Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Software

British Government Comes Out Against 'Pure' Software Patents 91

Posted by Zonk from the keeping-software-out-from-under-lock-and-key dept.
uglyduckling writes "The British Government has issued a response to a recent petition calling for 'the Prime Minister to make software patents clearly unenforcible'. The answer is reassuring but perhaps doesn't go far enough, and gives no specific promises to bring into line a patent office that grants software patents (according to the petition) 'against the letter and the spirit of the law'. The Gowers Review that it references gives detailed insight into the current British position on this debate, most interestingly recommending a policy of 'not extending patent rights beyond their present limits within the areas of software, business methods and genes.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British Government Comes Out Against 'Pure' Software Patents More

British Government Comes Out Against 'Pure' Software Patents

Comments Filter:

  • Fine but useless (Score:3)

    by aadvancedGIR ( 959466 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @11:05AM (#18167586)
    The way european democracy works is that if the non-elected european commission chooses to have SW patents after some hollidays sponsored by big american SW compagnies, all the european countries will have to implement them fast or be fined.
    • The EU is completely incorruptable. Not because the politicians are honest. Just that there are so many politicians to bribe, and they're all on such huge expense accounts that even Microsoft can't afford to buy enough of them.

      • Re:Fine but useless (Score:4, Funny)

        by Stormx2 ( 1003260 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @11:16AM (#18167722)

        Microsoft can't afford


        Those three words do not sit well next to eachother.

        • Microsoft can't afford

          Those three words do not sit well next to eachother.


          I did it, it just took a bit of re-arrangment:

          "Can't afford Microsoft"

        • Microsoft can't afford
          Those three words do not sit well next to eachother.
          How about "At this time, Microsoft cannot afford to acquire 20th Century Fox Films, Paramount Pictures, Universal City Studios, or Warner Bros. Pictures, to more effectively compete with Sony's Columbia Pictures and Steve Jobs' Walt Disney Pictures"?
      • So what we have is a financial arms race for political influence, huh? Good thing companies aren't merging and pooling interests... oh wait.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vrai ( 521708 )
        The EU is incredibly corruptible and already incredibly corrupt as the only people who really matter are the EU commissioners. They occupy the same position as medieval lords: appointed by their respective heads of government, unaccountable to the common man and essentially untouchable*. Bribe a couple of influential commissioners (ideally French or German as they are the only ones that true matter) and you're good to go. If the voting masses cause any problems, like not voting for your proposal, you simply

    • Re:Fine but useless (Score:5, Insightful)

      by omeomi ( 675045 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @11:21AM (#18167780) Homepage
      To have that sort of buffer...it would be nice...Here at home the big companies just write the actual legislation...
    • And this is different to US democracy where "elected" politicians choose to have SW patents after some holidays sponsored by big US software companies.

      Neither is good, neither is better.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by G Morgan ( 979144 )
      A crisis point is coming over the EU soon anyway. It's traditional supporters have turned against further integration recently and while most in Britain still have token support for the EU there is more and more annoyance with the level of infringement things like Maastricht allow.

      Fact is most of the British population still think we signed up to a free trade zone rather than what the EU now is.
      • Fine, but where we are now is that if the influence of the EU wanes we will be even further under the control of the British Patent Office.

        Remember that it was the UK PO who were the prime movers in the attempt to railroad the EU parliament into accepting the most egregious form software patent legislation. Resisting this is probably among the most useful things Europarl has ever done.

    • Re:Fine but useless (Score:5, Informative)

      by qcomp ( 694740 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @12:00PM (#18168284)

      The way european democracy works is that if the non-elected european commission chooses to have SW patents after some hollidays sponsored by big american SW compagnies, all the european countries will have to implement them fast or be fined.

      actually, it not that bad: the European Parliament has to agree, and recently it has been possible to stop some very harmful legislation despite a strong push (for it) by the European Commission. The SW-Patent directive has been stopped, IPRED2 has been held up [ffii.org], and EPLA (the last attempt to legalize SW patents and, at the same time, remove them from the reach of national and European legislation) may still be averted [ffii.org]. The point is: democracy can work, if citizens are active and alert! even if institutions with very indirect democratic control/legitimation like the commission have too much to say.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
        The Commission still has a blocking power. Otherwise there would have been a clear law against SW patents a few years ago.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by qcomp ( 694740 )

          The Commission still has a blocking power. Otherwise there would have been a clear law against SW patents a few years ago.

          True, but thankfully the status quo (in most European countries including my native Germany) is that patents on software/business methods are verboten. So the EPO may grant swpats, but the (national) courts will not enforce them. Of course we need institutional reforms in the EU to give more power to the parliament [power-to-t...iament.org], but at least the Commission can no longer do as it pleases...

    • Re:Fine but useless (Score:5, Informative)

      by SmokedS ( 973779 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @12:17PM (#18168538)
      I would really like to be able to tear you a new one for such an absurd mis-characterization of how the EU is governed. Unfortunately, it is not at all far from the truth. The system is rigged so that the council in practice have far more power than the parliament.

      It works something like this:
      The Council puts together a directive for parliament to vote on.
      The Parliament rejects or greatly amends the directive.
      The Council resubmits the original directive verbatim or with some cosmetic changes.

      And here's where democracy falls down the rabbit hole; The second time around, the parliament needs a majority of all MEPs, present or not, to reject the councils bill or to push through any of their own amendments. Every single abstention or absentee is counted as voting with the council. With the average percentage of MEPs actually present to vote, this means that something along the lines of 75-80% of all the MEPs must oppose the directive, or the council has it's way. That type of near unanimity is rare, so in practice the Council can push through most directives.Not only that, but in this second reading the parliament cannot introduce any new amendments, only reaffirm those from the previous reading.

      If you are anything like me, this information will give you a rather uncomfortable feeling about the democratic nature of the EU.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by geekoid ( 135745 )
        You don't stripped away the fundalmental idea of democracy, and then say 'that's where it falls down the rabbit hole.'
        Clearly the rule is there to circumnavigate democracy.
    • So this would be exactly the same as US democracy, but with an added buffer?
  • It's already virtually impossible to build a product on open source software without infringing on someone's IPR. It's ridiculous. We need a system that protects and promotes innovation.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We need a system that protects and promotes innovation.

      No. We need a system that promotes innovation. If protecting is part of that, so be it, but the goal should never be protection.
    • We need a system that protects and promotes innovation.

      That's pretty interesting. Protection and promotion was the idea behind patents in the first place. Protecting innovation from getting swept up into wars of attrition against big entities with deep pockets that will see you go under while stealing your ideas, while promoting innovation by financial gains on that innovation afforded by the protection.

      Until leading software geniuses get fame akin to talentless superficial bulimics in celebritydom, I'd
      • "Protecting innovation from getting swept up into wars of attrition against big entities with deep pockets that will see you go under while stealing your ideas..."

        See, the thing is that without software patents those big pockets aren't as useful, because said entities can't just sue devs out of existence for daring to compete with them. They have to compete on the merits of their own ideas. Which, I suspect, would not be that strong if their business model consists of harvesting other people's work and putt

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AusIV ( 950840 )

        financial benefits provided by patents are the only way to promote innovation.

        Except that patents only provide financial benefits to big corporations. If a small company or individual has a patent that a big company wants, the big company will simply use the patent without paying licensing, and if the patent owner challenges them in court, they'll be bankrupted before the case is over.

        On the flipside, big companies claim patents on obvious things like double clicks on hand held devices, one click purchas

        • Essentially, the patent system fails because the legal system fails.
          It's like watching dominoes....

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fymidos ( 512362 )
          There is still the question though, whether the patent system *can* actually promote innovation when it comes to software. That is, even if the system worked perfectly well.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AusIV ( 950840 )
            I think the patent system would be significantly improved if patent cases were handled more like small claims court. Each side has one representative, evidence, and witnesses. Neither side gets a team of lawyers to drag the case out for months. Obvious patents get overturned, legitimate patents are upheld, and deep pockets don't get special treatment.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by geekoid ( 135745 )
          "If a small company or individual has a patent that a big company wants, the big company will simply use the patent without paying licensing, and if the patent owner challenges them in court, they'll be bankrupted before the case is over."
          If only reality supported that.

          Yes, it is failing that only in regards to software patents.

          The overall history of the patent system is a pretty good one.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sconeu ( 64226 )
      It's already virtually impossible to build a product on open source software without infringing on someone's IPR

      Steve Ballmer, is that you?

  • Nothing reassuring (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Toffins ( 1069136 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @11:14AM (#18167694)
    The government response is not reassuring. Read the wording of the response again. They are careful not to deny the dangerous distinction that they have been maintaining between "pure" software and software which is implemented to achieve a "technical effect". It is the same sneaky "backdoor" that the UK and EU Patent Offices have been using to allow what most intelligent observers would call "software patents". Even worse, the response makes it clear they are proposing to implement the recommendations on patent law. That will be precisely the occasion for approving the "technical effect" ruse under the guise of an official scheme supposedly merely to "clarify" existing patent law and to "limit" the applicability of patenting.

    • The government response is not reassuring. Read the wording of the response again. They are careful not to deny the dangerous distinction that they have been maintaining between "pure" software and software which is implemented to achieve a "technical effect". It is the same sneaky "backdoor" that the UK and EU Patent Offices have been using to allow what most intelligent observers would call "software patents". Even worse, the response makes it clear they are proposing to implement the recommendations on patent law. That will be precisely the occasion for approving the "technical effect" ruse under the guise of an official scheme supposedly merely to "clarify" existing patent law and to "limit" the applicability of patenting.

      I think you fail to see the point they are truly making. I am a US patent officer and fortunately the US is doing things a bit differently in this respect. What is meant by pure software is a patent on the physical code itself and not the means that it accomplishes. In this respect code that can undergo a simple or "obvious" change to accomplish an entirely different means can entitle the software company to litigate against a rival over something they were attempting to innovate. If the patent is instead

      • Thank you but I understand precisely what the response is and what the objection to it is. We are criticizing the illegal practice in Europe of granting patents for devices, methods, or apparatus relating to software that achieves a so-called "technical effect" -- what you referred to as "what a piece of software accomplishes" and what I and others refer to, strictly equivalently in our usage of the term, as a "software patent". We reject it absolutely and unequivocally because it is wrong, economically har

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by kanweg ( 771128 )
        I'm about to sit the European patent examination (that's next week), and as far as I can see your parent sees things correctly.

        Bert

  • More petitions.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <.moc.eeznerif.todhsals. .ta. .treb.> on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @11:16AM (#18167714) Homepage
    There are a number of other petitions on the same site that might be of interest to slashdotters:

    http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpenDocument/ [pm.gov.uk] - petition for opendocument to be used by the british government.

    http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/teach-oss [pm.gov.uk] - petition for teaching in schools to be vendor neutral, instead of promoting microsoft products

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dave420 ( 699308 )
      Surely schools should teach what kids are most likely to use? Coming out of school knowing all there is to know about Open Office, then being put in front of your first work computer and it's running Microsoft Office, you'd be fucked. Schools shouldn't be about ideology, but preparation. I'd applaud any second school teaching Philosophy instead of home economics, as it's clear which one is the most help to man-kind, but any kid coming out of secondary school unable to boil an egg or make beans-on-toast w
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dave420 ( 699308 )
          OO and MS office are interchangeable for the most part. Just don't think Excel is the same as Calc. There really are some differences that make a massive difference. If I learned OpenOffice at school, I wouldn't have learned about Excel's massive function library, and how to use it properly. And now that Office is in its '07 phase and has left OpenOffice behind in the UI front, they're growing more and more apart than together.

          I'm really not trying to troll here - I really don't see why kids should be a
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by juhaz ( 110830 )
              As for differences, I don't really see the ribbon as such a major design change, although I do find it annoying that Microsoft decided to use a non-standard UI control.

              Microsoft has used non-standard UI controls in Office (and Visual Studio) pretty much forever. They're their testbeds for them.
          • But I and everybody else in my school learned WP 5.1, with some Dos based spreadsheet (ms works I think). Does this mean that my entire high school put out a bunch of people who couldn't operate MS Office? I don't think so. My school taught us the basic skills, and these are applicable to any word processor. People who learn how to use a tool, rather than follow a set of commands are able to adapt to different types of software. If they didn't teach you to use Pascal in your CompSCI degree, and then yo

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dave420 ( 699308 )
              Of course it didn't render you a computer-illiterate idiot. It just introduced a learning curve without the help of a teacher on hand to give you pointers. It took up your working time, when you could have been working. It would be a shallow victory for OO if it was in schools instead of MS Office.
      • No they should teach the basic cross application (and version) skills, not a specific application/version. That way, when bold moves from "formatting" to "font" or something, they can still make something bold.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by VJ42 ( 860241 )
      Another you might find interesting: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Open-IT-projects/ [pm.gov.uk]

      "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to require that all publicly funded software projects publish source code under a Free licence."

      I've signed it. :-)
      • Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a pattern emerging with the e-petitions site which seems to run much like this -
        1. Start petition,
        2. Collect signatures,
        3. Tony Blair replies to all signatories explaining why they're wrong,
        4. Nobody profits.

    • I just noticed on the petitions site that the government recently responded to a petition titled "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to recognise Jedi Knights as a religion on par with Christianity, Islam and other beliefs."

      Response is here: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11053.asp [number-10.gov.uk]

  • First reducing forces in Iraq, now this! What the hell is going on? Backstabbing limeys! You'd think they have their own country with their own laws and culture. Put them on the piracy watch list!
    • not to worry, their lead in adopting technology to invade privacy and spy on their citizenry will soon allow those people to be brought to heel

  • Dont expect too much of the petition system. (Score:5, Informative)

    by apodyopsis ( 1048476 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @11:18AM (#18167740)
    Dont expect too much of the petition system.

    There was a very well publicised petition on the new proposed road charging system that got 1.7million supporting votes cast, it had little noticible effect on the goverment. Infact all it caused was alot of publicity and condemnation in the Labour ranks that some 'prat' (direct quote) had created this tool that could be used to bash them.

    To put it in perspective the whole population in the UK is 60million in total, so 1.7million is ALOT of the driving adults.

    see

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6354735.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    I think Labour saw it as a exercise in good relations and checking the boxes. Certainly there is no sign of them doing anything about the petitions that people actually support.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by aitio ( 794921 )

      I'm not commenting on the afore mentioned petition, but in general they are a poor way of getting changes done. Especially it is about a very technical or otherwise difficult subject. One can never be sure how well the petitioners understand the subject in question.

      I seldom favor decision making by popular vote. Decisions should be made by those who have the understanding about not just the immediate effects but secondary and tertiary also. Hence the representative democracy and specialization withing the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jez9999 ( 618189 )
      it had little noticible effect on the goverment.

      Au contraire; we now have some more ammunition with which to slaughter them at the next election.

    • There is a problem of traffic congestion. Call it market failure because the price you pay in taxes is the same whether you drive in busy places at peak times and get in each others way or not. Some kind of road pricing might help. Or the politicians could knock down houses to widen roads. Or they could limit the total number of cars allowed in Britain. When the limit is reached, join the queue or buy second hand.

      Given that there is a real problem how do you expect politicians to respond to the rejection

      • Beyond the additional taxation (they may reduce some other taxes, but like most things it will be an overall tax increase), the scary part is that such a scheme would require a GPS tracker in each car linked to a national database. The UK already has more CCTV cameras per person than any other country in the world, and its only a matter of time before this system will start being used to track people beyond simple road taxation, first speeding tickets and parking fines, and its only a matter of time before

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by 2901 ( 676028 )

          If the petition had asked the prime minister to confine himself to city centre entry tolls with limited geographical scope, and to forget about GPS, the petition would have exerted much more political pressure. Voters in big cities who are sick of being stuck in traffic jams and want something done could have got behind the petition with enthusiasm because it would be saying "Don't waste public money on ambitious hi-tech, use that money on something small and practical".

          Another better petition would have

  • Masters of Understatement (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @11:23AM (#18167804) Homepage Journal
    You and a friend are driving along a scenic dirt road, when all of a sudden the shoulder gives way, and you are tumbling over and over, until you are on the edge of a precipice, roaring white water gapes below.

    Your friend is shaking with terror. "We're going to die!" he says.

    "Well, then," you say, putting on the parking brake,"I don't think we should go any farther in that direction."

    ----

    Almost every practicioner I know thinks that software practices are a nuisance and a hindrance. Certainly they are useful in startups when you are considering your exit strategy options, but I have personally never seen a technology that was developed because it would be sold as IP, that would not have been developed otherwise.

    Overall, the best word I can think of to describe software and business method patents is "fiasco".

    The government response made me think, with affection, of ironic humor of the late, great Douglas Adams. He loved characters to say sensible sounding, politic things that were nonetheless patently insane. Adams humor was not surrealistic, it was hyperrealistic. One thing he comes back to again and again: if anything is really large, really important, and really obvious, people will find a way to ignore it completely.

  • What about software patents that are not pure. Say, if you add this [asciipr0n.com]* to the code and patent?

    * Probably not work safe.
  • ... a "nontechnical field", which is the basis for its exemption.

    Once again my government shows itself to be in touch with the IT world :-(
    • No it is not. Read the damn thing.

      Under this test, the true nature of the advance being claimed in a patent application must be determined, and if this advance lies solely in the field of software, or another non-technical field such as methods of doing business, the patent will not be granted.
      You see that "or"?
  • "The Government remains committed to its policy that no patents should exist for inventions which make advances lying solely in the field of software."

    That seems pretty clear to me. Why is everyone moaning about this being vague?

    "Although certain jurisdictions, such as the US, allow more liberal patenting of software-based inventions, these patents cannot be enforced in the UK."

    If anyone was thinking about starting a GNU/GPL project on something patented then find someone British to be your front man. Open

  • Someone loaded the question back-to-front (Score:3, Insightful)

    by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2007 @12:11PM (#18168464)
    From TFA:

    Software patents are used by convicted monopolists to threaten customers who consider using rival software.

    Who wrote this? Kudos for starting the petition, but folks! Its hard enough to get a relevant response out of a politician at the best of times, without asking them if they have stopped beating their wives.

    No political advisor worth their salt is going to let their charge tacitly support that unneccesary little swipe at... who could it be?... tacked on to a not-directly-related issue. Any slim chance of getting a politician to respond directly to the issues raised (instead of the sort of bland re-statement of policy seen here) goes straight out of the window.

    The patent issue is a lot wider and deeper than our favorite convicted monopolists... who risk Mutually Assured Destruction by last-century's favorite convicted monopolist (and others) if they finally stop the FUD bombardment and launch their missiles at Linux. Darn, that's another metaphor not to try on a politician at the moment :-)

    • I am very much opposed to the patenting of software, business methods, mathematics and so on, but I could not bring myself to sign this petition. It sounds like it was created by a 13 year old Slashdot user!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by x2A ( 858210 )
        "Please sign your name here to state that you do not understand the issue" I think is how most of those petitions go. "Here is a flawed and heavily one-sided argument, please sign your name to it, and get hundreds of others to do so too, so prove how clueless the public really are and shouldn't be listened to"... this is truely a win for democracy.

        "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
        -- Winston Churchill

        Some things never change.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jez9999 ( 618189 )
      Nonsense. That sentence is perfectly reasonable; it doesn't state that every software patent is used in that regard, just that some (many) are - which is perfectly true. Frankly, I don't acknowledge a single legitimate use for software patents. Every last one reduces freedom to innovate, because software is low-cost enough to develop that plenty of innovation happens without them. Statements strongly critical of the whole idea are just fine in my book. Politicians should definitely associate themselves

      • Nonsense. That sentence is perfectly reasonable; it doesn't state that every software patent is used in that regard,

        Not the point - it unnecessarily convolutes the software patent argument with the allegation that you-know-who is continuing to abuse their monopoly. However much the /. community might agree with that allegation it is still a sensitive issue that a politician would have to keep at arms length. As you say, there are plenty of other good arguments against SW patents.

  • I know this may not be popular but...
    Are software patents really the problem or is the process that grants lousy patents the problem. It seems like that if you are against software patents you must be against patents in order for it to make sense and I understand that. However, if you are not against patents in general, why are software patents any different from mechanical ones.

    Now, the process that have been granting stupid patents (One click anyone) is broken. But how is One click even in the same lea

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
      You can't patent math equations. All software is just a huge math equation. Therefore, software should not be patentable.
      • Or you should ask yourself if anything like 1-Click (or anything else in the software world for which a patent was granted) was _SO UNBELIEVABLY GENIUS_ that really nobody else would come up with it in the next 20 years, as long as it would be "protected"?

        The US are actually the best example that software patents are superfluous. If they werent, the number of software innovations coming out of the US would outnumber the rest of the world by hundreds or thousands each year. And all of these would happen to b

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by geekoid ( 135745 )
          "_SO UNBELIEVABLY GENIUS_ that really nobody else would come up with it in the next 20 years, as long as it would be "protected"?"

          that has nothing to do with it, and it shouldn't.
      • You can't patent math equations. All software is just a huge math equation. Therefore, software should not be patentable.

        I beg to differ with the poster:

        I=I+1

        Software. Uses math symbology. This statement is *not* an equation. Therefore: "All software is just a huge math equation." is a false statement. Therefore, the conclusion: "software should not be patentable" is also incorrect, as it is based on a false assumption.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      "It seems like that if you are against software patents you must be against patents in order for it to make sense and I understand that"

      incorrect.

      A) You and I can write software that does the same thing, but looks completly different.

      B) Do to the very nature of software, PAtenting it will stiffle innovation.

      C) It's just math, and you can't patent that.

      It's like patenting a plot to a book, or patenting a sentence structure.

      Copyright is the protection for software, not patent.

    • "It seems like that if you are against software patents you must be against patents in order for it to make sense..."

      It may seem like that but only if you have little if any knowledge of the patent system - its history, economics and law - and an extremely distorted view of what the opposition to software patents is all about.

  • I got a copy of this via e-mail this morning. I must say, it was nice to hear back from Number 10. I know they've had problems with the online petitions and I had worried that a potentially useful system like this might be abused, and/or ignored by Blair - particularly since some of the online petitions asked for silly (but funny) things like having the prime minister make the petitioner a cup of tea [pm.gov.uk] (that one was rejected because it was 'outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government',

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close