EU to Redefine Scope of Software Patents 291
karvind writes "According to story on ZDNet, the European Parliament (EP) has enlisted the help of intellectual property lawyers to amend the directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions so that companies are prevented from patenting pure software. According to article: "The ongoing argument over patents in the software industry revolves around the distinction between physical inventions that use software -- such as a car braking system -- and pure software." (See also this earlier story about the EU and software patents.)"
Oh no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop the bullshit. Software should not be patentable, not pure software, not embedded software, NO software. Patent lawyers have been preaching for years that software is already patentable, you just have to word the patent application right: "A device which uses the following algorithm to..."
Re:Oh no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they really need a gathering of lawyers to come up with that? It's not exactly rocket science.
This sounds more as if they're calling for a discussion on how to write pre-broken leglislation with full of carefully hidden loopholes. For something like that, I expect you'd get a lot of lawyers for a bash like that. Most of them with chequebooks to make sure the legislators were receptive to their clients views.
Not that I'm cynical or anything. I just don't see the difficulty in drafting such a law unless you're planning on adding "just kidding" on the end and hiding it under a pile of legalese
Re:Oh no. (Score:3, Informative)
The law already pretty much says that (barring the words "circumstances", "whatsoever"). But the patent lawyers and the EPO bend the rules anyway. See here. [eurolinux.org]
Re:Oh no. (Score:2)
That and a right royal bollocking for certain members of the euro patent office. Maybe a rewritten set of guidelines for patent office employees.
It still seems like something that could be solved transparently and without the need for a lawyerfest.
Re:Oh no. (Score:5, Insightful)
However a little further on it says of the above text:
That "as such" has proved to be a large loophole which patent seekers have used.
What do you think it means?
Re:Oh no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't I patent my movie? (Score:5, Interesting)
But the funny thing is how the patent lawyers interpret this exclusion. When it comes to aesthetic creations, they all agree that you can't get a patent on them, because of this wording in the EPC.
But when it comes to computer programs, they claim that the law as written doesn't apply any more. Even though both films and computer programs are part of the same list in the same article [ffii.org] in the same international convention.
For a slightly humorous text that explores this inconsistency, and the "as such" loophole in paticular, read Why Can't I Patent My Movie? [www.ffii.se]
It's a funny world.
Re:Why can't I patent my movie? (Score:3, Interesting)
Man this way it would be possible to patent every movie!!! imagine DRMed movies embeded in executable files. The file contains the player as well as the movie data and to see it you have to write your password. That way, they would be pattentable no??
Re:Why can't I patent my movie? (Score:2)
Currently the EPO even takes part in many Microsoft Softwarechoice/compTIA lobbying events. [softwarechoice.org] The EPO is no EU body but totally independent. It will be difficult to get the system back under legislative control but the European Parliament will try. Now the Committee on Legal Affairs works on the directive.
What kind of support can YOU provide?
*
Re:Oh no. (Score:2)
It's a pity legal documents don't need to be parsed - that'd get the ambiguity out of them
under no circumstances whatsoever shall patents be granted upon software, algorithms, business methods, or mathematical {expressions, techniques, constructs, concepts}
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
They are not going to let patent lawyers write the directive. They are consulting with legal experts" - certainly with at least some good and honest lawyers and alikes like the ones of the EFF - to make sure that it will be
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent agents normally aren't lawyers (Score:3, Informative)
The parent post was modded as "troll", but I'm quite sure that it was meant to be informative, even if the wording was slightly unfortunate.
Most patent professionals, whether they work at the Patent Office or for a firm of private patent agents, do in fact have their basic training in engineering rather than in law. The idea has always been that the difficult part of the job is to be able to understand the technical aspects of the inventions,
Re:Oh no. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it is simply impossible to draw the line between a pure software patent and an embedded one, and between an embedded one and a pure hardware patent.
Second, in this view, the RSA algorithm is not patentable - a brilliant piece of work by three top-rated minds solving a well-defined problem which has defied solution for several years. In contrast, the simple insight that in an inkjet printer, printing speed is doubled if printing is done on both the left-to-right motion and on the right-to-left motion is patentable. This is ridiculous.
The problem isn't software patents vs. hardware patents, the problem is bad patents vs. good patents. Despite the best efforts of the PTO, the current mechanism for filtering patents has collapsed. As a result, we are flooded by "bad" patents. True, most of these are software patents, but that's besides the point.
The law should not be modified to forbid a certain type of patents - be it either software, hardware, wetware, business, design or whatever. It should be modified to raise the bar on patent "non-obviousness". This isn't a trivial change in the law (and the patent granting process), but it is doable. As long as this core issue is not addressed, we'll keep being flooded by bad patents.
Re:Oh no. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh no. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh no. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually not, the original idea of patents was to discourage people from maintaining trade secrets and encourage the free exchange of information. Ellis and Cocks never published.
The problem with the patent system is that it is no longer meeting the original aims. I have been asked to remove innovative concepts from several of my specs just in case they might be patented. At last count there are something like 100 US patents issued where other people make retrospective claims to work I was involved in.
The US system is especially broken. One of the real problems is that unlike every other country an applicant is allowed to backdate his claim to a year before the filing date. So a corrupt applicant can read something on a mailing list, apply for a patent and then sue and the defense has to come up with prior art that was published a year before the original post. This type of corruption is not unusual, it is routine.
Don't judge the whole patent system by the corrupt US system. Software patents are not inherently wrong, the problem is that there are simply too many trivial patents issued for obvious ideas. The idea of taking a long established business process and taking it to the Internet should not be considered patentable.
Also the legal process for deciding patent claims should be made much simpler and put a much higher burden of proof on the plaintif. It should not cost $5 million to get a patent case dismissed. Plaintifs should be required to state in their initial claim exactly how the defendant is alleged to infringe the patent and the specific patent claims being infringed. I am currently answering a claim involving a patent with about 60 claims, the complaint is purely pro-forma and gives no information as to even the products that are alleged to infringe.
The othe aspect of the USPTO racket is that it allows claims that are ridiculously broad. The rule should be that there is one standard for interpreting the claims. So if the claim is being interpreted broadly for the purposes of determining infringement it should be interpreted equally broadly for the purposes of prior art and any prior art should demolish the entire claim.
Re:Oh no. (Score:5, Insightful)
>patent and an embedded one,
>and between an embedded one and a pure hardware patent.
No, that line can be drawn: Software is something that can be stored on CD, emailed or downloaded from a webserver. Software can be distributed, sold etc without violating any patent. That is, if you can produce hardware and put the software (e.g, firmware) on a CD in the box you do not have to worry about patents for that software.
==
Second, in this view, the RSA algorithm is not patentable - a brilliant piece of work by three top-rated minds solving a well-defined problem which has defied solution for several years.
==
A lot of brilliant mathematical work is not patented. Do you think Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman would not have worked on this if it was not patentable? They even published it the year before applying for the patent. And they did not invent it out of nothing. It is not that different from the earlier Pohlig-Hellman private key algorithm.
Re:Oh no. (Score:2)
Fine. Can I patent a device that includes software? "A device consisting of a general-purpose CPU plus the following software..."?
Software can be distributed, sold etc without violating any patent. That is, if you can produce hardware and put the software (e.g, firmware) on a CD in the box you do not have to worry about patents for that software.
As opposed to producing the hardware and pre-
Re:Oh no. (Score:2)
>consisting of a general-purpose CPU plus the following software..."?
No. Not if that line is drawn and the software can be uploaded to the device.
Of course we can discuss if the line is drawn at tre right place. I.e. the VLSI layout in a device could be patented even though some would consider it programming/software and FPGA software in a hardware description language could not be patented. But the line is there.
>More to the point,
Re:Oh no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I patent a device that includes a one hundred digit number?
Of course, however only if the devide itself is an invention. Adding a one hundred digit number cannot turn a non-invention into a patentable invention.
A one hundred digit number may certainly be "new" and never before seen, a one hundred digit number can certainly be non-obvious. A one hundred digit number can even be useful. However a number is not an invention. Software is not a feild of technology. Software is a field of mathematics.
At what point did the software become "embedded" into the device and hence patentable?
Never. The object itself (assuming it is infact an invention) is what is patentable. Adding software to it does not remove it's patentability.
Patents are for:
(1) novel non-obvious and useful phyisical objects, and
(2) novel non-obvious and useful physical processes.
You cannot invent a number. You cannot invent logic. You cannot invent calculation. You cannot invent a mathematical equation. You cannot invent a mathematical algorithm. You cannot invent a sequence of mental steps.
A calculation is not a "process".
-
Re:Oh no. (Score:2)
I agree. A lot of people seem to miss this point: is there justification for patenting said "device?" A patent is not a reward for coming up with something neat. A patent is
One example of patentability (Score:2)
As I see it, this would be a new invention. Not sure if I would pay extra for it though. And if a new oven that makes other things crisp is introduced, that accidentally also makes crisp chicken, then I am not sure I would call that patent violation.
Re:Oh no. (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting. Not least because the GP was specifically asking for such a line not to be drawn. Viewed in that light, your rebuttal doesn't carry much force, does it? Between software and hardware, certainly. But that one is easy to draw -
Re:Oh no. (Score:2)
I've heard a lot of people cite the RSA as something that deserves a patent. I agree and often cite it myself. But there are so few that do...
Why doesn't the EU do something innovative and just elect a blue ribbon panel of judges to give away patents based on how cool they are and how useful they are... like the Nobel prize.
The award could have two components: a right of unique use for a period of time (set by the judges, and surely shorter than 17 years, but probably a function of the development cos
Re:Oh no. (Score:3, Insightful)
ALL software patents are bad patents. After software patents are eliminated, we can get back to working on the problem of bad hardware patents.
Re:Oh no. (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't this what was "agreed upon" the first time? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this can be implemented so as to disallow pure SW patents, it will probably be good enough to bring some real sanity back into the patent business. Especially when the WTO has to decided between US-spawned stupidity (one-click) and what the EU doesn't allow.
Re:Isn't this what was "agreed upon" the first tim (Score:5, Interesting)
- firmware of a WLAN card (modulation schemes, power control, etc)
- BIOS software on standard mainboards
- video cut-station with software implemented controls
Good Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Keeping my fingers crossed...
Will this really do anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see many patents getting allowed as weasel speak can turn something into "hardware" or similar quite easily.
Re:Will this really do anything? (Score:5, Informative)
The EP is pushing for the right changes, making it impossible to weasel patents through by using weasel words. We just have to hope they get them through.
Re:Will this really do anything? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Will this really do anything? (Score:5, Informative)
A printer driver isn't a novel and non-obvious invention.
A printer isn't actually controlled by the driver; the driver just 'translates' a, say, Photoshop picture into a printer-comprehensible 'this is what the page should look like' picture. And since patents should not be granted for "the treatment, the manipulation, the representation and the presentation of information through software", that seems to me to exclude drivers altogether.
Re:Will this really do anything? (Score:2)
Only if the physical components are engaging in some novel and non-obvious physical process. In which case you are not getting a patent on the software at all, you are getting a patent on the physical process. That patent would apply even if the software were not present. That patent would apply if you ran the printer components by hand. Just as a patented method of refini
Re:Will this really do anything? (Score:2)
The teaching of "controllable forces of nature" is a common definition of "technical" in the meaning of patent law, there are no real alternatives. It is a widely accepted definition, nothing which was "invented" by Michel Rocard. Further the article creates the impression Rocard was a lonely fighter but in fact many
Re:Will this really do anything? (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the European patent convention, neither software nor business methods can be patented. But the patent lawyers work with the Patent Office to bend the rules and grant the patents anyway. So this is an established praxis. Now they want the politicians to turn this praxis into law so that the patents that are already granted gets a firmer foundation.
About the Amazon patents in Europe [ffii.org]
About the EPC (Europea [eurolinux.org]
Re:Will this really do anything? (Score:3, Informative)
The actual text of the directive said it best. This is what the pro-patent unelected heavily-lobbied EC was pushing:
"computer-implemented invention" means any invention the performance of which involves the use of a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, the invention having one or more features which are realised wholly or partly by means of a computer program or computer programs
And the reason they're able to do this: (Score:5, Funny)
According to the Register: [theregister.co.uk]
In normal circumstances, parliament would be restricted to introducing changes it proposed during the first reading. However, because the readings have crossed two presidencies, this requirement has been waived.
Finally, something helpful in the EU beaurocracy :)
Still dangerous for hardware (Score:5, Interesting)
When scanner, webcam or whatever hardware makers do not want to give their specs, very often an open-source driver is written from analysis of reverse-engineered communication data. If now patents on software are acceptable for "physical inventions that use software", would hardware makers be able to legally block the development of Linux drivers, and thus sue people who simply try to get their devices to work under Linux ?
I am myself concerned, since I write software to use the advanced check functions of some DVD-RW drives... I hope there is an interoperability exclusion, but still I think this is threatening.
Re:Still dangerous for hardware (Score:5, Informative)
Or at least, that's what I think, having read the Financial Times' analysis of the changes.
Re:Still dangerous for hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the idea behind the "forces of nature" wording is that you should be able to patent a physical device that includes a software component, but not the software itself (that's covered by copyright), nor the algorithms you used, nor the idea of controlling the device by software. So you would not be barred from patenting your computer-controlled camera that follows motion just because it contains a software component, but you would not be able to patent the software or the algorithms themselves, nor
This is stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Lack of patents and copyright is the primary reason why absolutely nothing was invented prior to the mid-19th century.
Re:This is stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.krysstal.com/inventions.html [krysstal.com]
Prior to the mid-19th century, inventing was known as "helping human-kind" instead of the a path to fame and fortune.
Re:This is stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been moderated Troll at least once, so it might have been a disastrous failure as a joke, but it was a joke. I was trying to point out the idiocy of the "no patents = no innovation" arguments that some people (i.e. corporations with massive patent portfolios) sometimes try to spin on people.
It was a double joke, as it occured to me that many slashdotters are so ignorant of history, that they seem to belive that everything important was invented in the USA in the past 75 years.
Stupidity - live with it (Score:4, Insightful)
If you make a joke, however obvious it maybe that it is a joke, you must say that it is a joke. For example could surround it with tages like , or (if it is at the expense of a group you end it with the word "ducks".
The preferred approach used to be to make a joke that follows one of the acceptable Slashdot templates such as "in Soviet Russia...". However as these have fallen out of use and Slashdot's users have expanded outward and downward even these may be moderated troll.
In short if it is not clearly marked as a joke, how do you expect moderators to recognise it as such? For example, if it was TV there would be some canned laughter to indicate when you should laugh therefore you should use a suitable substitute here.
What do you expect? Intelligence? Literacy?
Do you also realise that by suggesting that not everything was invented in the US in the last few decades, you have probably ensured that a significant number of Slashdotters will have decided you are anti-American, if a few of them have mod points you will get modded down again.
Re:This is stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
Not as funny as you think. Stuff was invented, sure, but it was also often forgotten, because without patents, the best way for the inventor (or his sponsors) to personally benefit from the invention was to keep it secret as much as possible.
And the general speed of technological development has been MUCH faster after the introduction of patents compared with before. It's unlikely that pa
Re:This is stupid (Score:2)
If anything patents helped hinder that for a fair while by keeping the costs up
Re:This is stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Give an example of a technology that was kept so secret by its original inventor that it had to be rediscovered by someone else. Just one will do.
I believe this reasoning is called "post-hoc ergo propter hoc". The pace of technological also accelera
Re:This is stupid (Score:2)
Give an example of a technology that was kept so secret by its original inventor that it had to be rediscovered by someone else.
Greek fire [wikipedia.org] would be an example. The point is also illustrated well [surveyhistory.org] by how the solution to the "longitude problem" (measuring the current position's longitude, very important for navigation) was delayed by decades because the inventor of the eventual solution developed it on his own and in secret, out of fear of having his invention stolen.
Re:This is stupid (Score:3, Informative)
The electronoic computer.
The first was created built used and destried at Bletchy Park in England to crack the Enigma code.
Becaus it was kept secret the first electronic computer was claimed for many years to have been developed by the Americans
Re:This is stupid (Score:2)
Re:This is stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
One can wonder about cause and effect for that one for a while...
Many correlations for patent grant rate are similar; the effects of a dense legal code.
High correlations with technical achievement or innovative competetiveness tend to be communications infrastructure and education level.
Re:This is stupid (Score:2)
Looks like it's chicken for dinner. (Score:5, Funny)
Please RTFA ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please RTFA ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Patenting a system which influences the physical world ... is permitted.
So would be every program with GUI, since it influences humans by the way it interacts with us.
Never underestimate the ingenuity of IP lawyers when it comes to things like these... Beware of snake oil.
How is the Council of Ministers undemocratic? (Score:2)
The only thing I really hate about the Council is that it deliberates in private, which if not strictly speaking undemocratic is hardly transparent. Good thin
Re:How is the Council of Ministers undemocratic? (Score:2)
You do not need to be eurosceptic. You just have to ask for a simple rule of Government: Seperation of powers. National parliaments and the European Parliament have little say in this. Euroscepticism often leads to strengthening of the national
representations in the
Re:Please RTFA ! (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft Word 2006: Now comes with free garage door and opening software.
Fox guarding the hen house (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH not all IP lawyers are bad, so lets hope the ones being used by the EP genuinely want to do the right thing here.
why not just set realistic expiry ? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why not just set expiration of patent to 6 months, with possibility of prolongation for another year if nobody put the objection in the first 6 months ?
Such a legislation might actually have a chance to benefith both the inventor (ok, its employer realistically) and community (as after max. year and a half it will be free to everyone.)
Can I patent my film? (Score:4, Interesting)
This text [www.ffii.se] is a bit old, but a good read anyway.
Enjoy!
Re:Can I patent my film? (Score:2)
This is the standard patent lawyer answer to this story. But then, I have to ask, what does "technical contribution" have to do with what's patentable under the EPC? That term is not to be found anywhere in the laws that governs patentability. It is something the patent lawyers have invented themselves.
Can you show me a law (not a praxis written by the patent lawyers) that define patentability relative the
What about crossover (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, suppose that someone patents a camera that includes a new and improved method for compressing and storing the image. Suppose that someone else uses the compression technique, whether they independently developed the technique or copied it from the patent, to compress miscellaneous data files. Would that be an infringement on the patent?
How about if images taken with other cameras and in other formats are converted to the compression method and format used by the camera in the patent?
In other words, would it be a patent infringement if only the software portion is used by someone else without using the hardware portion? Are the non-hardware formats independently covered?
Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people here seem to take it as read that "pure software" should not be patentable. But the "because it shouldn't" argument just isn't good enough, frankly. If we're going to argue effectively against software patents, then we need to back up our arguments with solid reasoning.
To that effect, I'm going to play Devil's advocate and set out the case *for* software patents. Please feel free to attack my reasoning, but only if you can provide valid reasoning of your own, not just "because I think so".
Let's take the example of the car braking system. People say that only the mechanical element of the system should be patentable, whereas the software should be excluded. But the mechanical part is just a few bits of metal, bolted together in much the same way that's been done for 100 years. All the real innovation in such a system is in the software, by far the most complex part of the system. It's here that most of the development effort was expended, and where most of the innovation took place.
Another example: the GIF patents. Sure they were a pain, but what sort of reason is that? Doesn't the invention of a new way to compress data justify reward? If you came up with a way to compress any data to 1% of its original size say, would you be happy to just give it away and get nothing for your efforts?
By witholding patents from pure software, you're effectively stating that there is no significant innovation in the field. That might come as a bit of a shock to many computer scientists. Say someone puts in a number of really late nights, and cracks computer vision. Or develops working AI. Or a significant breakthrough in untrained continuous speech recognition. Are they expected to just give away the answer for free? "It was amazing work, shame they couldn't afford to remain in the field"...
How about the argument that patents on algorithms will turn software development into a trip through a minefield? Well, say you're developing that new braking system. Who's to say that you won't stumble across a number of patents in the design of the mechanical aspects? So why should the software aspect be treated differently?
Couldn't the risk in software development actually be lower, because you could make use of libraries of known patent-free algorithms? Couldn't you even have tools that check if you likely to be infringing on any patents?
Most of the problems people have are with the way that patents are awarded (for obvious things), enforced (submarine patents), or abused (bankrupt you in court). The problem isn't with *software* patents, it's with *patents*. As such, software patents should be allowed, and reform of the patent system should be the priority. People are fighting the wrong battle here.
Well that's about it. Please attack!
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, you're not. You're saying that the innovation progress in the software field doesn't benefit from software patents. The patent system is built to encourage innovation - it's its purpose. If the legislating party (congress, parliament, bundestag, riksdag, whatever) deems that software patents indeed are hindering innovation in an area, it's perfectly legible to NOT award patents t
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
I think what you mean is that software innovation seems to be doing OK without patents.
But that doesn't automatically exclude the possibility that there might be *even more* innovation if patents were introduced.
An example: people attack Microsoft for lack of innovation. Software like Office hasn't had any real innovation for years, if ever. But if MS *did* come up with something radically innovative in the next version
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with patents is in two areas:
A company can use patents to stifle competition in a particular market, while not actively exploiting that market for their own gain. Perhaps they already have made a considerable investment in one technology, and don't want to throw away that investment due to a new superior and cheaper technology. Instead of making any investment, they just sit there and do nothing, but jus
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
I'm sure that if patent holders were criminally liable for this kind of anticompetitive behavior, they might be less likely to engage in them.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Whether anything should be patentable is another question. And one I will leave to the philosophers.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the significance of this? Nascent fields have what are called "lockean blocks". A lockean block is a basic piece of knowledge that underpins a particular field. Without certain fundamental knowledge of building methods, materials (physics in the modern case), you can't operate effectively in construction engineering. For this reason lockean blocks should not be patentable. To block access to fundamental knowledge in a field, will impede the development of that field. The patent system acknowledges this with its criteria of "non-obvious".
The problem with lockean blocks is that they can really only be identified once a field has matured. Until then there is a very real possibility that a lockean block will be patented. In other words because software is a relatively new field a patent examiner cannot identify what is "non-obvious" because we haven't quite worked out what obvious is. For this reason software should not be patented.
In 100 or more years, the software field will be very different. It may even be possible that software works with the same kind of reliability buildings/bridges/automobiles (well hopefully better than automobiles). Perhaps then we might be able to distinguish between a fundamental building block in the software field and a true software innovation worthy of a patent.
In summary, software is a field that is not yet mature enough for patents.
For anyone interested in reading about the lockean block concept (though not as it applies to software) have a look at:
Suthersanen, U. 1997. Exclusions to Design Protection - A New Paradigm. Chap. 1 of: Sterling, A. (ed), Perspectives on Intellectual Property Vol 2: Intellectual Property and Market Freedom. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Of course at the time. . . (Score:2)
Part of the idea of patents is that it gives people an incentive to share their invention, rather than keep it secret.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
In industries such as, say, grand piano making, where the natural product lifecycle is very long, patents give an effectively zero window of opportunity - they just don't last long enough to be worth getting. It could be argued that in this case patents don't put enough stress on the industry.
In industries such as bioresearch, where creating new products is very costly, the tendency is to just produce knock-offs. As a result the natural product lifespan is probably in the region of 30 years or so (after that the drugs will cease to be effective or will have been surpassed by academically-researched alternatives). In these industries patents give a medium-length (relatively speaking) window of opportunity for getting ahead of one's competitors, thus encouraging innovation. The stress that this puts on the industry speeds the average product lifecycle up to approach the lifetime of the patent.
In the software industry, the average product lifecycle lasts for somewhere between 1 and 7 years - call it 3 years. The lifetime of a software patent is almost 6 times that. In such a fast-moving industry, this is an effectively infinite window of opportunity, resulting in companies theoretically being able to get a big heap of patents then sit back and relax (or fail to get patents then die). The stress that patents put on the software industry is thus misdirected towards lengthening rather than shortening the product lifecycle, and just results in lots of protesters rather than any actual progress.
I would accept software patents if they were of duration = 2 or 3 years, but then they'd be so short that, given the speed of the patent system and legal system, they wouldn't be worth filing for. Anything longer than that and they can only be harmful, with progress proceeding despite patents rather than because of them.
Shouts to Clausewitz for the "stress" metaphor.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
So let me throw in a wild idea that just occurred to me (if it occurred to someone else previously, you should have patented it
The duration of a patent needs to vary according to the field it's awarded in. Short for computing and biotech, but long for piano-making. How to decide the different durations? Setting them artifically seems like it's going to be a really difficult issue. So how about turning the problem back upon itself.
Rapidly moving fields will have loads of patents filed in them, whereas slower developing fields will just have a trickle of patents.
So why not tie the duration of a patent to the number or rate of patents being awarded in that field? Create something like the stock market that's self regulating - as more people buy, the price goes up.
That way you automatically shorten the duration of patents in fast moving fields, while not adversely affecting developments in piano-building say.
Plus, it has the advantage that it may serve to deter the filing of frivolous patents, as anyone who did so would be shortening the duration of any other patents they held in that field. You could argue that this could be done deliberately, to shorten competitors' patents, but the company doing so would still need to come up with an invention of their own.
I'm sure that there are plenty of practical difficulties, such as determining the number of patents in a particular field, and what field a new patent applies to, but hey, it's just an idea.
Something to consider (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider the following: no proof has ever been established to show that patents makes more innovation possible. Some research suggest the opposite might be true.
In software the opposite has been proved true. Microsoft is the perfect example - they have for the last 10 years often said that they would invest more in research, and yet what has happened is that almost all of the extra research investment is going to lawyers.
Also, if the true culprit
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
I would, yes.
Note that wavelet and fractal image-compression have so many patents on them already that you simply cannot get any remotely useful free implementations anywhere - and I want to play with both for photographic amusement in the comfort of my own lounge, dammit!
Re:As an someone interested in AI (Score:2)
But human nature has shown that the amount of work people are prepared to do is linked pretty closely to the reward they can expect. If you're going to be paid the same whether you work 9 to 5, or really work your ass off, most people are going to do the least amount possible.
For the AI example, say you did invent it, and gave it away for the benefit of all mankind. Now Microsoft implements this AI in the
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
1) Should pure software be patentable?
2) Should the patent system be reformed?
Nearly all of the arguments I've seen, including the bullet points in the article you linked to, attack point 2. But there appear to be precious few arguments targetted specifically against point 1.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the patent system is in desperate need of reform, but all the fuss in the EU at the moment is over whether software should be
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
If I copy your source code, I'll get busted. But what about if I change all the variable names? Is that still a copy?
How about I substitute the for loops with while loops? And change the sorting algorithms. And implement it in a different language.
I'd argue that you've now managed to escape copyright whilst st
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Ah yes, but can't you apply this to any kind of invention? If you devise a better mouse trap, then that better technique has always existed, and you're just the first to discover it.
Any new idea is arguably just the discovery of some technique that's
New Patentability Requirement (Score:2)
"There is no spoon"/workable def. of technicality! (Score:2)
Propaganda slipping into the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me? If a group is SUPPORTING the patentability of certain things, how the hell are they "anti-patent"?
Labeling people opposed to software patents as "anti-patent" is a flat out lie, malicious propaganda. A straw man attack. It's sad to see otherwise good and unbiased reportering falling for it and with their own words unwittingly slandering one side of the debate.
-
had to put this here for refference (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Take it a step further (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather they went a step further and prevented companies from patenting all software, pure or impure.
But since I don't expect they'll ever do that, how about a law that states "software that runs on hardware built prior to the patent application is not subject to the patent."?
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Re:It's (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution of course is to allow patents on the car breaking system. If something novel is happening there (outside of the software) then it should be allowed. It shouldn't matter whether the system is controlled by software or a black box full of small midgets.
Another solution: Allow the patents, but make it absolutely clear that no patent can be infringed on by writing, publishing, downloading or using software on a normal computer.
Re:It's (Score:5, Interesting)
What's a normal computer?
My PC? What makes it different from my PDA? So is my PDA a normal computer? What makes it different from the dash computer embedded in my car? And what makes that different from the computer that controls the car brakes?
To forestall one obvious answer: if you work on the basis of the number of funtions it performs then you have to define the limits of a function. So my car brake computer stops the car. It also stops skids. Is that a different funtion. Working towards larger functionality: My media-centre records TV, but it also gives me web access. Is that a normal computer?
So what about using the number of tasks/processes/some-other-thing as the measure? Again, where are the boundaries? DOS was a single-process system, but you'd almost certainly say it was a normal computer.
This approach doesn't work because the boundaries are arbitrary if it's not 1 unit-of-distinction. And 1 unit includes what you'd call normal.
Re:It's (Score:3, Interesting)
As with most laws, the devil is in the detail. Law-writers have dealt with this kind of problems before and can do it with computers too.
What I mean is that a PC, a server and a PDA is a computer. A device meant to accept programs written by other people.
Anyway, you can state that the act of authoring, publishing and downloading software is never a patent infringement without defining a "Computer". Only (perhaps) the act of executing software needs such a definition. And by ment
Never let manufacturers decide on patentability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's (Score:2, Interesting)
That includes your PC, your PDA, but not the dash computer.
A antique DOS box would also be counted. The problem comes with TiVos etc, which basically are general-purpose computers, but not accesible for the "normal" user.
As hardware programming becomes more usual, that's also a problem. Where do you really draw the line between hardware and software with bigger a
Re:It's....too late? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's (Score:2)
Re:It's (Score:2)
Re:It's (Score:2)
The problem with this is that it's about use. So the patent gets granted, and you just don't know for sure what it applies to. But it's still a lurking snake in the grass waiting to bite you.
Here's another, still more minimal, protection I'll offer as an alternative:
Re:It's (Score:2)
Re:Is there any analysis available on this yet? (Score:2)
http://www.patents4innovation.org/ [patents4innovation.org]
http://www.campaignforcreativity.org/ [campaignfo...tivity.org]
Two very good astroturfing sites pro software patents. And Microsoft's Softwarechoice
http://www.softwarechoice.org/software_comp/cii_de fault.aspx [softwarechoice.org]
Re:- such as a car braking system -- (Score:2)
CII makes you believe it was something different than software. this is why the EPO invented the term.
http://www.softwarechoice.org/software_comp/cii_d e fault.aspx [softwarechoice.org]