UK High Court Allows Software Patent Claims 125
An anonymous reader tips us to a note up on the IPKat blog, written by one of the four law-professor types behind that venture. The British High Court has ruled on appeal that the UK Patent Office must not reject software patent applications out of hand, as it has been doing for some time now. "In a surprising (to this Kat at least) turn of events, the Honourable Mr Justice Kitchin has ruled today that the current UK Patent Office practice of flatly rejecting patent claims to computer program products is wrong... Kitchin J found that the appeals should be allowed. Each application concerned a computer related invention where the examiner had allowed claims to, in effect, a method performed by running a suitably programmed computer and to a computer programmed to carry out the method... The cases were remitted to the [UK Intellectual Property Office] for further consideration in light of the judgment."
sad news (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone claiming that there hasn't been any innovation in software over the last 10 years because of the lack of ability to patent it in the UK is clearly barking mad.
Yes, as someone that has worked on generating IP before I strongly believe that people should be paid for their work if they don't wish to donate it for free, but clearly a lack of patents hasn't prevented this either.
All this will bring eventually is the stifling of the software industry, oh, and more patent trolling, joy.
Well ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't panic just yet. (Score:3, Insightful)
But I thought the EU thew out Software patents? (Score:4, Insightful)
Once upon a time.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, however, technology moves much faster than the human mind. A person may easily see two or three technological revolutions in his lifetime, each one forcing the rejection of old value systems and the embracing of new perspectives.
Unfortunately, the older a human mind gets, the less able it is to reject old value systems and embrace new perspectives.
So now, the decisions of the old-and-powerful wind up causing great harm to the young-and-visionary.
The thing that REALLY gets me is when young people...people who *should* know better...buy into this we-need-control-to-have-innovation crap.
If I could put smart in the water, I would.
Re:Welcome (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patents stopped following reality a long time a (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sad news (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there hasn't been much innovation in software... and US software patents have contributed to that.
Whether the UK does or does not have software patents has some symbolic significance, but it doesn't matter much in terms of the software business.
Re:Once upon a time.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Has any of this has ever been true?
Alexander Graham Bell was born in 1847 and died in 1922.
He was born before the transcontinental telegraph and lived to see the beginnings of broadcast radio.
He was an infant when the wagon trains began moving westward along the Oregon trail and lived to see the steam locaomotive in its twilight and 20,000,000 automobiles on the American road.
He was a contemprary of John Deere, Erricson, the Roeblings, Edison, George Eastman, Ford, Burpee, Louis Sullivan, Willis Carrier, and a hundred others.
He was a witness - and often a participant - in technological revolutions that transformed agriculture, manufacturing, engineering, architecture, transportation, communications. transportation, medicine.
In 1881 he devised a metal detector to probe for the bullet that would kill President Garfield. In 1901 an X-Ray machine might have saved McKinley.
Re:sad news (Score:5, Insightful)
The smaller companies are just going to get blown out of the water. It's also going to massively increase small companies costs because they would have to try to patent everything they are doing. Not because they want to attack other companies, but because larger companies might patent it and try to attack them. Even if a big company was violating your patent, it would be stupid to attack them because you will soon discover you are violating lots of their little patents. Patents just protect big companies from smaller faster companies that might come along with new ideas.
It's obviously a big threat to open source as well.
Re:No change on patent criteria (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once upon a time.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to say I disagree with you. I think that it IS possible to be 'inventive purely in software', but because of the nature of software, it SHOULDN'T be patentable. There's a big difference between software and a device, or even a book. One piece of software builds on ideas of other pieces of software; it borrows very heavily from other components, and 'stands on the shoulders of giants' in order to provide its advanced functionality (take a look at what % of the GUI the programmer of a modern Visual Studio Windows app actually programmed).
I don't think this position is indefensible in the slighest, and I invite you to try and knock it down.