Slashdot Mirror

Almost all applications for an ITC import ban are rejected:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission

But that's not the point. For a number of weeks or months, there's a cloud hanging over the target company and investors don't know if a device will ever be on sale in the USA. It's serious FUD, for free.

An actual import ban would just be monopolist icing on the FUD cake.

I started reading this thread hoping for actual examples of prior art, but the examples people are mentioning aren't actually prior art (or infringing) unless they do everything in one of the independent claims, including stuff like "modifying the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon that is not displayed in the corresponding application user interface when there is no ongoing phone call". I'd still love to see examples of prior art, but it looks like it's fairly easy to work around this patent.

In the future, it may be useful to read the following or something equivalent:
Andrew Tridgell on Patent Defence for FOSS Developers

it's OK for HTC to use frivolous patent lawsuits and injunction requests to try and destroy another company.

Who said anything about destroy Apple? Some dude called Steve Jobs did say something about destroying Android..

HTC didn't start the war and they are still willing to negotiate and settle the legal issues, hell they even paid off Microsoft's extortion racket, I bet they would even pay Apple for their ridiculous patents.

So if Apple were to assert that HTC attacked first by blatantly ripping off Apple's inventions, and that Apple was merely "retaliating" against HTC by asserting their legal property rights, you would defend Apple?

No I wouldn't, because Apple's 'inventions' are mostly trivial and/or have tonnes of prior art e.g. slide to unlock, multi touch

It's not for you to decide whether a patent is trivial or ridiculous. From reading other comments, most Slashbots don't even know the details of the patent, let alone the subtleties of patent law.

That's the biggest load of crap I ever read. When the words of patent lawyers and Florian Muller count for everything and those of John Carmack and Linus Torvalds count for nothing, we are truly f##ked. And by we I mean the west, and especially the U.S. because China and the rest of Asia will go on without being encumbered by such stupidity. I have read and tried to understand more than enough of these patents and the words of patent lawyers to know that what you're spreading is pure FUD. You're insulting the intelligence of people on slashdot by trying to tell them that a software patent on a simple algorithm or process is beyond their comprehension because it is clouded in pages of incomprehensible legalese and entirely superfluous details (e.g. describing the inner working of an operating system and the mobile device which have no bearing on the funcitonality described)--that stuff is to fool the morons in the patent office (and the people who approve these patents are morons, I don't care if they are overworked underpaid morons, they're morons) and the courts. It doesn't fool us.

From the point of view of technological progress, proposing the use of 20-year old technology is shameful, but it really is the only solution. (until software patents get abolished)

This was also suggested by Nokia during the html5 standard discussion of the video tag:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Use_software_and_functionality_from_20_years_ago

And remember, this problem is caused not by trolls but by the MPEG-LA signatories: Columbia University, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute of Korea (ETRI), France Télécom, Fujitsu, LG Electronics, Matsushita (Panasonic), Mitsubishi, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Philips, Robert Bosch GmbH, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and Victor Company of Japan (JVC).

It has to be remembered that IBM is one of the biggest pro-software-patent lobby groups in the world.

In the US Bilski case, they submitted a brief saying that free software needed software patents!

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Fake_representatives_of_free_software#IBM

Technically, that's saying that the growth of free software was result of the mandatory disclosure of software patents. So, instead of "free software needs software patents," their argument was "free software wouldn't have grown to where it is today absent software patents." Minor but important difference... But yeah, IBM is pro-patent.

It has to be remembered that IBM is one of the biggest pro-software-patent lobby groups in the world.

In the US Bilski case, they submitted a brief saying that free software needed software patents!

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Fake_representatives_of_free_software#IBM

I saw them personally in the EU lobbying from 2003-2005 where they pushed with all their might for software patents.

And then recently, when New Zealand announced it would legislate to clarify that software *isn't* patentable, who stepped in to kneel on the government? IBM (with MS).

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/23/0235248/new-zealand-u-turns-will-grant-software-patents

So, yeh, I'd be happy if all patent trolls disappeared tomorrow, but trolls aren't even the biggest problem, and the existence of the whole problem is in a large part due to IBM.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/More_than_trolls
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM

It has to be remembered that IBM is one of the biggest pro-software-patent lobby groups in the world.

In the US Bilski case, they submitted a brief saying that free software needed software patents!

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Fake_representatives_of_free_software#IBM

I saw them personally in the EU lobbying from 2003-2005 where they pushed with all their might for software patents.

And then recently, when New Zealand announced it would legislate to clarify that software *isn't* patentable, who stepped in to kneel on the government? IBM (with MS).

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/23/0235248/new-zealand-u-turns-will-grant-software-patents

So, yeh, I'd be happy if all patent trolls disappeared tomorrow, but trolls aren't even the biggest problem, and the existence of the whole problem is in a large part due to IBM.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/More_than_trolls
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM

It has to be remembered that IBM is one of the biggest pro-software-patent lobby groups in the world.

In the US Bilski case, they submitted a brief saying that free software needed software patents!

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Fake_representatives_of_free_software#IBM

I saw them personally in the EU lobbying from 2003-2005 where they pushed with all their might for software patents.

And then recently, when New Zealand announced it would legislate to clarify that software *isn't* patentable, who stepped in to kneel on the government? IBM (with MS).

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/23/0235248/new-zealand-u-turns-will-grant-software-patents

So, yeh, I'd be happy if all patent trolls disappeared tomorrow, but trolls aren't even the biggest problem, and the existence of the whole problem is in a large part due to IBM.

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/More_than_trolls
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM

The US-ITC rejects almost all such requests, so this is no surprise and doesn't necessarily mean the case has collapsed.

Some patent holders surely use these procedures just to smear product developers and scare investors - in the hope of a easy cash settlement.

More about the ITC:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission

Mono has its uses - it could help people remove .Net dependencies from their software packages.

But for new software packages, choosing a Microsoft technology is a mistake. Microsoft calls free software an enemy - "cancer" to be "extinguished", so building on their technologies is folly, especially when there are lots of non-Microsoft languages and frameworks that we can use. The problems of software patents are only getting worse, so we need to prepare for the future by applying some caution today.

I hope this is indeed the real reason for taking Mono-dependent software out of Ubuntu.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Mono

The document in that case would be the patent(s) that Oracle holds.

Patents don't contain field of use restrictions by themselves, so for now we can't say that OpenJDK contains field of use restrictions.

Isn't that the same thing, ultimately? I mean, if Oracle says "this is free and open, but if you use it in firmware of your mobile device, we'll sue you over this patent" - isn't that effectively restricting the field of use?

Definitely, but this is not happening now. You can speculate that this might happen in the future (as you could do with *any* open source product at this point - Android, WebM, SQLite, Apache...) but in the case of OpenJDK, this would violate the GPLv2.

Well, the wording is definitely very vague, and it doesn't even explicitly mention patents (hence "implicit"). Apparently, some lawyers think that it's rather limited in scope.

Well, 3 x = 6 means that x = 2 only implicitly, but this doesn't make it less true :) . Above all, no lawyer seem to doubt the fact that the GPLv2 patent grant covers the users of the product itself in the USA, due to the estoppel thing. The doubts are whether the grant covers derived works (thus it's not a problem for OpenJDK itself), or over its validity in countries other than the USA which require an explicit declaration for patent grants (but this has not been proven in court yet).

Interestingly enough, even if Stallman's opinion holds true, it would only apply to implementations derived from OpenJDK - any clean room reimplementation (such as Harmony) would run afoul of the patents, as the grant would not apply to it.

Exactly. This is a problem for other implementations, not for OpenJDK.

Because there is no document by Oracle specifying "field of use" restrictions for OpenJDK. The only license applied to OpenJDK is GPLv2, and GPLv2 does not contain field of use restrictions.

The document in that case would be the patent(s) that Oracle holds.

We were talking about field of use restrictions, not patents.

Isn't that the same thing, ultimately? I mean, if Oracle says "this is free and open, but if you use it in firmware of your mobile device, we'll sue you over this patent" - isn't that effectively restricting the field of use?

Anyway, GPLv2 does include an implicit patent grant in section 6. In the intentions of the GPL authors, sections 6 and 7 were expressly meant to prevent a patent owner from limiting the redistribution of software he had licensed under the GPL. Whether the specific wording they used is lawyer-proof in every country of the globe or not, I'm not qualified to tell.

Well, the wording is definitely very vague, and it doesn't even explicitly mention patents (hence "implicit"). Apparently, some lawyers think that it's rather limited in scope.

Interestingly enough, even if Stallman's opinion holds true, it would only apply to implementations derived from OpenJDK - any clean room reimplementation (such as Harmony) would run afoul of the patents, as the grant would not apply to it.

One small problem, the Australian research organisation know as the CSIRO owns the patents covering most of the functionality of WiFI

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/CSIRO_wifi_patent

From TFS:

The only good news to come from all of this, says blogger Brian Proffitt, is that we may be headed for a courtroom showdown over just what patents Microsoft believes are in violation, which really is what should have happened to begin with.

I completely disagree with the idea that the first thing you should do in a patent dispute is to take someone to court. Look at the difference between Apple and Microsoft as far as Samsung is concerned. In the case of Apple, Samsung has been taken to court in various districts around the world and has been prevented from selling some of their products at all in certain countries. Suit has met with counter-suit, and lots of lawyers have got just a bit fatter. This will either end with Samsung having to scrap their product line, or settle this all out of court with some deal. Either way it will cost them a bundle.

On the other hand, Microsoft negotiated a deal, during which time Samsung was not prevented from selling their products anywhere. The end result is still a deal with another company, but without the cost and PR problems that lawsuits generate.

Why should the former be the preferred option? Yes, more details on the patents would be appreciated but the companies involved with these deals must be given more information, otherwise they would not make the deals. I imagine a lot of the patents would be the absurd type, just like Apple's patents in the Dutch case. But I am sure that some of their patents (VFAT, ActiveSync) would stand up in court though.

You can read the patent and judge for yourself. The abstract is as follows:

Systems and methods for increasing the execution speed of virtual machine instructions for a function are provided. A portion of the virtual machine instructions of the function are compiled into native machine instructions so that the function includes both virtual and native machine instructions. Execution of the native machine instructions may be accomplished by overwriting a virtual machine instruction of the function with a virtual machine instruction that specifies execution of the native machine instructions. Additionally, the original virtual machine instruction may be stored so that the original virtual machine instructions can be regenerated.

The complete list of patent claims made by Oracle is available at this wiki.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents

This is pretty generally know if you've been following Java, but since you ask:

The Java Runtime license states:

"Software embedded in or bundled with industrial control systems, wireless mobile telephones, wireless handheld devices, kiosks, TV/STB, Blu-ray Disc devices, telematics and network control switching equipment, printers and storage management systems, and other related systems are excluded from this definition and not licensed under this Agreement."

As for the open source release, that's covered under the Java Language Spec patent grant.

That only covers fully-conforming versions, not sub or supersets.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents

It was Sun's intention to give Java away on the desktop, and charge for embedded use.

But I have yet to see a rational argument for why physical inventions but not virtual inventions should be patentable.

There are lots of clear rational arguments against software patents

Freedom of speech;

Software source code is a form of Speech; it is a method of communication from one programmer to another about mathematical concepts and their usage. Free software, in particular (though probably not most "Open Source" software) is often political speech. As such, under the UN Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution of the USA, it is the most highly protected form of free speech. Software patents attempt to interfere with that and are clearly criminal.

mathematics / algorithms

A program is; simply; a large integer. Running a program is, exactly running a series of mathematical operations on that large integer. Mathematics is explicitly recognised as non patentable in most patent regimes.

A similar argument can be stated in terms of algorithms. Software patents always claim a "method and aparatus". The reason for this that a pure algorithm is recognized as not patentable, only things with

the nature of software development

Software is developed differently from bridges electronics and other areas of physical engineering. In other areas we much more start with a design, apply known techniques and get to a given end. New forms of bridges come out of separate explicit research where prototypes are built and actual work is done separately from the development process. This means that advances come more slowly and explicitly from research to development. In software, every new software development effort includes and should include new ideas explicitly. Once these ideas are developed it is very easy to package them up into libraries and make them available. The same ideas are re-invented repeatedly. At the same time, it is almost unheard of for a software developer to benefit from reading a software patent. Finally, a bridge builder will probably take days or weeks to consider a single idea. A programmer will probably use a hundred patentable ideas in a single day. The only reason that the programmer is able to work at all is that software patents are a new idea so 99.9% of those ideas will already have been used by someone else. In other areas, a patent search taking several days may be done for every new idea.

• there is no need for patents because ideas are continually re-invented;
• software ideas are cheap; the loss of one single new idea is not a big worry
• patents do not provide the benefit they should to the software development process.
• software can be developed by home developers who can't afford patent lawyers.
• the cost of patents to software development is much higher than to other areas
• handling software patents properly would need 1000 lawyers for every programmer

I'm not nearly the first person to put these forward. If you haven't heard them before, then you might want to have a look at Groklaw, the league for programming freedom. There is a long list of reasons given on the end software patents web site.

They are doing everything in their power to damage Linux in the marketplace.
They are threating manufacturers actively using litigation to increase the cost of deploying Linux on a device/computer above that of Windows. This is a sleazy tactic but Microsoft is proving itself to be one of the sleaziest companies in tech right now.

The racket goes like this. Microsoft enters your store/shop/company
Microsoft: "You know, Its a dangerous neighborhood around here. You need some protection."
You: "Protection? From who?"
Microsoft: "Well.. from us mainly... IF you fail to get protection from us then you will feel the full wrath of our boys in our legal department."
Microsoft: "Oh and by the way. The specifics of our protection deal is under NDA. You cannot talk about it got it?
You: :-O

Filing a complaint at the US ITC is now part of the standard arsenal for software patent lawyers. Actual bans are very rare, a Qualcomm phone ban is the only one I remember, and the ITC has also said explicitly that bans are only possible at the request of product developers, not trolls.

That said, in terms of stock prices, market confidence etc. filing a complaint at the ITC is probably a win in itself in this legal system that encourages competitors to shoot each other rather than out-do each other.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation

Filing a complaint at the US ITC is now part of the standard arsenal for software patent lawyers. Actual bans are very rare, a Qualcomm phone ban is the only one I remember, and the ITC has also said explicitly that bans are only possible at the request of product developers, not trolls.

That said, in terms of stock prices, market confidence etc. filing a complaint at the ITC is probably a win in itself in this legal system that encourages competitors to shoot each other rather than out-do each other.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Phone_patent_litigation

I've added them to the list:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_distributors_paying_Microsoft_patent_tax

The costs being passed on is bad enough, but it's also worrying to note that these deals include an implied admission by the signees that they need MS's permission for the distribution of their products.

That means MS can cancel their business at any time, and it implies that no one else can develop for that platform without MS's permission.

To slashdotters, this may be "duh" science, but it's really important to have this on paper when we talk to judges and legislators. Otherwise, we're left explaining the problems and hoping that the legislator will agree that our logic is "obviously" correct.

Bessen also co-authored Patent Failure with Michael Meurer and a previous study An Empirical Look at Software Patents, along with Robert Hunt.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Studies_on_economics_and_innovation
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/James_Bessen
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/An_Empirical_Look_at_Software_Patents

To slashdotters, this may be "duh" science, but it's really important to have this on paper when we talk to judges and legislators. Otherwise, we're left explaining the problems and hoping that the legislator will agree that our logic is "obviously" correct.

Bessen also co-authored Patent Failure with Michael Meurer and a previous study An Empirical Look at Software Patents, along with Robert Hunt.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Studies_on_economics_and_innovation
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/James_Bessen
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/An_Empirical_Look_at_Software_Patents

To slashdotters, this may be "duh" science, but it's really important to have this on paper when we talk to judges and legislators. Otherwise, we're left explaining the problems and hoping that the legislator will agree that our logic is "obviously" correct.

Bessen also co-authored Patent Failure with Michael Meurer and a previous study An Empirical Look at Software Patents, along with Robert Hunt.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Studies_on_economics_and_innovation
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/James_Bessen
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/An_Empirical_Look_at_Software_Patents

This is a real problem - much bigger than the usual story we hear about some big corporation maybe having to pay some amount of money.

Software, to be useful, *has to* be compatible with other software - exactly compatible for data formats, and a degree of similarity is needed in terms of interface and behaviour.

This is the real problem, and it can't be fixed by "reform" or higher standards (which are much talked about but never come).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Interoperability_exceptions
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_with_neither_litigation_nor_threats
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patenting_around_what_will_become_essential

This is a real problem - much bigger than the usual story we hear about some big corporation maybe having to pay some amount of money.

Software, to be useful, *has to* be compatible with other software - exactly compatible for data formats, and a degree of similarity is needed in terms of interface and behaviour.

This is the real problem, and it can't be fixed by "reform" or higher standards (which are much talked about but never come).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Interoperability_exceptions
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_with_neither_litigation_nor_threats
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patenting_around_what_will_become_essential

This is a real problem - much bigger than the usual story we hear about some big corporation maybe having to pay some amount of money.

Software, to be useful, *has to* be compatible with other software - exactly compatible for data formats, and a degree of similarity is needed in terms of interface and behaviour.

This is the real problem, and it can't be fixed by "reform" or higher standards (which are much talked about but never come).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Interoperability_exceptions
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_with_neither_litigation_nor_threats
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patenting_around_what_will_become_essential

This is a real problem - much bigger than the usual story we hear about some big corporation maybe having to pay some amount of money.

Software, to be useful, *has to* be compatible with other software - exactly compatible for data formats, and a degree of similarity is needed in terms of interface and behaviour.

This is the real problem, and it can't be fixed by "reform" or higher standards (which are much talked about but never come).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Interoperability_exceptions
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_with_neither_litigation_nor_threats
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patenting_around_what_will_become_essential

This is a fourth rebranding of the proposed Patent Reform Act. Deckchairs get rearranged but there is little substance to all this and none of the driving forces have computer users in mind.

Some procedures get changed to make X more efficient and to improve quality sometimes for Y.

None of this solves the software patents problem in the USA. The software patents problem *isn't* caused by some bad apple applications slipping through the procedures. The problem is that software has to conform to standards (interfaces and data formats), and these are being covered by thickets of patents.

If there's 900 patents on something (i.e. mpeg), then weeding out the worst 10% changes nothing.

We need abolition, and we need Congress's support in this. The current Supreme Court has shown itself to be reluctant regarding substantial changes to law, and even if we won there, if we have no support in Congress then our victory would be wiped out by a legislative change.

Yes, do work on this proposal. Work to get software clearly excluded - you have to keep trying if you want to have a chance. But don't get overexcited. This is unlikely to be a big turning point - that is, of course, unless you get active and make it happen.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/The_Patent_Reform_Act_(USA)
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

This is a fourth rebranding of the proposed Patent Reform Act. Deckchairs get rearranged but there is little substance to all this and none of the driving forces have computer users in mind.

Some procedures get changed to make X more efficient and to improve quality sometimes for Y.

None of this solves the software patents problem in the USA. The software patents problem *isn't* caused by some bad apple applications slipping through the procedures. The problem is that software has to conform to standards (interfaces and data formats), and these are being covered by thickets of patents.

If there's 900 patents on something (i.e. mpeg), then weeding out the worst 10% changes nothing.

We need abolition, and we need Congress's support in this. The current Supreme Court has shown itself to be reluctant regarding substantial changes to law, and even if we won there, if we have no support in Congress then our victory would be wiped out by a legislative change.

Yes, do work on this proposal. Work to get software clearly excluded - you have to keep trying if you want to have a chance. But don't get overexcited. This is unlikely to be a big turning point - that is, of course, unless you get active and make it happen.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/The_Patent_Reform_Act_(USA)
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

This is a fourth rebranding of the proposed Patent Reform Act. Deckchairs get rearranged but there is little substance to all this and none of the driving forces have computer users in mind.

Some procedures get changed to make X more efficient and to improve quality sometimes for Y.

None of this solves the software patents problem in the USA. The software patents problem *isn't* caused by some bad apple applications slipping through the procedures. The problem is that software has to conform to standards (interfaces and data formats), and these are being covered by thickets of patents.

If there's 900 patents on something (i.e. mpeg), then weeding out the worst 10% changes nothing.

We need abolition, and we need Congress's support in this. The current Supreme Court has shown itself to be reluctant regarding substantial changes to law, and even if we won there, if we have no support in Congress then our victory would be wiped out by a legislative change.

Yes, do work on this proposal. Work to get software clearly excluded - you have to keep trying if you want to have a chance. But don't get overexcited. This is unlikely to be a big turning point - that is, of course, unless you get active and make it happen.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/The_Patent_Reform_Act_(USA)
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

Making them 3 years would solve many many problems.

But, the TRIPS agreement says patents have to last 20 years.

However, the TRIPS agreement doesn't say that software has to be patentable. So countries could declare that software isn't patentable, and then create some new legal thingy called "petents", and say that petents last 3 years and that software innovations can be petented.

This would be hard work because some countries (USA for example) push the idea that TRIPS requires software patents.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/TRIPS

Really, shortening the duration would be as much work, and there's always the risk that the monopolists will find some other nasty clause to stick in to make 3-year petents really harmful.

Let's just go for abolition. It will take time, but it's the only practical solution.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents

Making them 3 years would solve many many problems.

But, the TRIPS agreement says patents have to last 20 years.

However, the TRIPS agreement doesn't say that software has to be patentable. So countries could declare that software isn't patentable, and then create some new legal thingy called "petents", and say that petents last 3 years and that software innovations can be petented.

This would be hard work because some countries (USA for example) push the idea that TRIPS requires software patents.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/TRIPS

Really, shortening the duration would be as much work, and there's always the risk that the monopolists will find some other nasty clause to stick in to make 3-year petents really harmful.

Let's just go for abolition. It will take time, but it's the only practical solution.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents

This may help or slightly harm the situation.

We have a problem with thickets of patents, like the 900+ patents in the MPEG LA portfolio. Weeding out a few here and there will not help.

In the 90s, there were problems with single patents (public key crypto, LZW, etc.), but corporations nowadays don't gamble their monopolies on single patents. They use thickets.

The USA have been trying peer-to-patent, but there's no visible change in the patent problem there. What we need, for software, is abolition.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_review_by_the_public
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Raising_examination_standards_wouldn't_fix_much

This may help or slightly harm the situation.

We have a problem with thickets of patents, like the 900+ patents in the MPEG LA portfolio. Weeding out a few here and there will not help.

In the 90s, there were problems with single patents (public key crypto, LZW, etc.), but corporations nowadays don't gamble their monopolies on single patents. They use thickets.

The USA have been trying peer-to-patent, but there's no visible change in the patent problem there. What we need, for software, is abolition.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_review_by_the_public
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Raising_examination_standards_wouldn't_fix_much

I'll add them to the lis:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_distributors_paying_Microsoft_patent_tax ...actually, HTC started paying MS back in April 2010:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dOa4j5g0dXYJ:www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/apr10/04-27mshtcpr.mspx

If you want a permissive licence, use the Apache 2.0 licence.

FSF's doc says this.

I concur. Apache serves the purpose that permissive licences can serve, plus it contains patent protections:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License

The discussion of software patents focusses way too much on court cases and big companies.

Companies have all sorts of expenses, and trolls is another. Some companies (particularly big ones) can afford that.

The real harm is when standards are ruined, or whole fiels (ex: video), or when SMEs and small developers are forced to stop distributing their software (or when they don't even start, since they know it would be doomed).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/More_than_trolls

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents

The discussion of software patents focusses way too much on court cases and big companies.

Companies have all sorts of expenses, and trolls is another. Some companies (particularly big ones) can afford that.

The real harm is when standards are ruined, or whole fiels (ex: video), or when SMEs and small developers are forced to stop distributing their software (or when they don't even start, since they know it would be doomed).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/More_than_trolls

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents

The discussion of software patents focusses way too much on court cases and big companies.

Companies have all sorts of expenses, and trolls is another. Some companies (particularly big ones) can afford that.

The real harm is when standards are ruined, or whole fiels (ex: video), or when SMEs and small developers are forced to stop distributing their software (or when they don't even start, since they know it would be doomed).

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/More_than_trolls

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Audio-video_patents

It's not so clear. There's still a cloud over C# and .NET implementations not from MS. See Here..

It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org/ and http://progfree.org./ This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

Miguel says everything is cool so you are wrong and we have nothing to fear. Ever. EVAR !

It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org/ and http://progfree.org./ This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.

The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.

We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible. In other words, we should discourage people from writing programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions or in their principal ways of installing GNOME, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible.

> Unfortunately, this is not allowed under TRIPS.

TRIPS is no problem. TRIPS says that computer programs are to be considered literary works.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/TRIPS

TRIPS says that patents have to be granted for inventions in "any field of technology", but there's no definition of this term, and if computer programs are literature and stories aren't patentable, then computer programs are not patentable under TRIPS.

Further, a general principal of law is that international treaties that restrict sovereignty are to be interpreted narrowly. Trying to stretch TRIPS to include software is not only incorrect but it's also against this general principal of law.

The pro-swpat lobbyists mostly try the "TRIPS says" trick when they're talking to people who they think won't read the text.

I'm not a fan of software=math arguments, but an example of their value is in the US Supreme Court's "Flook" ruling:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook_(1978,_USA)

That's the starting point I'd use if I had to argue based on software being math, but I'd rather not rely on that.

Being equal to math isn't the reason why software patents are a problem for society. Blocking software development, forcing incompatibility, stifling competition, and being incompatible with the development models (lots of individuals and SMEs write software) and certain popular distributions models (freeware, free software) are the reasons, and we should focus on them.

If we say software=math, the court could say that only some software is math, and then patent drafters just have to formulate their claims such that they fit the court's definition of non-just-math software. It's not a path to victory.

If software developers are prohibited from decoding your video format, the result is incompatibility.

Some people would indeed love to have a monopoly, and would spend millions for it, but these monopolies are simply not in the public interest. They're impeding software development and blocking interoperability.

There are more reasons here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents

I've collected various examples of this argument here:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_is_math

However, you have to remember that this is *not* the end of the discussion (or at best, this will result in this one patent getting invalidated or narrowed).

When faced with "software=math" arguments, judges still argue that *applications* of math to real world problems can be patentable.

What we need is legislation saying that writing, distributing, selling, and using software cannot constitute a patent violation.

Actually, to be patent independent does NOT "require significant differences in their implementation". They just need to avoid or invalidate the patent claims, which are often really narrow. For more information, see Andrew Tridgell on Patent Defence. Which is why the statement that "VP8 is similar to H264" can be both true and a non-problem.

You're the idiot here,

I'll take that as a compliment.

What the patent requires is that you have at some point during the processing one blob of data containing only the text and another distinct blob of data containing the formatting information and referring to the chunks of text to which it applies by their position.

Read the claims man, that's what matters. If you don't know how to read claims, here is a good overview. The formatting data doesn't need to be 'binary', it can be xml tags.

It's actually quite hard to get a patent covering XML-based office documents full stop because there's just so much prior art;

Riight, because nothing with prior art ever makes it through the patent office. Do you realize that the whole point of this case is how much prior art (and similar considerations) matters in attempts to invalidate patents? We have a 'one-click purchase' patent, we have a 'playing with a cat using a laser pointer' patent, and you are saying it is hard to get something covering XML through the patent office?