Slashdot Mirror

> really, are programmers expected to patent every single frickin' thing they do out of fear that someone else might?

No, and it doesn't matter. In theory you can't patent something that has already been invented elsewhere:

From http://www.patent.gov.uk/protect/protect-should/protect-should-patent.htm:

"To get patent protection your invention must be:

        * new, not known anywhere in the world prior to filing"

So if you disclose your program, it should be fine.

Computer science is only a hop, skip, and a jump away from hard mathematics. What would happen to the field of mathematics if mathematicians started patenting their novel analysis methods?

>>> "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."

See http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-original .htm

>>>"Published editions of literary works such as magazines, anthologies of poems and so on, where there may be more than one copyright owner, may afford copyright protection in their own right for the typographical arrangement of the edition. Copyright in your typographical edition lasts for 25 years."

See http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-write.ht m

I don't claim to be an "expert" on matters of intellectual property. I've been out of patents for a couple of years two so I probably back to being current with other laymen.

I am of the impression (which appears to be supported by these texts) that the engraving of musical notation is considered sufficiently labourious and artistic to warrant a further copyright term. Some older scores (I gather) must be translated in the same way that Anglo-Saxon might be translated to modern English. Such translation affords copyright protection (cf. The Holy Bible, NIV, etc.).

PS: I don't code in C++ (any more) and I'm slightly older than 14 too. So you must be a Patent Attorney as you use a non exclusive form of "comprises"??

>>> "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."

See http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-original .htm

>>>"Published editions of literary works such as magazines, anthologies of poems and so on, where there may be more than one copyright owner, may afford copyright protection in their own right for the typographical arrangement of the edition. Copyright in your typographical edition lasts for 25 years."

See http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-write.ht m

I don't claim to be an "expert" on matters of intellectual property. I've been out of patents for a couple of years two so I probably back to being current with other laymen.

I am of the impression (which appears to be supported by these texts) that the engraving of musical notation is considered sufficiently labourious and artistic to warrant a further copyright term. Some older scores (I gather) must be translated in the same way that Anglo-Saxon might be translated to modern English. Such translation affords copyright protection (cf. The Holy Bible, NIV, etc.).

PS: I don't code in C++ (any more) and I'm slightly older than 14 too. So you must be a Patent Attorney as you use a non exclusive form of "comprises"??

It would be useful to know exactly what law had been broken - the links that I can find just quote the judge saying that "the offer for sale had taken place not in Hong Kong but in the EEA". Is this just "Asda and Tesco vs Levi" again?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1261829.stm
has a summary of that (grey imports from the rest of the EEA legal; elsewhere not)

Also see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/ cmselect/cmtrdind/380/38009.htm

http://www.patent.gov.uk/policy/policy-issues/poli cy-issues-trademarks/policy-issues-trademarks-para llel/policy-issues-trademarks-parallel-parallelcas elaw.htm
has a link to the judgement (those last two links may cause you to lose the will to stay awake, though).

If it IS just a trademark issue, what's to prevent some sort of "Iceweasel" solution to this? For example advertise the consoles as being of certain dimensions and able to play certain titles - but no more.

That's a stronger argument, but still wrong. In order to be patentable an invention has to be useful. You're right, you don't patent outcomes; but your method has to produce an outcome. Regard: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#patent

Also note the phrasing of the typical patent: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week06/OG/h tml/1303-1/US06994072-20060207.html (A something something FOR doing something).

The UK patent office guide is much clearer: http://www.patent.gov.uk/whatis/whatis-patent.htm (it also excludes most of the things that cause so much fun on Slashdot)

I'm not saying a tax patent doesn't serve the inventor's purpose; I'm saying that if the law is changed it *cannot* serve the inventor's (or anybody's) purpose and therefore it is no longer an invention. If one step became illegal for example, it wouldn't matter if you could apply the steps elsewhere. Since the patent has to be useful in order to be valid, it loses its validity; and since the environment the patent is claimed for is inherently unstable tax patents (and indeed any patent which is based on law) should not be granted.

Obviously they do get granted, but hey, the US's IP regime is completely broken. That's not even news.

28A Making of temporary copies
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a
dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition,
a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is
transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process
and the sole purpose of which is to enable -
(a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an
intermediary; or
(b) a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.

While it is a widely held belief - even being propagated by some patent offices with misleading titles like "Looking after your ideas" http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/info/ideas.pdf -, no, you cannot patent an idea (well, software patents are the closest thing to that), you can patent an expression of an idea though (invention usually).

Here's an article from EFF's Jon Perry on Wired: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.id eas_pr.html ,
and a less dense and clear (but probably outdated) from the Enterpreneur Network: http://tenonline.org/art/9010.html

I claim prior art:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/renewals. htm

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyri ght.htm

Heres a nice succint quote from 'the horse's mouth':

But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?

Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.

Take a look at the legislation, specifically the 1988 copyright legislation as amended by the 2003 EUCD directive, and you'll find you're living in exactly the same fascistic dimension as I am.

In fact, take a look at this page:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyri ght.htm

i quote:

But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?

Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.

It is of course quite normal to do it, but it's still illegal.

What's weird is the disconnect between patents that have been accepted and the UKPO's own information on the subject: http://www.patent.gov.uk/media/pressrelease/2001/1 203.htm states clearly that "Present UK law (the Patents Act 1977) and the European Patent Convention (1973) exclude computer software as such ... from patent protection".

Funny, I was thinking about this the other day....

http://www.patent.gov.uk/media/pressrelease/2003/1 106.htm

Basically this chump thought of an idea to make a toaster which waits for the second slice to pop. He told everyone on Big Brother and now it is NOBODYS because it will never be made because manufatureres wont spend the extra R&D when they cannot patent it.

Now you mention UK consultations to do with IP I should remind everyone about the UK Patent Office Inventive Step Review http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/inven tive/index.htm

It seems that they are trying but not necessarily succeeding:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/faq/biofaq.htm

But an American company has obtained a patent for "basmati" rice?

An American company, Ricetec Inc., has obtained a patent in the US for a rice line that mimics the properties of traditional Basmati rice, a product of India and Pakistan.

After a legal challenge, the patents were restricted so that they do not cover the pre-existing traditional varieties.

It is also important to note that the patent granted does not give Ricetec authorisation to use the term basmati. The use of such terms is governed by other laws in the US and also by international agreements such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).

Can the discovery of DNA and the Human Genome be patented?

No. Under the Regulations and the Directive, neither DNA or raw human genome information can be patented because they are discoveries and not inventions. The Regulations and the Directive make it clear that discoveries are not patentable.

Gene-based inventions involve material which already occur in nature and can therefore under no circumstances be invented, only discovered?

Discoveries which extend human knowledge but do not extend human ability, are by their very nature not patentable. This is certainly the case with raw fundamental information on the human genetic code. The Regulations and the Directive confirm and reinforce this position.

However, it is different if the genetic material is isolated from its natural environment by means of an inventive process involving a new technical solution. Here there is a step taken from knowing to being able. Therefore, the Regulations and the Directive make clear that certain gene-based inventions may be patentable provided that they satisfy the normal criteria for any invention, namely that they are new, not obvious to those who understand the technical field and must embody a technical solution to a technical problem.

But we should remain ever vigilant.

• a discovery;

• a scientific theory or mathematical method;

• an aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;

• a scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;

• the presentation of information, or a computer program."

letter to politicians?

What about this

        * http://ac.european-patent-office.org/pct_consultat ion_process/index.en.php
        * http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/7 0fr75451.pdf
        * http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/inven tive/

From TFA:

InPro's patent described the use of a proxy server which downloaded data from the Web in response to a request from a device, then transposed the data to match the specific size and resolution of the device, according to The Times. The patent in question was granted in 1996.

And here I was — silly me — thinking that this sort of thing consituted a "method" and was therefore unpatentable in the UK! From the UKPO's web-site, the following are excuded:

• a discovery;
• a scientific theory or mathematical method;
• an aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;
• a scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;
• the presentation of information, or a computer program.

Don't 5, and possible 4, call this whole game into question?

The earliest known English patent for invention was granted by Henry VI to Flemish-born John of Utynam in 1449. The patent gave John a 20-year monopoly for a method of making stained glass, required for the windows of Eton College, that had not been previously known in England. http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/whatis/fivehundred /origins.htm)

In Switzerland and France recently I've seen Pepsi Max Cappuccino...
http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/tmj/journals/6608/dome stic/2400434.html
http://www.pepsimax.fr/
NOTE: Pepsi MAX is like Diet Pepsi in the US - no sugar/calories.
I wasn't brave enough to try it.

Now, just because they registered first doesn't mean that another company wasn't already using it as a de facto trade mark, but it does occur to me that the value of the mark should be determined by what it was before Google started using it, not what it's worth now. That the other claimant has a total market value of £3.24m ($5.6m) should be an indication that the GMail mark isn't worth "$48m to $64m" as they claim.

Here is the UK trademark website. If you search it, you'll find the earliest application is from Google, Inc. on April 14th, 2004. Karen Griffith applied on October 4th, 2004, almost half a year later.

So there you go. In the USA, Google applied first, and with an earlier date of first use to boot. Google quickly followed up and applied in the UK as well. These guys, supposedly BASED in the UK, didn't bother for another 6 months. Further, their only reference in their UK application was to their US application. If that application was rejected, the UK one will be too, I would imagine.

Checking the UK trade mark database, it looks like the company making this claim does not have a trade mark registration for "G-Mail".

Without a registered trade mark (not "trademark" in the UK) the claimant would need to rely on "passing off", which would involve them showing (i) they have built up a reputation in the name; (ii) Google's use of the name constitutes a misrepresentation leading to confusion in the marketplace; and (iii) this has caused the claimant damage.

This isn't easy to prove, especially if you're a small company with few resources. You certainly have very little hope of a quick result using summary judgment, so you're looking at months of very expensive litigation leading up to a trial. In the meantime your company's gone bust because all your time and energy has been expended on the legal action rather than on running your business. A responsible IP litigation lawyer would be advising this company to be cautious, I suspect.

If where you live both has no equivalent of the DMCA and neither software patents, then that must be a cool place to live. But however the blogspot link hints that you live in the UK which has a form of both currently implemented.

The DMCA equivalent is called EUCD and prohibits circumvention of encryption (see the dvdshrink stories), the other is called Computer-Implemented Inventions. Som casestudies of granted patents can be found at http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/cii-wor kshops-case-analysis.htm

UK trademark registry http://webdb1.patent.gov.uk/RightSite/formexec?DMW _DOCBASE=ibis&DMW_INPUTFORM=ibis/ohim.htm&ohimnum= E851246 has the important date as 30th Dec 1994 (based on a German registration).

IP Australia (http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_ details.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=985197&p_searc h_no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=11&p _rec_all=13) records the pertinent date as 19th Jan 2004

EPICOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION 195 Technology Drive, Irvine, California, United States of America, 92618

ISOGON CORPORATION 330 Seventh Avenue, New York, United States of America, 1000

Gambro Inc 10810 West Collins Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado, United States of America, 80215-4498

Transtechnik Lichtsysteme GmbH & Co. KG Ohmstr. 1-3, Holzkirchen, Germany, 83607

See here

The results of the UK Patent Office consultation is here. As would be expected in an entrepeneurial country, the majority of responses were against software patents.

"The Government's conclusion is thus to reaffirm the principle that patents are for technological innovations. Software should not be patentable where there is no technological innovation, and technological innovations should not cease to be patentable merely because the innovation lies in software.".

It is very gratifying to see a government department carrying out a consultation before making a proposal, instead (as with ID cards) making a proposal and then trying to substantiate with bogus survey results after the fact.

As a professional software developer in the EU, I am very pleased that the MEPs that represent me stepped forwards to protect my interests. They have done their duty, and now I will do mine and work hard to build a software company in a competative environment unencumbered by software patents.

Phillip.

"Won't the introduction of the Directive on computer-implemented inventions stifle innovation in the software industry?"

"The proposed Directive does not introduce or extend the patentability of software. In the UK, patents have been granted for computer-implemented inventions for decades. This has not hindered the expansion of the Internet, the development of open source software, nor the continuing growth of the software industry."

"Why is the proposed Directive trying to extend the patentability of computer-implemented inventions?"

"The approach adopted by the UK Government and the European Commission in the proposed Directive is to clarify the current position on patentability of computer-implemented inventions and confirm that only those inventions that involve a technical contribution can be protected by patents."

"Why is the Government ignoring the views of software developers?"

The UK position is based on a wide-ranging consultation carried out in 2000/2001 that supported the clarification of the current law and continued restrictions on the patentability of business methods.

"Won't Europe end up with the system that now exists in the United States?"

The Government believes that we should aim to avoid the width of patentability now allowed in the United States: this is why it pressed the European Commission for a Directive following its consultation.

"Doesn't the European Commission's proposal extend rather than clarify patentability?"

"The proposals originally put forward by the European Commission reflect to a great extent the responses that the DTI received in an extensive consultation on this issue in 2000/2001, and aim to clarify the situation. The Government believes that the proposals will in fact be good for the UK software industry, in clarifying a contentious area of intellectual property law, and for the UK and Europe as a whole by reinforcing a system which will counter the ever-increasing trend towards the wider granting of patents seen in the USA.

I suggest you read that article more clearly:

"The High Court has held that the makers of computer chips that allow games console users to play imported or pirated games breaches UK copyright law."

"The defendants in the case designed and marketed a mod-chip"

"The decision is significant because it clearly established liability under the new law - in the UK, the dealing in and manufacturer of 'mod-chips' is illegal."

"Under the pre-amended Act this fell within sec. 296 which restricts devices that allow copying of copyrighted computer programmes."

Please consult the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act. Section 296 can be found on page 151 of the pdf (numbered as page 132 on the page itself):

(1) This section applies where (a) a technical device has been applied to a computer program; and (b) a person (A) knowing or having reason to believe that it will be used to make infringing copies - (i) manufactures for sale or hire, imports, distributes, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire, advertises for sale or hire or has in his possession for commercial purposes any means the sole intended purpose of which is to facilitate the unauthorised removal or circumvention of the technical device.

Dreadful grammar in your press release^W^Warticle aside (from a solicitor, no less!), no one has prevented any one I know from modding their consoles. If I get a PS3, I intend to modify it, and no one is going to stop me! Buahah!

I am not a trademark lawyer (or examiner) but as an ex-patent examiner in the UK I occassionally had to raise trademark issues.

I gather that only one registration in any one class is allowed otherwise the origin of goods under the mark in that class would be unclear. If I sell software for accounting labelled "firefox" (RTM) (eg "Best Accounts from Firefox") and you want to sell other software labelled "firefox" then a consumer might think that your goods originate at my quality software house. You'd be trading on my name.

So, if there are class 9 registrations (see http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/notices/regular/classn ov04.htm and note that's the class for computer stuff) that have been granted then I don't see how Mozilla can make another class 9 registration for the same name.

Of course, if Mozilla have been using the mark for trading for an established term preceding the registration then I gather that they have rights to continue to use that mark (in a limited way?). This is all mute ... looking at the dates ... the E42007607 (Feb 2005) was filed 8 months later than Mozilla's application (June 2004). So it doesn't look threatened ...

But like I said, I don't really know much about RTM.

I found it interesting that Time Warner previously had rights to the trademark (expired 1982).

and the Firefox name may already be taken in the UK and Germany.

As far as already having been taken in the UK goes here is the list of trademarks on 'Firefox' and here is the Mozilla Foundation's application for a trademark.

There don't seem to be any trademarks pending for the 'Thunderbird' name, most of the existing trademarks are held by the ITC Corporation who own the rights to the Thunderbirds tv show and film. There don't seem to be any covering the same fields as Mozilla Thunderbird though, so it does seem strange that no application has been made.

and the Firefox name may already be taken in the UK and Germany.

As far as already having been taken in the UK goes here is the list of trademarks on 'Firefox' and here is the Mozilla Foundation's application for a trademark.

There don't seem to be any trademarks pending for the 'Thunderbird' name, most of the existing trademarks are held by the ITC Corporation who own the rights to the Thunderbirds tv show and film. There don't seem to be any covering the same fields as Mozilla Thunderbird though, so it does seem strange that no application has been made.

Has anyone actually bottered to check the PTO in the UK before going off on one about how Firefox is already registered?

If you go over there and have a little look you will notice that the mozilla foundation has filed their trademark application and none of the other firefox applications directly conflict with it. There are others in class 9 but none of them specifically list web browser (which the firefox applicaiton does) as part of the application. The biggest threat, IMHO, is 2007607 which bangs on about software but from an analysis point of view. IANAL but I would say that firefox will probably be granted the trademark in the UK at least.

How?
Well the UK Patent Office has just revised their guidelines on how to make third party observations:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/media/pressrelease/2005/3 105.htm
and
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /introduction.htm
You can now make observations by email:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /observations.htm

How?
Well the UK Patent Office has just revised their guidelines on how to make third party observations:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/media/pressrelease/2005/3 105.htm
and
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /introduction.htm
You can now make observations by email:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /observations.htm

How?
Well the UK Patent Office has just revised their guidelines on how to make third party observations:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/media/pressrelease/2005/3 105.htm
and
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /introduction.htm
You can now make observations by email:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /observations.htm

The UKPO has published new guidance on how to make third party observations on patent applications:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /introduction.htm

You can now make them by email:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/notices/direction1 24a/section21.htm

The UKPO has published new guidance on how to make third party observations on patent applications:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /introduction.htm

You can now make them by email:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/notices/direction1 24a/section21.htm

I think it is rather signifigant to understand how the UK patent office set this up. They tested various patent law proposals against various hypothetical patent applications. The test cases they used were divided into three catagories. Catagory A test cases were 5 "clearly be patentable" examples, catagory B test cases were 5 "clearly be unpatentable" examples, and catagory C was 4 borderline-but-patentable tests and 4 borderline-but-unpatentable tests.

According to UK patent office's review rules, for a patent law proposal to rate well it would need to consistantly and clearly pass the (ahem) easy and clear A tests as patentable. Lets not even worry about the borderline C tests and invalid-patent B tests and just review those 5 A tests, shall we?

VALID patent test #1:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have traffic lights and road sensors.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If we collect the information from them then we can hire a programmer and ask him to figure out some way to improve traffic flow, and then we can send that out to the traffic lights.

My oppinion: Had he written this as a patent for improving traffic devices by adding send/receive capabilities, I would say that is seriously lame but *maybe* patentable if you set the patentability standards abysmally low.

But that isn't what this patent is trying to claim, that isn't how it's written. This patent is claiming to be a process to improve traffic flow. This patent is claiming the idea of hiring a programmer and ASKING HIM to figure out a way of improving traffic flow. This patent application wants to own any solution any programmer ever comes up with to improve traffic flow, even though the patent applicant has no idea how to do so and he offers no suggestions on how to do so. He wants to own any solution anyone else comes up with.

VALID patent test #2:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have chemical sensors to detect toxins in the air, and those sensors are often connected to various sorts of networks and alarms.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If there is any sort of processor in the system, it's going to need to scan across the sensor data looking for matches. This patent wants to own the idea of scanning across the data looking for matches.

My oppinion: All I can say here is that the UK Patent office are morons.

VALID patent test #3:

Presumably prior state of the art: Cell phones send and receive wireless messages.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can stick an encryption chip in there to encrypt/decrypt each message as it is sent/received. Oh, by the way you can use the caller's number and the callees'number and the date&time as part of choosing the encryption password. Oh, and according to the patent this is not an "encryption chip", it is a "discombobulation device".

My oppinion: I say we give this guy a patent on the NAME "discombobulation device", it's the most inventive thing in there.

VALID patent test #4:

Presumably prior state of the art: I don't know, something like 'wheels work better if you make them more round' I guess.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can brighten a dark photograph by scanning it and multiplying and reprinting it.

My oppinion: Did I mention that the UK Patent office were morons?

VALID patent test #5:

Presumabl

I think it is rather signifigant to understand how the UK patent office set this up. They tested various patent law proposals against various hypothetical patent applications. The test cases they used were divided into three catagories. Catagory A test cases were 5 "clearly be patentable" examples, catagory B test cases were 5 "clearly be unpatentable" examples, and catagory C was 4 borderline-but-patentable tests and 4 borderline-but-unpatentable tests.

According to UK patent office's review rules, for a patent law proposal to rate well it would need to consistantly and clearly pass the (ahem) easy and clear A tests as patentable. Lets not even worry about the borderline C tests and invalid-patent B tests and just review those 5 A tests, shall we?

VALID patent test #1:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have traffic lights and road sensors.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If we collect the information from them then we can hire a programmer and ask him to figure out some way to improve traffic flow, and then we can send that out to the traffic lights.

My oppinion: Had he written this as a patent for improving traffic devices by adding send/receive capabilities, I would say that is seriously lame but *maybe* patentable if you set the patentability standards abysmally low.

But that isn't what this patent is trying to claim, that isn't how it's written. This patent is claiming to be a process to improve traffic flow. This patent is claiming the idea of hiring a programmer and ASKING HIM to figure out a way of improving traffic flow. This patent application wants to own any solution any programmer ever comes up with to improve traffic flow, even though the patent applicant has no idea how to do so and he offers no suggestions on how to do so. He wants to own any solution anyone else comes up with.

VALID patent test #2:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have chemical sensors to detect toxins in the air, and those sensors are often connected to various sorts of networks and alarms.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If there is any sort of processor in the system, it's going to need to scan across the sensor data looking for matches. This patent wants to own the idea of scanning across the data looking for matches.

My oppinion: All I can say here is that the UK Patent office are morons.

VALID patent test #3:

Presumably prior state of the art: Cell phones send and receive wireless messages.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can stick an encryption chip in there to encrypt/decrypt each message as it is sent/received. Oh, by the way you can use the caller's number and the callees'number and the date&time as part of choosing the encryption password. Oh, and according to the patent this is not an "encryption chip", it is a "discombobulation device".

My oppinion: I say we give this guy a patent on the NAME "discombobulation device", it's the most inventive thing in there.

VALID patent test #4:

Presumably prior state of the art: I don't know, something like 'wheels work better if you make them more round' I guess.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can brighten a dark photograph by scanning it and multiplying and reprinting it.

My oppinion: Did I mention that the UK Patent office were morons?

VALID patent test #5:

Presumabl

I think it is rather signifigant to understand how the UK patent office set this up. They tested various patent law proposals against various hypothetical patent applications. The test cases they used were divided into three catagories. Catagory A test cases were 5 "clearly be patentable" examples, catagory B test cases were 5 "clearly be unpatentable" examples, and catagory C was 4 borderline-but-patentable tests and 4 borderline-but-unpatentable tests.

According to UK patent office's review rules, for a patent law proposal to rate well it would need to consistantly and clearly pass the (ahem) easy and clear A tests as patentable. Lets not even worry about the borderline C tests and invalid-patent B tests and just review those 5 A tests, shall we?

VALID patent test #1:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have traffic lights and road sensors.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If we collect the information from them then we can hire a programmer and ask him to figure out some way to improve traffic flow, and then we can send that out to the traffic lights.

My oppinion: Had he written this as a patent for improving traffic devices by adding send/receive capabilities, I would say that is seriously lame but *maybe* patentable if you set the patentability standards abysmally low.

But that isn't what this patent is trying to claim, that isn't how it's written. This patent is claiming to be a process to improve traffic flow. This patent is claiming the idea of hiring a programmer and ASKING HIM to figure out a way of improving traffic flow. This patent application wants to own any solution any programmer ever comes up with to improve traffic flow, even though the patent applicant has no idea how to do so and he offers no suggestions on how to do so. He wants to own any solution anyone else comes up with.

VALID patent test #2:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have chemical sensors to detect toxins in the air, and those sensors are often connected to various sorts of networks and alarms.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If there is any sort of processor in the system, it's going to need to scan across the sensor data looking for matches. This patent wants to own the idea of scanning across the data looking for matches.

My oppinion: All I can say here is that the UK Patent office are morons.

VALID patent test #3:

Presumably prior state of the art: Cell phones send and receive wireless messages.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can stick an encryption chip in there to encrypt/decrypt each message as it is sent/received. Oh, by the way you can use the caller's number and the callees'number and the date&time as part of choosing the encryption password. Oh, and according to the patent this is not an "encryption chip", it is a "discombobulation device".

My oppinion: I say we give this guy a patent on the NAME "discombobulation device", it's the most inventive thing in there.

VALID patent test #4:

Presumably prior state of the art: I don't know, something like 'wheels work better if you make them more round' I guess.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can brighten a dark photograph by scanning it and multiplying and reprinting it.

My oppinion: Did I mention that the UK Patent office were morons?

VALID patent test #5:

Presumabl

I think it is rather signifigant to understand how the UK patent office set this up. They tested various patent law proposals against various hypothetical patent applications. The test cases they used were divided into three catagories. Catagory A test cases were 5 "clearly be patentable" examples, catagory B test cases were 5 "clearly be unpatentable" examples, and catagory C was 4 borderline-but-patentable tests and 4 borderline-but-unpatentable tests.

According to UK patent office's review rules, for a patent law proposal to rate well it would need to consistantly and clearly pass the (ahem) easy and clear A tests as patentable. Lets not even worry about the borderline C tests and invalid-patent B tests and just review those 5 A tests, shall we?

VALID patent test #1:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have traffic lights and road sensors.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If we collect the information from them then we can hire a programmer and ask him to figure out some way to improve traffic flow, and then we can send that out to the traffic lights.

My oppinion: Had he written this as a patent for improving traffic devices by adding send/receive capabilities, I would say that is seriously lame but *maybe* patentable if you set the patentability standards abysmally low.

But that isn't what this patent is trying to claim, that isn't how it's written. This patent is claiming to be a process to improve traffic flow. This patent is claiming the idea of hiring a programmer and ASKING HIM to figure out a way of improving traffic flow. This patent application wants to own any solution any programmer ever comes up with to improve traffic flow, even though the patent applicant has no idea how to do so and he offers no suggestions on how to do so. He wants to own any solution anyone else comes up with.

VALID patent test #2:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have chemical sensors to detect toxins in the air, and those sensors are often connected to various sorts of networks and alarms.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If there is any sort of processor in the system, it's going to need to scan across the sensor data looking for matches. This patent wants to own the idea of scanning across the data looking for matches.

My oppinion: All I can say here is that the UK Patent office are morons.

VALID patent test #3:

Presumably prior state of the art: Cell phones send and receive wireless messages.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can stick an encryption chip in there to encrypt/decrypt each message as it is sent/received. Oh, by the way you can use the caller's number and the callees'number and the date&time as part of choosing the encryption password. Oh, and according to the patent this is not an "encryption chip", it is a "discombobulation device".

My oppinion: I say we give this guy a patent on the NAME "discombobulation device", it's the most inventive thing in there.

VALID patent test #4:

Presumably prior state of the art: I don't know, something like 'wheels work better if you make them more round' I guess.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can brighten a dark photograph by scanning it and multiplying and reprinting it.

My oppinion: Did I mention that the UK Patent office were morons?

VALID patent test #5:

Presumabl

I think it is rather signifigant to understand how the UK patent office set this up. They tested various patent law proposals against various hypothetical patent applications. The test cases they used were divided into three catagories. Catagory A test cases were 5 "clearly be patentable" examples, catagory B test cases were 5 "clearly be unpatentable" examples, and catagory C was 4 borderline-but-patentable tests and 4 borderline-but-unpatentable tests.

According to UK patent office's review rules, for a patent law proposal to rate well it would need to consistantly and clearly pass the (ahem) easy and clear A tests as patentable. Lets not even worry about the borderline C tests and invalid-patent B tests and just review those 5 A tests, shall we?

VALID patent test #1:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have traffic lights and road sensors.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If we collect the information from them then we can hire a programmer and ask him to figure out some way to improve traffic flow, and then we can send that out to the traffic lights.

My oppinion: Had he written this as a patent for improving traffic devices by adding send/receive capabilities, I would say that is seriously lame but *maybe* patentable if you set the patentability standards abysmally low.

But that isn't what this patent is trying to claim, that isn't how it's written. This patent is claiming to be a process to improve traffic flow. This patent is claiming the idea of hiring a programmer and ASKING HIM to figure out a way of improving traffic flow. This patent application wants to own any solution any programmer ever comes up with to improve traffic flow, even though the patent applicant has no idea how to do so and he offers no suggestions on how to do so. He wants to own any solution anyone else comes up with.

VALID patent test #2:

Presumably prior state of the art: We have chemical sensors to detect toxins in the air, and those sensors are often connected to various sorts of networks and alarms.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If there is any sort of processor in the system, it's going to need to scan across the sensor data looking for matches. This patent wants to own the idea of scanning across the data looking for matches.

My oppinion: All I can say here is that the UK Patent office are morons.

VALID patent test #3:

Presumably prior state of the art: Cell phones send and receive wireless messages.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can stick an encryption chip in there to encrypt/decrypt each message as it is sent/received. Oh, by the way you can use the caller's number and the callees'number and the date&time as part of choosing the encryption password. Oh, and according to the patent this is not an "encryption chip", it is a "discombobulation device".

My oppinion: I say we give this guy a patent on the NAME "discombobulation device", it's the most inventive thing in there.

VALID patent test #4:

Presumably prior state of the art: I don't know, something like 'wheels work better if you make them more round' I guess.

The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can brighten a dark photograph by scanning it and multiplying and reprinting it.

My oppinion: Did I mention that the UK Patent office were morons?

VALID patent test #5:

Presumabl

I was at one of the UKPO workshops and we were promised a full report. The UKPO has now put the report on the workshops on the web as a PDF.
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/eurocom p/full_report.pdf

The UKPO clearly state that the purpose of the exercise from their perspective was to "find a definition that fits the current [case] law" -
sounds a lot like "decide what you want and make the facts conform afterwards".

2. The UKPO at least admit that none of the definitions - including the one in the Directive that the Council want to force through - actually fit even that limited remit.

This was inevitable and everyone on the FFII lists knew this in advance - nobody actually WANTS what the UKPO want. We need a change in the law and that can only come from supporting the European Parliament amendments and pushing for a complete restart of the entire directive.

Write again to that MP and point out that the government's own statements on software patents are NOT compatible with the results of the UKPO's own workshops. The government does need to reconsider and it does need to support the Parliament amendments. The UK government is under the impression that the directive maintains the status quo and they must now see that the workshops have blown that away. The UK government has said that it does NOT want to allow more than what is currently practiced by the UKPO and the UKPO themselves recognise that the current definition does NOT match that practice.

The Directive, as it currently stands, is MORE PERMISSIVE than the current law. The UKPO have NOT accepted this as their position on the directive, it is merely the opinion of those at the workshops. We need to drive home the message that the UKPO's own workshops showed that their recommendation, as embodied within the Directive, does NOT maintain the status quo - in direct
contravention of everything the UKPO has published on the Directive. The Directive, if passed in the version proposed by the EU Council, WILL move the
balance in FAVOUR of more software patents AND give ALL existing software patents the full force of European law. Additionally, a whole raft of NEW areas will also become patentable. "technical contribution" is a smoke-screen - it means absolutely nothing.

I'm not sure about the legal status in either US or AU, but over here in the UK, the government is specifically exempt from patent law. That's right: patents do not apply to the government, they can use your patented invention for any government related purpose they choose.

Use of patented inventions for services of the Crown

55.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, any government department and any person authorised in writing by a government department may, for the services of the Crown [..] do any of the following acts [...] without the consent of the proprietor of the patent [...]

(a) (i) make, use, import or keep the product [etc.]

-- Patents Act 1977, as amended

I would expect other countries to have similar provisions in their own implementations.

This link shows that The Register is trademarked in the UK.

"The Register" is a UK-based company, and therefore doesn't have to deal with US trademark law (for the most part). The link above is their trademark application with the UK trademark office.

According to the FAQ, the use of "TM" in the UK is acceptable without having registered the trademark with the registrar. And according to the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is illegal to use the "Registered" trade mark symbol (the R with a circle) unless it is, in fact, registered.

So The Register is officially allowed to use the "registered" symbol based on their trademarked status. And of course it makes for a great double entendre when used at the end of an article.

So no, you're not daft. But now you're probably a bit better informed. ;-)

This link shows that The Register is trademarked in the UK.

"The Register" is a UK-based company, and therefore doesn't have to deal with US trademark law (for the most part). The link above is their trademark application with the UK trademark office.

According to the FAQ, the use of "TM" in the UK is acceptable without having registered the trademark with the registrar. And according to the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is illegal to use the "Registered" trade mark symbol (the R with a circle) unless it is, in fact, registered.

So The Register is officially allowed to use the "registered" symbol based on their trademarked status. And of course it makes for a great double entendre when used at the end of an article.

So no, you're not daft. But now you're probably a bit better informed. ;-)

Actually, if I remember correctly (and really can't be bothered trawling through UK copyright law right now, so sorry for lack of a link), the UK's copyright laws don't have an provision for copying for personal use. Doing a very quick search, this seems to have a good summary:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyri ght.htm

See "But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?" specifically.

Sucks, doesn't it.

I would be the last to defend the UK Patent Office's handling of this directive. In this case, however, you are being too harsh. The workshops are open to the public - if you want to see the suggestions, register.

I noticed a couple of interesting links on the UK Patent Office website that seem to pertain to that consultation exercise: Government Conclusions and Consultation Responses from citizens and industry.