are the nut. Unfortunately the "IP Holding Company" is the guy with the gun who is coming to shoot the monkey dead if the monkey doesn't just starve to death first.

We have these other countries just begging for us to tell them how to put nuts in their boxes, and for no apparent reason too boot.

If you let the stupid people here get away with it...

All your software future are belong to U.S.

Re:Selling the US rope they need to hang themselve

[Rude Turnip]

I think they're about to hang themselves by introducing software patents. It should be an interesting case study over the next couple years to see if the introduction of software patents has any impact on the growth of the Indian IT industry.

Bhopal

[konmaskisin]

If you are familiar with the Bhopal case and the Indian government's *embarrassing* complacence and prostration before corporate interests (the *government* doesn't really care that 60K people died of poison gas - so long as investment keeps flowing). The fact they are allowing software patents looks pretty insignificant.

This is the country that gets upset when someone in Texas patents basmati or use of the neem tree - exclusively because of the potential for unrest amongst the agricultural "peasantry". N

Re:India produces nothing on its own ...

[Quixote]

Holy uninformed opinions, Batman!

India is one of the world's largest producers of generic drugs. Whereas American companies want to charge starving Africans $10000/yr for AIDS drugs, an Indian company has promised to provide the equivalent generics for $300/year.

Indian companies have also started applying for FDA approval and/or patent protection for new molecules (as drugs are known).

Stop drinking the Koolaid and start doing some reading (and not just the GTA manual ;-) ).

Re:India produces nothing on its own ...

[spruce]

Okay, not flaming, just a point - generics of drugs that who researched/invented in the first place?

Re:Tries to avoid -1 Flamebait:..

[SpaceLifeForm]

In the long run it will affect them all. Many just don't realize that at this time.

Re:Ordinary computer with special software

[Flyboy Connor]

Can you patent an ordinary computer with special software ? Or can you patent a Bessemer converter that happens to be software controlled ?

AFAIK, anywhere in the (technological) world you can patent specialised hardware in combination with software. The battle is about the patenting of software for a universal machine, what you call an "ordinary computer". In the US, this is possible -- and not only complete programs, but also teensy weensy algorithms, or even simple ideas which can be implemented in an