Slashdot Mirror

Don't say "ask another lawyer" when you're clearly not a lawyer. I don't know what you're on about mentioning the UK is based on common law not constitutional law, yes, well done, so what, what was the insertion of that random factoid about exactly? Do you feel that if you add in random quotations about different law in different jurisdictions that that somehow adds weight to your argument on this particular case? It really doesn't, it looks like a really really poor attempt at misdirection.

Criminal copyright infringement isn't about receiving a benefit, it's about seeking to profit, directly or indirectly. You keep trying to avoid the word profit and switch to things like "benefit" but like it or not, UK copyright law revolves around profiting, which is subtly different to benefiting.

But enough of your nonsense, enough of your "go ask another lawyer", he's what the IPO, the UK's intellectual property office, the organisation that oversees IP has to say about it:

"Deliberate infringement of copyright on a commercial scale may be a criminal offence. Please see further information on What is IP crime? and the additional remedies which may be available."

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-o...

Personal sharing no matter to how many people isn't by definition commercial in nature and so cannot be of commercial scale, and that's before you even question how you might prove someone using BitTorrent is deliberately distributing something, most users don't even know it uploads too, they think they're just downloading anyway so proving deliberate infringement in itself would make it an impossible criminal prosecution.

If you want to continue to argue otherwise rather than pretending to be a lawyer, which you're clearly not, please provide me one single case where someone has been hit with a successful criminal prosecution for personal sharing.

No? couldn't find one? gee, I wonder why that might be? I'll give you a hint: it's because you're still completely wrong, as much as you refuse to admit it. The police do not even pursue personal file sharing precisely because it is not criminal.

Of course if you're still adamant that you want to keep digging I guess I could do as you say and ask a lawyer too (but again, not "another" lawyer, because again, you're clearly not one despite your implication), and they might say something like:

"It is also possible for a person to face criminal prosecution for copyright infringement, but the copyright statutes in the UK in effect limit the offence to the large-scale distribution of pirated material for financial gain."

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/c...

So are you going to stop digging now or is this enough information for you to now be able to accept that you had no idea what you were on about?

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the criminalisation of IP infringement, it just makes the first step towards closer government interventions.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforc...

As noted in this report, Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) (i.e. CSS) are still protected:

"Consistent with the approach taken in relation to other exceptions, no reference to TPMs is made within draft Section 28B. Effective TPMs which prevent copying of copyright materials will however continue to be protected, separately to copyright protection, under Section 296ZA CDPA, and circumvention of such measures will continue to be prohibited."

This is what the uk patent office thinks (there is more about damage to reputation which I am not sure is argued here).

If you use an identical or similar trade mark for identical or similar goods and services to a registered trade mark - you may be infringing the registered mark if your use creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. This includes the case where because of the similarities between the marks the public are led to the mistaken belief that the trade marks, although different, identify the goods or services of one and the same trader.

If your target market (the public needing confusion to be avoided) is non-specialist people and your knock off is pharmaceuticals, I would think packaging would need to be obviously different. If your target market is a bunch of obsessives and your knock off is 5% of the price of the defended item, I would say it is sufficiently clear that the item does not say "fluke" on the front and says "sparkfun" instead.

Not pretending I know about the way the colonies have gone with this law. Vested interests always have a way of lobbying for statutes and establishing precedents. Anyway, I think it is harsh to say it is the damn fault of the importer. This stuff is subtle and confusing. The lawyers who do this stuff are very expensive.

The UK IPO database lists over 500 trademarks containing the word Sky. Including this one. Is Sky gonna sue them all?

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E8311871

Yes, obviously, one company should own a trademark on any product containing the work "Sky" in it.

Trademarks are limited to particular goods and services, but for the Sky trademark this includes "computer aided transmission of messages and images", "home computing services", "computer programs", etc. As BSkyB are also a broadband ISP in the UK, it seems reasonable that they've registered the mark to include those goods and services.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/4/EU000126425

In most places you can't copy an idea, merely the expression of it. So they'd potentially own the various copyrights in the religious texts/works (the films, the books and so on). There is some debate as to whether or not a single word can be covered by copyright, in theory, yes, in practice, probably not, particularly in this case as "Jedi" is merely one word used in a film (so not really a substantial part of the work). Trade marks* might be an option, but infringement is harder to show.

A quick check shows that the following trade marks are registered:

- A community trade mark (EU-wide) for "JEDI" owned by Lucasfilm (covering classes 09; interactive entertainment software etc., 16; user manuals, and 28; games and playthings);

- A community trade mark for "JEDI POWER BATTLES" owned by Lucasfilm (for classes 09 and 16);

They also have trade marks for "Yoda, the Jedi Master" and "Jedi Power Battles" in the UK only. I think the former is due to an advertising campaign for Vodafone which they've licensed it to.

In most places you can't copy an idea, merely the expression of it. So they'd potentially own the various copyrights in the religious texts/works (the films, the books and so on). There is some debate as to whether or not a single word can be covered by copyright, in theory, yes, in practice, probably not, particularly in this case as "Jedi" is merely one word used in a film (so not really a substantial part of the work). Trade marks* might be an option, but infringement is harder to show.

A quick check shows that the following trade marks are registered:

- A community trade mark (EU-wide) for "JEDI" owned by Lucasfilm (covering classes 09; interactive entertainment software etc., 16; user manuals, and 28; games and playthings);

- A community trade mark for "JEDI POWER BATTLES" owned by Lucasfilm (for classes 09 and 16);

They also have trade marks for "Yoda, the Jedi Master" and "Jedi Power Battles" in the UK only. I think the former is due to an advertising campaign for Vodafone which they've licensed it to.

In most places you can't copy an idea, merely the expression of it. So they'd potentially own the various copyrights in the religious texts/works (the films, the books and so on). There is some debate as to whether or not a single word can be covered by copyright, in theory, yes, in practice, probably not, particularly in this case as "Jedi" is merely one word used in a film (so not really a substantial part of the work). Trade marks* might be an option, but infringement is harder to show.

A quick check shows that the following trade marks are registered:

- A community trade mark (EU-wide) for "JEDI" owned by Lucasfilm (covering classes 09; interactive entertainment software etc., 16; user manuals, and 28; games and playthings);

- A community trade mark for "JEDI POWER BATTLES" owned by Lucasfilm (for classes 09 and 16);

They also have trade marks for "Yoda, the Jedi Master" and "Jedi Power Battles" in the UK only. I think the former is due to an advertising campaign for Vodafone which they've licensed it to.

In most places you can't copy an idea, merely the expression of it. So they'd potentially own the various copyrights in the religious texts/works (the films, the books and so on). There is some debate as to whether or not a single word can be covered by copyright, in theory, yes, in practice, probably not, particularly in this case as "Jedi" is merely one word used in a film (so not really a substantial part of the work). Trade marks* might be an option, but infringement is harder to show.

A quick check shows that the following trade marks are registered:

- A community trade mark (EU-wide) for "JEDI" owned by Lucasfilm (covering classes 09; interactive entertainment software etc., 16; user manuals, and 28; games and playthings);

- A community trade mark for "JEDI POWER BATTLES" owned by Lucasfilm (for classes 09 and 16);

They also have trade marks for "Yoda, the Jedi Master" and "Jedi Power Battles" in the UK only. I think the former is due to an advertising campaign for Vodafone which they've licensed it to.

Yes, I know that judge's should not make snap decisions, it was mainly said TIC but you are right about the High Court in London having nothing to do with USPTO. I got carried away, however the UK IPO has very similar rules. My complaint is not readily dismissed because I failed to identify the proper authority in my post.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-requirements.htm

HHJ Ticehurst (@ para 71) in Rock & Overton held "make available should bear its ordinary and natural meaning". He distinguished between providing money "directly to" another as opposed to a financial adviser who may "point" another to a bank meaning the bank alone "makes available the money".

I have endeavoured to weigh these subtle distinctions. The diagrams of how as a matter of electronic mechanics (if I may term it) the TVShack websites actually operated favour HHJ Ticehurstâ(TM)s restrictive construction. To my mind there is much in the distinction factually...

In copyright law terms, O'Dwyer wasn't making the films "available". The person that made them available was the person who uploaded them to a download site. What O'Dwyer was doing was pointing to those sites, and (allegedly) thus encouraging people to download from them. In civil law, that is known as indirect or contributory infringement, as opposed to direct infringement which is the actual making available of copies. It is "making available" that can be a criminal offence under s.107(2A), not the encouragement or inducement of people to go ahead and download from such sites. Thus, for example, a briefing for UK Trading Standards officers, compiled by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, and hosted on the UK Intellectual Property Office's website, advises them that:

The offence in s107(2A) is now available as a tool to trading standards officers to prosecute uploading file sharers of digital product, such as film and music, whether or not they do so in the course of a business. [Emphasis added].

Interestingly, this may also be the position in the United States, where the law on contributory infringement is said to be civil law that has been developed by judges, but not reflected in any provisions of the criminal law. However this point appears not to have been argued by O'Dwyer's lawyers. What should have happened here is that the extradition proceedings should have been thrown out, on the basis that O'Dwyer's actions are not in fact covered by s.107(2A). But he should then have faced a full-on civil action in the UK courts from a consortium of content owners for the alleged indirect infringement. It is also about time that UK judges in extradition cases were directed to consider where a case should best be heard under conflict-of-laws provisions: the so-called "forum clause". In this case, with the alleged infringer being UK-based, and the alleged infringement being worldwide in scope, if this is supposed to be a crime under UK law it should have been tried under UK law.

This does of course depend on the country. In the UK, copyright is automatic: "There is no official registration system for copyright in the UK and most other parts of the world. There are no forms to fill in and no fees to pay to get copyright protection. If you have created a work that qualifies for copyright protection, you will have copyright protection once you meet the criteria for protection (see pg. 3). You do not, however, have to fill out any forms or pay any money to receive protection. In fact, it is a requirement of various international conventions on copyright that copyright should be automatic." - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-essential.pdf (page 16, with apologies for the PDF link)

This already happens; in the UK we have a little-known thing called the Copyright Tribunal, which acts as a sort of mini-court/dispute resolution thing. It's job (by law) is to dictate the terms of licence agreements (mainly between collective licensing bodies and end users) in cases where the parties can't agree on them themselves.

Historically, this comes from part of the original Copyright Act 1709 (8 Anne c.21, often simply called the Statute of Anne) which gave a cause of action against booksellers etc. who were charging unreasonable prices for their works. Early copyright law is very much focussed on being paid a fair amount, not on control.

"No, we just have copyright laws that have no concept of fair use."

This is an often repeated myth, and is simply not true. Numerous exceptions including time shifting exist in UK law already

See here to get it straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception.htm

What is changing is that format shifting, and parody works are being added to the existing list of things like time shifting, and research or review work.

There was a wonderful line in the recent (and very encouraging) Independent Review of IP and Growth run on behalf of the UK government:

As has been noted by a number of commentators, no one has yet discovered a mechanism for incentivising the deceased.

The review strongly recommended against any form of copyright extension; however, that's not likely to change UK policy - lobbyists are much more convincing than academics.

I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that H.264 is (or is purely) a software patent. I would note that MPEG-LA claims a number of UK (GB) patents in its pool for H.264 :

GB 564,597
GB 630,157
GB 1,467,491
GB 1,487,113
GB 1,550,219
GB 0460751
GB 2,003,899
GB 2,003,900
GB 2,009,927
GB 2,009,928
GB 2,015,585

(there are more, but you get the picture). If these patents are valid, they could certainly claim intellectual property rights in the UK.

(Note : in the UK patent search system - the "REGISTER ENTRY FOR GB2003899" is

Title POLYMERS CONTAINING IMIDYL GROUPS AND SILYL GROUPS

which is curious, to say the least. I wonder how closely MPEG-LA double-checks and copy-edits the claims submitted to them.)

Lets not forget to get after apple and every other company for selling mp3 players. They are encouraging people to break copyright laws and rip their cds to mp3 formats.

In the UK I didn't think you broke copyright by copying your own CD's but the soon put me right on that.

No The cost is £20 for a quick look in the first place, then £130 to search for prior art, then £80 to finish the examination. The figures you're pulling out your arse are based on getting a lawyer to write your application for you, rather than sitting on your arse, spending some time writing down exactly what your idea is, and applying. Of course, you probably want to cover it in a few more countries than just britain, so there is a little more cost than jest £230, but your claim of $15000 is *way* out and even that is a lot less than the originally claimed millions.

What makes you assume "software" solutions to technological problems are not patentable in the EU?

It says so right in the law...

Where? Citation please.

If one goes to the UK Patent office page (governed by EU laws) which states what can and can't be patented you will find that it only says you can't patent "some computer programs".

If, however, an invention meets the criteria in that it relates "to how something works, what it does, what it is made of, or how it is made." then it is fine (assuming, of course, it is inventive and non-obvious)

Ask yourself what is the fundamental difference between a piece of silicon which solves problem "X" (perhaps using dedicated/hardwired logic) and a piece of silicon which solves "X" but also uses a set of CPU instructions to do it?

Ideas don't fall under copyright and patents (I'm not arguing about "Intellectual Property" here, though I think the term is hogwash as we already have specific words and legal frameworks that cover everything that needs covering).

Copyright covers written and recorded works, NOT ideas (check http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy.htm in the "Fast Facts" box).

Patents cover devices, NOT ideas (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis.htm explicitly states that patents do not cover theories or methods, which surely is what an idea is until it has been implemented?).

This is in direct contract to continental Europe, where they're historically been viewed as a moral right grounded in natural law.

I wasn't aware of that. Do you have any background on this? At least the history of patents in the UK does not suggest anything like that, nor does this overview.

What you say is generally true about European copyright (author's rights) though.

Photos are granted copyright by default. There has to be an explicit reason for copyright of those photos to be taken away (such as not having permission to copyrighted/trademarked items in the photo) otherwise it expires 70 years after publication or creator's death. As there is no such exception under British law, the copyright is the same as with any other photo.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf

I think the test is whether the reproduction is a slavish reproduction or if some technique, some art, is needed in the reproduction.

For example a mere photo of the Mona Lisa wouldn't be a new work. A high definition scan using specially designed hardware that picks up details not otherwise visible could be a protectable work.

No, I don't think that's just.

From the UKIPO website ( http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-original.htm )
'The term "original" also involves a test of substantiality - literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works will not be original if there has not been sufficient skill and labour expended in their creation. But, sometimes significant investment of resources without significant intellectual input can still count as sufficient skill and labour.'

You used the card to pay for a service. You purchased a license. That license is *tangible* - it's also a binding legal contract to pay the license fee and thus using *counterfeit* funds to do so, is fraud. It's no different to paying your TV license with a fake / made-up credit card, or buying a set of crystal glasses with fake Green Shield stamps. It's obtaining goods/services by deception and fraud.

It's called intellectual property for a reason, it's not tangible (though it can be bought and sold like physical property).

A license is not tangible, you can make as many licenses as you like for no extra cost than the media you present the license on.

That aside, a UK jury will never convict someone for buying something cheaply IMO.

Incorrect. In UK law, handling stolen goods has higher sentences (and higher *average* sentences, even after appeal) than actual theft. It is *not* required that the court prove that you *know* they were stolen.

Firstly: handling stolen goods !== buying something cheaply.

Second the CPS ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/theft_acts_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#_Other_Offences_under ) disagrees with you saying (referring to the Theft Act 1968, SS22):

A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing), knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

In an nutshell, you're wrong.

I'm not defending fences. Nor was I talking about the meaning of the law in my earlier statement, only my perception of the possible outcome of a jury trial - presumably you've a reference for a case where a jury convicted someone for buying something cheaply where that person had no provable belief that it was stolen? (that conviction would contradict the law incidentally).

You can *easily* be convicted for buying a dodgy DVD in a boot sale, or a stolen car stereo... if it came to court, at absolute *minimum* you would be required to return the property, possibly make compensation (i.e. pay Apple for the MP3's), possibly pay court costs, maybe even receive a caution.

Tosh. You got a reference of any sort for someone buying a properly packaged DVD in a car boot sale that was convicted of an offence? Trading Standards rightly go after sellers. There is no way that a buyer could possibly know a DVD is "dodgy" unless it appears "dodgy" - grey imports can be vastly cheaper but are identical products. Tesco got in trouble for grey imports ( http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-policy/t-policy-parallel/t-policy-parallel-caselaw.htm ) but I don't recall any of their customers suffering a conviction for contributory trademark infringement, perhaps you know differently.

If you buy a stolen anything then yes, you're handling stolen goods; again cheap !== stolen.

Your knowledge of whether you knew or not is pretty much irrevelant once it comes into a court... it's what you *should* have known - and a $200 gift card for $40 is almost certainly "obviously in the wrong".

For tangible goods yes. For intangibles then you see these sorts of things all the time. One of my ISPs bundles software "worth £250" with a &pound9 domain name ... should I be contacting the police? No of course not, it doesn't cost them that they're only making it available for sale at that price. Similarly Apple could easily offer $200 of itunes for $40 and still be making a profit.

You get free phones that sell at £200

I wonder if that show got a trademark on 'TWIKI' and if so, what would happen to the TWIKI.NET trademark?

That's not how trademarks work. They're not blanket restrictions against others use of the name (though people with huge amounts of money appear to be able to use them that way). Trademarks indicate the origin of a class of goods. Unless Twiki was registered to indicate the originator of software products then it's fair game - moreover sometimes multiple users can use a RTM in the same class provided their is no confusion. YMMV. Moreover trademarks are territorial.

NextWiki is a perfect follow on name (though the chat logs suggest it's taken) as it's probably not distinctive enough to be registered but includes the characters of Twiki. Perhaps LowFatWiki or PhatWiki or GotWiki or something would work too?

They could house the project in another jurisdiction and still call it TWiki if they want. It's not registered in Europe (just checked, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-text ) but DentWiki and VetWiki are, so calling it $(String).tWiki is clearly not a problem.

Perhaps Twiki.fk (fork / Falkland Islands)?

IANAIPL

Product warranties aren't statutory, and what statutory rights may be waived by contract depends on the statute and on established rules of jurisprudence.

Right. Here the established jurisprudence is that nothing can be waived by one-sided disclaimers. Nor am I generally liable for what others' do with my product, only in cases explicitly defined in law (the notion of common law doesn't exist here), and those can not be disclaimed.

This whole business of disclaimers is more or less entirely US invention, as far as I know. But please, educate me, and point out even one court case outside North America where such a disclaimer has had any effect or even been considered relevant. (I am sure there aren't any in Finland, I'll be very surprised if you find one in continental Europe, and mildly surprised if you find one even in the UK, or anywhere in Asia or Africa. Some Latin American countries are more likely to have followed USA here.) Disclaimers in actual contracts are another matter, of course - but no contract can be formed by one-sided declaration within a product (again, counterexamples of court cases outside USA would be welcome).

A minor point on warranties is that here they're limited by 100% refund and thus don't apply to free stuff at all. (The notion of punitive damages is also unknown, awards are limited to actual demostrable damages.)

A patent is an exclusive right to make and use, period. There is no limitation on commercial exploitation.

That is not true. You are correct that there is significant variation between countries here, also within Europe, but all I know of exclude non-commercial use one way or another. Two examples:

Finnish Patent law, para 1, defines patent as "exclusive right to professional exploitation" of an invention (my translation, original at http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1967/19670550).

UK Patent Act of 1977, 60.-(5) (a), excludes acts "done privately and for purposes which are not commercial" (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patentsact1977.pdf).

If you can name any European patent law which does not have a similar limitation, please do so. (Non-European ones, apart from US, would also be of interest.)

I'm not that /au fait/ with US law. But see "Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical" and 35 USC. You won't have broken the law (infringement is tortuous), but it does seem a bit more restrictive than I had understood and you apparently aren't allowed to make that homebrew segway except to perform genuine experiments. In actuality Segway aren't likely to sue you, they may not get costs and might invalidate their patent.

CPC Article 27(b);
UK Section 60(5), http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-manual/p-law-manual-practice/p-law-manual-practice-patent1977.htm;
EPC Article 64 - which just says national law determines what is infringing, but European states generally have provisions like UK Patents Act S60(5)(a) which says "[use of an invention doesn't infringe if] it is done privately and for purposes which are not commercial;".

So it seems the US law is more restrictive and you were closer to being right than me.

Technically, it wasn't about renewing the patent as it was keeping the patent alive. If he renewed the patent, it would have been another 20 years. That would have made the patent valid until 2019.

There was a product called Office, but that trademark didn't stop Sun using OpenOffice.

and by "Office" you mean "Microsoft Office"?

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E7138225

"Office" on its own seems to be a trademark of MARKANT Handels- und Service GmbH

Under UK law (S.40 [IIRC] UK Patent Act, possibly in Europe too) as a named inventor you have a right to reasonable compensation. If you're not reasonably compensated then you can take the company to a tribunal IIRC (it may be some other legal hearing).

Compensation is considered commensurate with the profit to the company, so if the company make millions from your work you are entitled to more than just standard pay.

FWIW, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/newsletters/ipinsight-200803/ipinsight-200803-3.htm:

Compensation

Once ownership is established as yours, an employee inventor still has the right to claim a fair share of the benefits. In principle, it is a right designed to guard against an employer enjoying a windfall, while leaving the employee no better off. In practice, you will usually come to your own arrangement.

But if a court has to make an award, it will reach its own judgement of what constitutes a fair share. The pay, skill and input of your employee will be set against how well the invention has done.

See for example http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=7405 reporting on a Hitachi employee's Japanese compensation claim amounting to 14% of royalties. You can always donate the money to the EFF, or me ;0)>

Ever heard of WIPO?

WO patents can cover all jurisdictions that sign the International Patent Cooperation treaty - pretty much everywhere including the ARIPO, OAPI nations. It's unlikely that a broadcasting algo that's covered by a US patent asigned to a large firm doesn't also have a WO patent and hence is protected in the UK.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/policy-issues-patents-computer.htm

Sorry but you haven't a clue what you're talking about do you? Business methods /per se/ are excluded and so software implementations of business methods are too. But in general innovations in software that provide a technical contribution are allowed to have patent protection:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/policy-issues-patents-computer.htm

Particularly (one of those cases that I thought should have gone the other way) an early software patent case on image compression won in court and was deemed to be technical. See MPP Section 1.17, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-manual/p-law-manual-practice/p-law-manual-practice-patent1977.htm, the case is called "Vicom":

For example, in Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84) the invention concerned a mathematical method for manipulating data representing an image, leading to an enhanced digital image. The EPO Technical Board of Appeal defined a mathematical method as one which is carried out on numbers and provides a result in numerical form (the mathematical method or algorithm therefore being merely an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on the numbers). Thus the Technical Board of Appeal rejected claims to a method of digitally filtering data performed on a conventional general purpose computer, since those claims were held to define an abstract concept not distinguished from a mathematical method. However, they allowed claims to a method of image processing which used the mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image. The reasoning was that the image processing performed was a technical (ie non-excluded) process which related to the technical quality of the image and that even if the idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical method, a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. Therefore the allowable claims went beyond a mathematical method as such because they specified the physical entity the data represented and the technical process in which it was used.

Sorry but you haven't a clue what you're talking about do you? Business methods /per se/ are excluded and so software implementations of business methods are too. But in general innovations in software that provide a technical contribution are allowed to have patent protection:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/policy-issues-patents-computer.htm

Particularly (one of those cases that I thought should have gone the other way) an early software patent case on image compression won in court and was deemed to be technical. See MPP Section 1.17, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-manual/p-law-manual-practice/p-law-manual-practice-patent1977.htm, the case is called "Vicom":

For example, in Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84) the invention concerned a mathematical method for manipulating data representing an image, leading to an enhanced digital image. The EPO Technical Board of Appeal defined a mathematical method as one which is carried out on numbers and provides a result in numerical form (the mathematical method or algorithm therefore being merely an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on the numbers). Thus the Technical Board of Appeal rejected claims to a method of digitally filtering data performed on a conventional general purpose computer, since those claims were held to define an abstract concept not distinguished from a mathematical method. However, they allowed claims to a method of image processing which used the mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image. The reasoning was that the image processing performed was a technical (ie non-excluded) process which related to the technical quality of the image and that even if the idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical method, a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. Therefore the allowable claims went beyond a mathematical method as such because they specified the physical entity the data represented and the technical process in which it was used.

The UK is obliged to keep as close to the EU as possible (under rules on patent harmonisation) when it comes to software patents, etc., however EPO board rulings are not binding and so judicial proceedings can diverge from the European position.

To say there have been no rulings on SWPAT in the UK is ignorant.

Check out the Manual of Patent Practice under Section 1 (patentability) - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-manual/p-law-manual-practice/p-law-manual-practice-patent1977.htm, start at Section 1.09 and read on the "four step approach" which governs how examiners assess patents for patentability when faced with question of excluded matter such as software patents.

To summarise - software patents are fine so long as the inventive contribution is technical (!, case law decides exactly what is technical, basically it has a physical effect).

I read this to mean that an algorithm can't be patented unless it's applied in a physical situation - a decoding algo. in a mobile phone that saves power would be fine, a decoding algorithm /per se/ would not.

Disclaimer: I haven't been a patent examiner for quite a few years now!

[...] there are no software patents allowed in the UK.

That's what I was thinking, but upon checking found that a recent High Court decision might allow software patents after all. There's certainly a lot of confusion over the subject and an apparent disparity between the UK Patent Office and the European Patent Office. See the IPKat blog:

[...] the UK-IPO has highlighted Mr Justice Patten's decision of today [...] to overturn the UK-IPO's decision to refuse an application by Symbian, on the grounds that it consisted solely of a computer program.

The judge drew attention to the split between the attitudes of the UK-IPO and the EPO, since the EPO has already allowed the patent to be granted.

The blog post mostly echos the press release from the UK Patent Office, who plan to appeal due to the judge failing to apply the Aerotel/Macrossan test.

So it does seem that, medium to long-term, the BBC might have made a big mistake.

As for software patents in general, I believe the only way to truly be rid of the scourge is to get the US to declare software as unpatentable. The US government, and the lobbyists from its companies have tremendous power and influence around the world, and they are pushing hard for software patentability. Even though it's obviously a bad idea, and most software developers are strongly opposed to it, more countries seem to be considering it. No real sources for this last paragraph as it's only my opinion, take it or leave it. :)

In a clear case of lying the EU commission would like to tell you that Copyright is not a monopoly!

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/508&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en#fnB3

That's not what I learnt in my time at UKIPO. Seriously that makes me so angry.

The rest of the reasoning in the FAQs isn't a great deal better and includes a deal of less obvious deception.

They make the point that revenues on _physical_ sales have been "characterised by a fast decline in physical sales (- 30% over the past five yeas[sic])". Notice there's a little word "physical", so internet sales aren't counted.

Then they make the point that: "One study[2] concluded that there was no systematic difference between prices of in-copyright and out-of copyright sound recordings. ". Again they don't note that downloading a copy of an out of copyright work will be free at source (barring network costs) for any work uploaded. You'd even be able to go into an internet cafe and download a load of recordings and burn them on a CD. That'd be maybe £2.50 for 200 songs? Where can I buy that in a shop?

The logic that concludes that one group having a 50 year term and another a 70 year term is inequitable is probably right. The conclusion that you should thus extend the term to 95 years is a vile indictment of the depths to which the claws of big business have sunk into the EU Commission.

To top it all they dismiss out of hand the Gowers Report and cunningly break the link - see here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/policy/policy-issues/policy-issues-gowers.htm (note to Google, the top hit is a broken link too!). See the third recommendation on "Balance" which says keep the 50 year term.

In return for these increased rights, will we get increased benefit to the public, ability to format shift (Recommendation 8 under "Flexibility" in Gowers above), etc., don't hold your breath.

The other report mentioned is not even available as a [broken] link, presumably it's not open to public scrutiny as it was commissioned by the BPI (a British RIAA type group, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Phonographic_Industry).

You can renew your patent for up to 20 years. To keep your patent in force, you must renew it from the 5th year and every year after that. You may, of course, choose not to renew it.

In the UK, the use of postal evidence is actually recommended by the patent office: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-register.htm

The use of Special Delivery ensures that it is sealed when despatched through the post office...

Bear in mind the poster you replied to is in the UK (and the original poster didn't state his location).

The UK Intellectual Property Office implies here that although posting something to yourself (by Special Delivery) and not opening it upon receipt doesn't prove you created it, it does give you proof you held that information on that date.

Canonical is registered in the tax haven Isle of Man and employs staff around the world, along with their main offices in London and support office in Montreal. Isle of Mann is not part of the United Kingdom, but external relations, defence, and ultimate good-governance of the Isle of Man are the responsibility of the government of the UK. So no it's not UK based and it has a global reach; So laws around the world impact upon it. That includes but is not limited to UK, Canadian, Usa, Chinesse, Polish, Liechtenstein and Monaco laws.

Every nation has bad laws, welcome to planet Earth. It is interesting that you are so blase; people accuse usian of being ethnocentric jingoistic, however it seems that's a more universal trait;-) Thanks for demonstrating that.

I'm more of a fan of ogg speex and ogg vorbis than mp3 . I think I finaly added a repo that had the mp3 codec after a long time. I might be liable for a civil tort, *shrug* oh well. I won't go with fluendo no matter what.

Happily as far as I know only 3 countries allowed patents on software: US, Japan, and Australia. EU which UK is part of allows patents for "Technical contributions" that might include software. Actually from the two recent Supreme Court rulings, the UK and USA might now be on even par concerning the patentability of software; so wipe that smirk from your face.

As for end-users being liable, in the usa I am fairly certain that they are. It been that way since 1903 at least. As for software being patentable -- from 1981 to 2007 pure software was patentable in the usa. Whether end-user in the uk are liable look at EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION and UK Acts, Rules and Directions and the case law. I have a gut feeling it would be similar to the usa in that regards though.

I was a UK patent examiner from '98 to '04.

We searched online databases of UK, EPO, WO, US, JP (Japanese, translated abstracts and later JPO provided [machine] translations), DE (German), FR (French) patents as a matter of course. It was down to the examiner to determine the scope of search to perform. We could also search hundreds of databases of technical disclosures (eg IBM's TDB - technical disclosure bulletins). All UK examiners had to be able to translate enough french and german language to be able to decide if a full translation was needed and we had other language translators to hand - JP docs were obviously important in computer fields.

Other databases included Elsevier journal databases and also paper files (go back 100 years or so) of all UK patents (which were phased out during my time there). In some areas we had libraries of other books and journals. Also if you could put a case for getting a particular publication you could get it - New Scientist and Nature were particularly popular!

One of the vital tools for prior art searches was the different "classification keys" - UKC, ECLA, USC ... etc.. Basically all patent docs are given a key which defines the field(s) that it falls in, eg G06F 11/00C2 (http://v3.espacenet.com/eclasrch?ECLA=/espacenet/ ecla/g06f/g06f11.htm?q=11-00c2) is fault tolerance by degradation of service within a computer system. There will be 10's of thousands of patent docs in this category and some non-patent disclosures like TDB's or magazine articles may be categorised (EPO used to do this but UK not really). By crossing categories and using abstract and full-text keyword searching one wittles down the docs to look at.

I also did quite a bit of internet searching (too much) using several search engines as well as site searches and a few company databases that we had access too. The problem with internet citations was proving the publication date, vital to show something is prior art.

In G06F (which is roughly G4A in the UKC, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-cl ass/p-class-ukc/p-class-ukc-g.htm) one tended to have about 1.5 days to do a search (sometimes it would be half a day, sometimes 5). In other less strenuous fields a lot less. This means possible a few hundred abstracts to read and digest to whittle down to maybe a dozen docs to read in full and then perhaps cite 3 or 4, depending what you find. Sometimes with searches that don't fit keywords well you'd read more abstracts. Sometimes you can find an exact hit in a few minutes and spend the rest of the time finding docs to cite that will preempt what the patent attorney will try to amend the claims to.

There's no lack of places to look for prior art.

Oftentimes you'd search and search because something seemed so obvious but wouldn't find a strong citation. The problem with obviousness objections is always that the patent agent (aka attorney) can comeback and say if it was so obvious why was no one been doing it (or documented it), show me some evidence. This is especially strong in a well worked field - why did so many people overlook this obvious step. Combinations of docs suffer from ex-post facto analysis - one has to try and work from the prior position and see if the notional skilled man in the art would put those docs together?

---
In response to the parent there's a requirement for US applicants to cite known US patents (and I think other prior art) that is particularly pertinent to their applications (I don't know the specific requirement). If they fail to cite something and it's proven they knew about it and it's relevant they can lose their patent (or at least be sued for big bucks). All major WO patent granting offices have to search at least a certain amount of literature - specific ranges of specific fields of patents; the US is such an office.

As an examiner I found US searches to usua