Slashdot Mirror
UK: Software And Business Methods Not Patentable
horza writes: "The conclusion of the UK government consultation on whether software and business methods should be patentable, as they are in the US, are that software and business methods are not patentable. Britain will be pushing for the EU directive to match UK law."
Why is it always assumed slavery was the cause of the civil war? The Confederates thought they were fighting for states rights to govern themselves, not just slavery. Since they had an agriculture base, but no manufacturing, they were sorta doomed from the get-go. Glad they lost..I am a Catholic son of immigrants from a slavic country. Not a winning combo in many southerners opinion...
Your comments are right on because software is the expression of an idea.
UML, flow-charts, etc, are considered easier to read by some people, but they are just expressions of the same thing. The CASE driven software development method is proof of this. (E.g., In the higher end tools you are programming by drawing diagrams!)
It is not only a hard problem to draw the line between idea and solution in software: it is impossible. At last a first-world government is recognizing this at the expense of the entrenched business interests. I don't know how this happened, but I like it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
When people speak of the 1-click patent, they may not completely grasp how generic and broad it is. It's not only about a method of buying something with a single click -- it's about obvious use of cookies and certain other techniques, for which prior art most certainly exists.
Whenever such patents are issued, the public blames the very idea of patent, instead of the real target, obviously the patent office, a.k.a. the guys short of common sense.
A so-called patent reform doesn't need to change the laws regarding patents. They're fine. The current concept of patents, when correctly applied, should bring all the benefits usually associated to it (that applies to software as well; for instance, look at the RSA patent.) The public must realize the ones to blame for the state of patents today are: those who approve applications that don't fit in the definition of patent, and judges who enforce them -- as I pointed out, people in desperate need of common sense.
As a mind experiment, imagine a world stripped of all stupid patents (not restricted to software); would you still complain about the current patent law?
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
Efficient network of rails? Uh, have you been abroad for the apt 60 years?
Still, it's nice to see the UK serving as a role model for others, a role normally enjoyed by France.
Cesse de fumer le crack.
How is locking people out of doing stuff (Ie patenting) protecting rights of the individual? Ok so maybe where back into + versus - Rights world again (freedom to versus freedom from), but the whole concept of patents has been perverted to buggery.
Ok, so while I can understand a certain form of algorithmic inventiveness as been "invention" , the fact that almost all programmers are inventors of sorts virtually guarantees that prior art will almost always be there, even if it's just in a nutty little one off office app or even in some dudes head ("Hey wouldn't it be great if app x did function y").
Business practicess should NEVER be patentable, because business tends to flow towards 'how do we get to point a from point b'. In this respect, if point c lies on that line , many businesses will *intuitively* flow though it. Patenting point c makes that transition from A to B non bee-line, and thus limits competition if only one business is allowed to follow that path.
And to top it off, patents are a government thing. (You don't apply at the local 7-11 for one), thus it's govt limiting freedom to do things.
Oh, and I must admit, that as a irish-catholic ex-pat I'm a bit of a Fenian at times (it's ugly and I'm working on stopping the attitude), but I gotta admit it, The UK govt's got it sorted here.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Does the ruling cover sorting algorithms (sp?). I would think that the inventor of faster sort deserves some sort of money for all the work he did to create it.
As for your point "This would exclude any other individual or business from "thinking" the same way", it would make me look at the problem and do it differently, maybe even better.
Ranting:
We will are getting into way many problems if this rule keeps going on.
Now if this ruling stays into effect, I have a funny feeling that a trade war will start. What's to stop anybody from stealing the code (software).
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
If you look at Moore's Law why is this even surprizing? Without serveral business practices compounding exponentially why couldn't Moore simply rewrite his fabled law?
--
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Just because the control mechanism of a machine has moved from a purely physical implementation to an electronic one does not diminish the truth of its mechanical nature.
Let me paraphrase this: The fact that something is not physical does not dimish its physical nature.
My paraphrase sounds absurd, but that is exactly what the original sentence is saying.
I have two topically random thoughts:
1. Math is mechanical
2. Algorithms are mechanical
And it does not matter that they are mechanical.
Maybe patents are okay for things you can hold, but they are not okay for things you can think.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
The second reason there's a lot of opposition to patents is the fact they last 21 years, and in the computer industry, the landscape can drastically change in 6 months. In that light, software patents that last 21 years seems like overkill. Even the timespan it takes to get a patent approved -- sometimes several years, makes software patents hard to defend.
Another reason is a far more recent approach to patents -- that is the dishonesty some organizations have in suggesting something to a standards organization without disclosing that they have a patent that affects that same area. The most recent indication of this seems to be Rambus, Inc and the JEDEC forum, where Rambus didn't feel it was nessecary to inform participants of their pending patent on SDRAM, and DDR technologies.
The most frustrating part, however, is the fact that patents aren't usually used to help independent inventors. In most cases, patents are obtained by big businesses to either cripple their competition, or to raise the barrier to entry to prevent new competitors. Just look at the Unisys and LZW patent to see how this can be abused. They didn't bother to mention the patent until after it gained wide use. To dispel some of the fears of using the technology, they said they wouldn't seek royalties from free products using the technology. Later, when the patent was geting close to expiration, they decided it was time to try and extort $5,000 payments from people unfortunate enough to have LZW compressed GIF files on their site. To make things worse, they were completely within their rights to do all of this.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
"While its quite clear to you and I that algorithms are math, it just took one judge with no knowledge of math or computers to set a precedent."
IANAJWNKOMOC, and it's not at all clear to me that algorithms are math. In fact, I'm taking the position that alogrithms are NOT math, they are processes. What, after all, is an algorithm? It is a set of operations through which some task is performed. That sure sounds like a process to me. (In my earlier post, I said programs are machines. I stand by both statements.)
Now only to get the United States to do the same. I think that will be very hard because of all the patents already out there well we will see.
I would argue that all software patents aren't evil, and should be allowed, as should business method patents.
However, the problem lies in how the USPO (and similar institutions in other countries) seem to interpret an application for a patent on software/business method, and as to the defintion of what is patentable therein.
I think the basic starting point on this issue is to agree that the subject of a patent is the implimentation, not the idea . Allowing people to patent (and therefore gain exclusive use) of ideas is generally grokked to be a Bad Thing. However, it seems to be a Good Thing to allow for time-limited exclusive use of certain implimentations of those ideas.
The current problem with Business Method and Software patents in the US is that they've got it backwards - the USPO is now essentially granting patents on ideas. Go read bunch of the applications - its the idea they want exclusive use for, not the implimentation. The patent apps are so general that it can't even be hypothesized that the application is for an implimentation.
Therefore, I think we should allow patents on Software and Business Methods, but require them to fit these criteria:
I think of software patents as essentially enhanced copyright - the author has come up with a neat way to code a particular problem, and no-one else can use that code segment (even translated into another programming language) until the patent expires. But that should be the limit on software patents.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Anyone who thinks they need the support of armed police and federal agents, backing IP law, to make their living... then maybe you OUGHT to go broke. You exist at the expense of everyone else's freedom. You existance is too expensive.
Who is the other guy you pasted on?
Rate me on Picture-rate.com
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
(applause)
Very good analogy. That could be a starting point for an entire thesis on the subject of software patents.
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
He also needed a sidekick, like a talking dog. I'm sure after fasting for a few months, he may have been halluncinating and imagined a dog talking to him... "Eat me, Ghandi. I'm so plump and delicious! Eat me, Ghandi!"... but it's just not the same.
--
--
I like to watch.
"The math is not patented ..., but the software based on that math is."
Right. Math does not actually do anything; it's just a set of rules. When you create an algorithm, you are not making a mathematical expression, you are making a procedural one.
So, as I see it, you cannot patent the concept of an integral, but you can patent a specific algorithm for calculating one.
I maintain that an algorithm is precisely describes a specific process. Rewriting it in a different programming language is a trivial varition at best. On the other hand, I would maintain that changing the nesting order of loops could introduce enough novelty to be considered a different algorithm.
As for whether you can write a noninfringing GIF decoder, let's just say I'm unconvinced that Unisys' patent covers every conceivable way of interpreting those bits. I believe that there may be devised other, legitimately separate, algorithms to accomplish the same task.
...and, Americans' drive on the opisite side of the road to the British.
I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
No it won't.
Because if the UK company wants to _SELL_ anything in the US, it better comply with all the laws and regulations of the US.
And if you need an example: It is legal to sell crack in the Netherlands but if a company from Amsterdam wants to sell it to US...
Why, we in the USA do it best already! Why would we care how others do it? Just like those Brits, they drive on the wrong side of the road already...
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
anyone who wants a patent will patent it in another country, thus still protecting themselves in as much geographical area as possible..
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Yes! Finally, someone who sees that thought isn't a device to be patented! Copyrighted (as a written work, namely the code), yes, patented, no.
Now, let's hope they swing the EU their way. From there, the pressure for the US to finally get a clue ought to increase.
----------
Would you patent a book that you just wrote so somebody else doesn't write it? No, you would copyright it. The same goes for business methods, copyright them. Patents should be left to hardware.
[ ]
Well, at least we'll be able to see a nation with these practices in use. Then those of us in the States (or other countries) can see if it's actually any good.
"For success, it is essential you have Thunderball Fists." "I can have such a thing?" "That's right. Thunderball Fists."
"The fact that something is not physical does not dimish its physical nature."
I don't accept that as a valid paraphrase of what I said. Mechanical != physical. In my statement, mechanical refers to the fact that human control over a process is indirect. Mechanical as opposed to manual.
"1. Math is mechanical
2. Algorithms are mechanical "
I think math is intellectual, but algorithms are mechanical.
One difference between mechanical and software patents:
With a machine, you can take it apart and easily find out how it works, and build something thats exactly the same.
With software, it it usually compiled, and it is harder to find out exactly how it works without the source code.
Of course, you can rewrite the software, and it will do the same thing or close to it, but the underlying code could be far different.
--
I am not a lawyer but my sister is, so don't mess with me
Because germans didn't have gun shows. Several small resistance groups in germany did. Wy do we never hear about them? Because the gestapo was an VERY effiecient and effectice police force. Most of the resistance (tended to be bavarian roman-catholics, dunno why), ended up in concentration camps. Does the fact that resistance did not work make it wrong? No, just means you need more people with more firearms. America is now the most heavily armed populace in the world (firearms per capita). But we don't have the highest murder rate in the world (murders per capita). That honor goes to South Africa, with its official ANC ban on personal firearm ownership. Fancy that! Next highest is Colombia, with its friendly drug war/marxist guerrila war going on....
use htis for links... http://home.mia.net/~vwracer/index.html
Software and business methods represent the blood, sweat, and toil of hard-working individuals just as designs (which are patentable) do.
This is a terribly unfair decision, and one that is potentially damaging for businesses. In today's cut-throat economy, businesses need every competitive advantage they can muster. If any two-bit competitor is able to rob a company of all its hard work and R&D monies, companies that innovate will be forced out of business.
Unless software and business method patents are upheld, the future is filled with Microsofts. They operate by stealing the technology of other companies and then repackaging it as their own. Software and business method patents would stop this, and give the profits to the rightful creators.
I hope that the UK reconsiders this course of action.
- qpt
--
Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
Such as the BT patent on hyperlinking[1], for example? As the example shows, this has been going on for a long time.
It can only be good for us. We can compete against US companies in our home market, and they can't compete against us in their home market. Software patents are a bad thing. They are bad for software companies. Getting rid of them is good for software companies. This is a great victory (for which we in the UK software industry have campaigned hard), and the sooner the US follows our example, the better... for the US.
[1] yes, of course that patent should never have been granted... like all other software patents.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Technically true. However, the EU uses the "frog-boiling" method of recruitment, there are various stages of "integration," and while the Danes enjoy the trade benefits of the union, they have consistently voted down increased integration.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
As to cuisine, I'm from Northern Ireland and I'd swap all the pretentious crap the French and Italians serve up for a good Ulster-fry or a bowl of Irish-stew any day of the week.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Unfortunately, lots of dumb-ass patents are granted of the form "apply mathematical method a to problem b". This gives people a license to sue you if you apply method b to problem c, because the scope of a patent is not really defined well.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
their argument to patent software linked to technological devices: :
technological innovations should not cease to be patentable merely because the innovation lies in software."
but their problem
how to define the boundary determining when software is, and is not, part of a technological innovation
yes difficult to define if the software is part of a technological innovation where the innovation lies in the software!!!
You are confusing implementation with the idea/algorithm, as many here. What you patent when you patent a physical implementation is how the gas-pedal is built, the blueprint of a working implemention. Not just the orientation of the pedal. That means that there are many ways you can build a gas-pedal, without infringing on other's patents.
With sourcecode/algorithms, you have no such distinction, because it is so easily modified and expressible in any language. Therefore software patents can only patent the ideas/concepts, which is no good at all. They either get too broad or too narrow, and are therefore useless to furthering research in society.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
To quote from the conclusion: 19. 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. So they are saying that if you can claim technological innovation then you can patent software. Damn.
Is it just me or is the title of this article 50%wrong? There is nothing in that document that says the UK won't allow software patents (although it did say that it will disallow business method patents). As quoted:
... and technological innovations should not cease to be patentable merely because the innovation lies in software."
"19:
I see no way that this could be construed as saying software patents are forbidden.
No offence intended but that definition of an algorithm (as a process) is useless because the process changes when you add the smallest thing.
//do patented stuff
// make a different process
// do more patented stuff
do_patented_thing()
{
blah
if (FALSE) {}
}
different process, since the original never checked if false was true, and one of the main reasons recipies are not patentable.
Software is not math. Software is a machine.
Math is a set of abstract concepts that people find useful to apply when we want to model or understand something. Some of math is purely theoretical; an abstract exercise in probing the limits of a set of constraints. Other math is more concrete, used to describe an object, property or process. In this sense, the math only has meaning in that a person can make a mental correlation between the math and the real phenomenon.
By itself, Math is nothing. It's just a framework that people use for applying thought.
Software, on the other hand, does something. Its express purpose is to cause a human-built machine to perform a well-defined task. Some of the tasks performed by software exist primarily in the virtual realm (e.g., a program that locates prime numbers), while others directly affect the physical world (e.g., machine control software), and some are in between (e.g., banking and e-commerce).
In no case, however, is the software simply a set of abstract concepts intended to facilitate human navel-contemplation. Software explicitly describes a process that will take place on a machine under its control. Even an "abstract" algorithm assumes the existence of a defined set of machine instructions. Just because the control mechanism of a machine has moved from a purely physical implementation to an electronic one does not diminish the truth of its mechanical nature.
We allow the patenting of physical machines and industrial processes. (Whether we should is a question I don't intend to address.) Why should logical ones not receive equal protection?
As has been pointed out, that won't apply if someone from the US is browsing a website based in the UK and gets a product shipped out.
It would apply if the UK company actually had a US branch. But by the time you are a multinational company, you probably have the resources to check out patents and stuff more easily.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Your #1, "For Software, only the code that impliments the idea is protectable" is commonly known as "Copyright". We could do away completely with patent protection and code would still be eligible for copyright protection, and we'd have a lot less nonsense going on.
Another interpretation is that OSS has flourished precisely because of the rapidly tightening grip of corporate patents. As the range product and allowable use go down and prices go up, the market is reacting by moving to more free alternatives. It happens first at the leading edge, programmers, developers, scientific users, and later amongst hobbiest, enthusiasts and the curious. Certainly the normal rhetoric on Slashdot better supports this scenario.
What? You're talking about different things. How is the online UK store, operating in the UK, selling things "in the US?" If I am in the US and I buy something from the store, through a system that's patented or patentable in the US, I'm buying it "in the UK." They *ship* the _product_ to the US. The system and all its components reside in the UK, free from US scrutiny. And that's the rub. BRx.
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
By this logic, though, and I'm not saying I disagree with you: but, if all software boils down to mathematical operations -- why can you copyright them?
For example: if, we speak in such terms what prevents me from writing --
ab^2 x 69 / 3 = x
-- tacking "(c) 2001 BRx, All Rights Reserved." on it and of it, and poof! Now you can't copy it without my express writing permission?
Mathematics aren't patentable, I agree. But how are they any more copyrightable?
BRx.
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
but the fact remains that few would have qualms issuing the second patent.
The hell it does-- plenty of people would have qualms, if the only innovation is that it's different from an existing "press two button" solution in that it's a wider button set on top of them. There'd have to be more genius behind it than that.
....what is a 'stupid patent'? The Patent office perhaps? You mayby? Or how about Slashdot readers with karma > 50. BTW, if you were to invent a wonderful wooden widget, does that entitle you to have patent protection against someone else inventing 'wooden widgets', 'all widgets, wood or otherwise', 'all wood, widgets or otherwise'? Where do you draw the line. If you can't draw the line, then the law shouldn't be there in the first place.
I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
Really? So, if I understand your argument correctly, it would be OK for me as the inventor to patent PGP implemented in an ASIC, but I couldn't receive a patent if I implemented PGP in software?
This seems like an artificial dichotomy.
Note: no, I am not claiming that I invented PGP. This is an example!
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
And software patents should then be as automatic as copyright. It is completely non-obvious why you should own a patent on an obvious idea simply because you went to the patent office, while if you do not patent the idea, someone can describe inventions which incorporate the idea, and patent that.
This is exactly what the one-click patent does: the makers of cookies did not patent the idea, and Amazon did a single trivial step and patented the combination.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
As much as we may bitch and moan about how stupid the One-Click patent may be, is it so much different than an invention that allows one-button starting of a car?
In my opinion yes. 1-click shopping is blindingly obvious for a start. I implemented something exactly the same for a company I worked for before (AFAICR) Amazon implemented theirs (for digital works and not tangible goods, and from a prepaid account). And I didn't think I was doing anything new. For me it was a simple extension of the bar tab concept, and that has been around for hundreds of years.
Anyway, I'd be surprised at anything as broad as "one-button starting of a car" could be patented. Otherwise I would go to every country and patent a car being started by button press, RF, microwave, IR , etc.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Certain classes of weapons are illegal - principally fully automatic weapons and handguns. The ownership of shotguns and rifles is perfectly legal although a permit is required. There is also an age limit - 14 for shotguns (up to 16 now?) and 18 for rifles.
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
You can copyright your post. In most countries this is automatic. That does not stop me from quoting it within fair use, and it does not stop me from using the formula contained within the post. A patent would stop me from using that formula even if I invented it independently and could prove I never even read your post!
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
"16. The Government does not, however, accept the view - asserted by some respondents - that Open Source software is threatened by the existing extent of patentability. This seems to fly in the face of the facts, notably that during the last decade Open Source software has flourished."
Excuse me, but I find this blatantly stupid. I see NO positive causal link between the two - in the absence of proving no negative correlation, how can you POSSIBLY that OSS would have flourished LESS if patents simply didn't exist?
This is like saying that seatbelts cause more fatal accidents. After all, there has been an increase in the number of seatbelts in the US. Similarly, the number of fatalities has increased as well.
Who ever wrote this little piece of FUD needs a sharp thwack with a clue stick.
If you spend a year in your garage working on a project and come out with an innovative wooden widget you can walk to the patent office and obtain a 17 year monopoly on it. /.'ers propose that you shouldn't be able to patent it.
If on the other hand you spend a year in your garage developing some innovative thing that had not been done before, but happens to be in software, many
Having read the article, it seems that because you have actually innovated (and not in the microsoft way, either) you can patent this invention. Its when you are merely trying to patent software for the sake of software that it isn't allowed.
No, programme is for radio and TV, and is the original spelling.
Program is used for the computer industry.
So we get to distinguish between what people are writing about by the spelling. Personally I think it's an excellent system:
He creates programs, he works in computers
He creates programmes, he works in Radio/TV
Not so, my friend. The main office of the UKPO is in Newport, Gwent (South Wales). There is, however, a London branch office.
Not true. The software is not patentable but the technological innovation is. The criteria for the patent detailed here have not changed. It is saying that if the technological innovation must be implemented in software it should not be excluded. Very different from the software being patented. Personally I am very relieved, working for a small innovative software house, that the government has seen what has happened in the US and taken the best course of action. Now if only they will abolish the RIP bill...
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Somebody needs a lesson in causality. That statement is wrong in SO many ways, it makes my head hurt that people are buying it.
First, prove a causal link. THEN prove that the link is positive and not negative. You will be hard pressed to prove the first, let alone the second.
In fact you are. Is called copyright and it lasts a lot longer than 17 years....
In case you STILL haven't figured out how this statement is simply stupid, I have a few case studies for you to research.
1) LZW
2) RSA
3) Frauenhofer
Any of those sound familiar? If not, don't bother responding.
Congratulations to the British people, for having a bit of sanity in your judicial system.
Of course, there is still the matter of your ruinous taxes... And your native cuisine...
Never mind.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
A project to implement a royalty free, polished mp3 ripper.
A maintained copy of the newest Linux Kernels with the real time patches applied.
Anything Else? I know I'm forgeting some.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
O.K... admittedly.. I didn't read the whole article or follow any of the links... but I like what I *did* read. The benifit of reading my post here tho is that the information offered is possibly as "average" as you can get... or flat out wrong.... but as such at least is in rhythem with the general population.
... eat McDonalds everyday.... Only have StarBucks as a coffee house option..... among other "americanizations" that can be found everywhere here.
;)
I say... Go Britain. As an American I try to keep an eye out for things that I'm jaded about by just being an American. I.E...the realization you get that other contries don't celebrate Thanks Giving is cause for celebration here.
This patent issue... along with the EU / UK playing hardball with the US on privacy issues is great. Really I think it is. Seriously...if we all don't work together to stop my country.. (the US)... we will have zero privacy... pay for everything
Again... everything I've said could be wronge.... but my finger is on the heartbeat of America here
-minus
I am Jack's HTTP Server
No, the difference is, we've woken up to the fact that the patent game is a net drag on the economy and we're saying enough is enough. We've been through the aguments before - if you don't understand by now how patents suck the life out of the development process then you never will.
Can you give one example of a software patent that has tended to speed up progress in a given area instead of slowing it down? No, I didn't think so.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
There is a very important distinction between a SET of mathematical operations and a SEQUENCE of mathematical operations.
{Add, Sub, Mul, Div} is a set of mathematical operation, so is {And, Or, Not}. Naturally, a SET of mathematical operations should not be patentable since it is not a technological innovation.
a = 22 / 7 * r * r is a SEQUENCE of mathematical operation (in this case, to find the area of a circle). This sequence should be recognized as a technological innovation and thus patentable. However no portion of the patent laws prevent other inventors from finding BETTER mathematical sequences that calculates the area of a circle. In fact patent law is written to encourage this.
Having said this, I think current patent expiry date of 17 years is way too long considering that software moves at internet speeds. A 5-7 year expiry date for software patents would be a better option IMHO.
In fact, you arent. Copyright does not prevent anyone using the same plot devices.
For example, say I write a book about an asteroid knocking the moon out of orbit. If i patent that idea, nobody else can write a book about an asteroid knocking the moon out of orbit. If I copyright it, anyone can write their own book about it.
It was not a court decision but a government consultation, carried out by the patent office on behest of the government. In this country we have a powerful civil service, which is independant of any political party (and is secretly suspected by everyone of really running the country ;-)).
The way many of our laws are created is that the civil service invite comments from the public. These are then taken on board, summarised, and legislation drafted to suit our needs. This doesn't always work, with politicians using various techniques such as switching clauses they want to steamroller through at the last minute into small clauses in bills already going through etc, but often it works well. This UK law has been determined by myself and 285 other people that live, work and care passionately about both IT and the country we live in. Perhaps our DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) has read Frederick Brooke's "Mythical Man Month" and taken the tip from the software industry that the earlier you correct a mistake the cheaper and less painful it is?
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Copyright is not a Patent.
He used the plot devices as an example, i.e "Method by which an Elf fights a Troll and wins using a sword" If you could get a patent on that, then no book could use the idea of an Elf fighting a Troll using a sword, and winning.
Copyright is a diferent matter. It does protect the author from someone copying their work verbatim and passing it off as their own, but it certainly doesn't protect them from another author having a Troll/Elf fight with swords were the Elf is victorious, in their own book.
Get it now?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Indeed, but that applies equally to the wooden widget market. Yet you don't see anyone here complaining about the barriers to entry to the wooden widget market due to patents.
The second reason there's a lot of opposition to patents is the fact they last 21 years, and in the computer industry, the landscape can drastically change in 6 months. In that light, software patents that last 21 years seems like overkill.
I agree with this one. All this argues for is a smaller time lapse for software patents with which, again, I agree 100%. But again the solution to patents that last too long is not no patents whatsoever, but rather shorter patents for software (in the same spirit, but in opposite effect to patents which are *extended* for drugs with long clinic trials).
The most recent indication of this seems to be Rambus, Inc and the JEDEC forum, where Rambus didn't feel it was nessecary to inform participants of their pending patent on SDRAM, and DDR technologies.
This is not-exclusive to software. In fact the patent you have in mind is a half about hardware, so once again, if anything this an argument against *all* patents, not simply software ones.
The most frustrating part, however, is the fact that patents aren't usually used to help independent inventors. In most cases, patents are obtained by big businesses to either cripple their competition, or to raise the barrier to entry to prevent new competitors.
Again I agree, and again this is not exclusive to software patents. Yet another case of a clear flaw in the patent system (like stupid patents) which is ascribed to *software* patents when in reality aflicts the entire patent system.
I must be suicidal, defending patents in /. Already lost karma to some loser who called my previous reasoned posting flame-bait... Oh well is just stupid karma points....
Makes perfect sense. But based on the notion that patents should only be granted in the case of technological innovations, most of the patents granted shouldn't ever have been.
And THAT is what's wrong with the US Patent Office.
Too many patents and too many lawyers.
(I wonder if Slashdot has a patent on Karma?)
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Couldn't UK businesses also file patents in the US that US companies would have to honor? That way, US companies would be limited by the US's stupid patent system while all the companies in the UK would have free reign.
the fact remains that few would have qualms issuing the second patent.
To bad your argument relies on this.. because a patent on a "one button starting" of a car sounds even more ludicrous than One-Click ordering.
Bottom line: the idea that anything at all is patentable is really a step backward. Time to ditch the whole system; it really is wholly broken.
Patent battles very rarely end up with the "innovator" winning. The more we allow this "patenting solves all common-good problems" meme to flourish, the more we are hindering REAL progress.
Historically, rebels and whatnot tend to be AGAINST slavery and taking away rights, but you are right, it is no sure thing. If you are armed, you can take a stand against them. If you are not, you can sing hippy peace songs and hope you are treated well in labor camp or whatever...Gee, why didn't the germans just vote hitler out of office?
Why is this moderated troll? This isn't someone trolling, this is a VALID point.
Because moderators are not employees of Slashdot. Moderators are selected pseudo-randomly, to moderate a few items, from registered users with some history and some positive "karma".
They're SUPPOSED to moderate on the basis of the quality of the post but NOT on the basis of whether it agrees with their opinions. But some yeild to the temtation to moderate down postings with which they have an ideological disagreement.
There's some feedback: Any registered user is encouraged to "meta-moderate". Click the link at the top of your page and you will be presented with ten moderations, which you can grade as agree/disagree/neutral. Do it daily for a couple weeks and you might get to meta-moderate the guy whose moderation you didn't like.
Karma is essentailly (mods up) - (mods down + metamods disagree). If enough people ding a turkey moderator his karma will drop until he doesn't get to moderate any more.
It's not perfect. For starters it doesn't undo the bogus moderation. But at least it's something. (And it can be very satisfying. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The reward for coming up with a successful business practice is ... drum roll... success. If you are RELYING on the fact that you have an artificial monopoly in your particular business niche, it simply means you can't compete.
Historicly the principle behind changing a businesses's methods was that if doing so gave the company a temporary competative advantage over the competition, then it was worthwhile. While the competitor could attempt to imitate the other company, if the change in business practices was difficult to implement for the first company, then it will usually be difficult for the second company to sucessfully adopt the other company's business practices. By the time the competition adopt the new methods, the company who initially made the change should have made a great deal of money from adopting the new business technique first, generally more then it cost the company to implement the idea in the first place. An example of this would be Henry Ford when he adopted the assembly line bussiness method of building model T cars. The innovation cut the cost of building the cars by over half, and made Ford an enourmous amount of money. Henry Ford was not able to patent the bussiness method of the assembly line, and eventually competitors were able to copy Ford's assembly line procedure. However, Ford had been able to become the dominent car maker in the US in the meantime. If Ford had been able to patent the idea of a company using assembly line techniques it would have drasticly slowed the spread of mass production techniques in the US, and this would have had very negative implications for the growth of the US and world economies. A modern example of a business sucessfully using a business method the achieve sucess is Dell. Dell was the first computer company to sucessfully implement a direct order system for buying personal computers. Since there was not a middle man marking up the cost of Dell's computers to the customers, Dell could either offer their computers for less then the competition, or make more money on each sale. After Dell's competitors tried to imitate Dell's strategy, they found that they needed to resolve the same difficulties that Dell had to solve in order to get the direct order system to work. In addition, Dell's established competitors were afraid of alienating the stores that they were currently selling their computers to if they went to a direct order system, and were reluctant to take the risk of changing how they operated. Therefore, without needing to patent ordering computers over the telephone, or buying computers over the internet, Dell was able to take advantage of their new business technique to become one of the most sucessful companies of the 1990's. Business patents are not necessary as an incentive for companies to inovate, and they simply impede the growth of the economy.
Were they completely within their rights ? Can somebody cite me a case which they won in this regard ? I'm thinking specifically of the legal doctrine of estoppel - Unisys made a representation that they wouldn't enforce the patent, the website owners relied on it, if Unisys were allowed to resile from their position it would cause detriment to the website owners - therefore, Unisys should be estopped from going back on their representation. This is a standard age-old doctrine of common law - it should be true in the US as well
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
At any rate, the British experiment sounds exciting. It will give us an opportunity to see how things work under such a system.
Excuse posting several times on one subject, but I feel I should point out that this isn't an experiment for us. We are sticking to what has proved very successful ever since we invented the digital computer all those years ago. Software is protected under copyright, which is how it should remain in my opinion (I have been publishing software for over 12 years).
I'm less sanguine about them trying to push this through the EU, and the EU in general.
The EU does tend to be volatile, with money slopping around beneath the surface of Brussels, and if the EU decides to support software patents then the UK will be forced to bin all its current laws and rewrite them to support software patents. This is why countries such as Denmark consistently vote to remain out of the EU.
One World govt. and economy is wrong for the same reason monoculture crops are wrong. One disease could kill the whole lot
Never thought about it that way but it's an interesting concept. Without competition from the Soviets, you'd never have put a man on the moon.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Anyone who thinks they need the support of armed police and federal agents, backing IP law, to make their living... then maybe you OUGHT to go broke. You exist at the expense of everyone else's freedom. You existance is too expensive.
Let's substitute some variables:
Anyone who thinks they need the support of armed police and federal agents, backing [real estate, property, labor, finance] law, to make their living... then maybe you OUGHT to go broke. You exist at the expense of everyone else's freedom. You existance is too expensive.
The only difference is that IP isn't physical. So what? It's still property. It still has value. Ultimately, all costs are labor costs if you think about it. Actually, money is becoming less and less physical all the time. Do you think we should throw out the SEC laws in the US just because they are enforced by Federal agents attempting to control bits of information?
Given that, I fail to see how IP law threatens freedom any more than any other law. Certainly, IP law taken to extreme is a threat to liberty, but so is any law.
At any rate, the Brittish experiment sounds exciting. It will give us an opportunity to see how things work under such a system. I'm less sanguine about them trying to push this through the EU, and the EU in general. Things like this--different nations doing things differently, are why One World government is wrong. One World govt. and economy is wrong for the same reason monoculture crops are wrong. One disease could kill the whole lot. Already the World economy causes problems, such as the US market having an impact overseas.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Don't include the firearm issue in the side of the bad things. One can be out at night, sometimes in pretty unsavory places, and one could get beaten but not killed.
I think 60 something people are still killed with firearms in the UK per year. How many are killed per year in other places?
Back to computing, this is good among an score of very bad ideas and legislation.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hardware patents are abhorrent to me insofar as all patentable hardware is pure physics (physical processess - object like paintings and sculptures are copyrightable expressions, but not patentable). To patent hareware is to grant a government-enforced monopoly on a set of physical operations to a person or group. Yes, that means if you perform or cause to be performed a set of physical operations that someone else has patented, and are discovered, men with guns will come and stop you. Only the patent holders (and licensees, if applicable) are allowed to do this application of physics; because it's a patent, it doesn't matter if you derived these physical operations independently or not. It's hard for me to articulate the degree to which I feel this represents an unconsionable hindrance in the advancement of human understanding. What does society gain by having the government say who may perform what physical operations by beaurocratic fiat?
-no broken link
I don't think YOU'RE getting the point.
The GOVERNMENT is the entity responsible for protecting IP. By protecting IP, you are requiring MORE government intervention.
If you don't need to protect IP, then the government isn't involved.
Is this sinking in yet?
But I don't want to own a gun.
I have little or no intention of using it and take great comfort in knowing that the likelyhood of having one used aginst me is reasonably small.
it is sad but true that as soon as the people protect themselves with guns teh stakes are raised and then "everybody" has them, including the criminals. The main problem being of course that a criminal has less of a problem shooting someone if he has a gun. Guns might not kill people, but they help. It is easier to shoot someone than insert the bullets manually.
as for this "it protects freedom" rubbish, how? surely if you have "the greatest democracy in the world" then there is no need for an armed populace as the government is subject to the will of the people anyhow, freedoms and all?
personally I'm happy that the UK government has done something right, oooh hang on, if I agree does that mean that I don't know how to think for myself? I'd better hold a ballet and find out
Datalas *who ducks the incoming fireballs*
This all sounds horribly familiar, was watching TV about the hanging gardens of babylon, or to be more precise a possible version of the hanging gardens.
now the historical chaps and the engineers worked out that the upper terraces required some 300 tons of water a day, and thus started playing with different ways of getting the water to the top of the gardens.
after a lot of messing around they concluded that the only way they could see this working was to use a screw, passages written by the bloke who built it all could be interpreted to support this and so all was dandy.
but NO! archimedes invented the screw 400 years later, so therefore this argument was wrong! Now I don't wish to sound pompous, but WHAT? why can't two people in history be credited with stumbling across the same idea?
patents thats why, what if I were to sit in my bath (having never heard the word "eureeka") and notice displacement. because someone else noticed this it would appear that, were it to be patented I'm not allowed to think of it.
for a world in which personal freedom is paramount, we seem to be intent on restricting our right to think
Datalas
No it's not. Using XOR to draw a cursor on the screen is patented. That is a very specific application of the XOR operation. If you told 10 people they had to draw a cursor on the screan, would they come up with using XOR? Probably not. Most will just draw the cursor with the foreground color. But the beauty of using XOR is that the cursor is drawn and is visible no matter where it is drawn, and it is easily erased with another XOR. It's an algorithm that solves a small problem well and probably would not be thought of by most who ar given the problem and haven't heard this before, like a retractable spindle for an earpiece on a cellular phone.
-no broken link
It has to be said, the English patent office is usually reasonably sensible - but then again, I imagine the number of entirely daft patents that must engulf the US office is probably greater than the total number of UK applications!
:-/
Hopefully we'll also be able to exert some influence in the EU; unless of course something terrible happens at the election in May...
Having said that, this doesn't look too encouraging on the EPO front. Let's hope the UK's decisive action will spread common sense around the continent.
arnald
We don't need a patent war between anonymous hackers and big business, in Europe or in the US. The anonymous hackers would win, of course, but it could get nasty and wouldn't be in anyone's long term interest.
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
At any rate, the Brittish experiment sounds exciting. It will give us an opportunity to see how things work under such a system.
Erm... what? The Governemt is proposing to leave things exactly as they are, i.e. software and business methods will continue to be unpatentable. There is no experiment. If you want to see how it works, well you can look (and could have looked) at any time.
I'm less sanguine about them trying to push this through the EU, and the EU in general.
There is a debate within the EU on whether to change the existing system i.e. that you can't patent software and business methods. The UK Government is intending to support the status quo.
Things like this--different nations doing things differently, are why One World government is wrong. One World govt. and economy is wrong for the same reason monoculture crops are wrong. One disease could kill the whole lot. Already the World economy causes problems, such as the US market having an impact overseas.
Well since in the whole of the US market you have patents on software and business methods, presumably you'll be happier with the sense of "balance" if the whole of the EU market continues without them.
I can't say that I think it would be a problem if all governments abandoned support of these particular monopolies though.
From the article:
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.
Makes sense, no?
Neither should a patent. Until recently you could only patent specific implementations. Small variations on a discovery would circumvent the patent, just like small variations on a plot would circumvent copyright...
All this argues for is a narrow interpretation of what is patented be it software or hardware. This is not an argument against software patents per se.
You totally misunderstand why we bitch about the One-Click patent.
It is not whether the idea is stupid or not. It is about prior art. One-Click is exactly the same as going into a shop where they have your details from before and you being able to pay by credit card and them getting your delivery address from their database.
I don't know whether there is a patent for the tangible space version, but it is clearly the same as the electronic version, and thus constitutes prior art.
---
So this is fantastic. Despite some nay-saying in a few other posts, this will provide local companies in the UK, (and hopefully the EU) to compete more fairly and without fear of patent-infringement.
And if us State-side folks are really, really lucky this little experiment in the UK/EU will convince us to clean up a little legislation in a few years.
-Andrew
Wrong, patenting business methods will lead to stagnation and ill treatment of you the customer.
Competition in business is assured by globalisation, the market will kill you if you are not evolving. Companies do not "research" new business practises in the way that you imagine. We often use benchmarking and best practise. Methods develop in one market and are devolved to others. Fashions and philosophies come and go. Consultants and purveyors of Enterprise Resource Planning software redesign companies with Business Process Re Engineering methodology every day.
The bottom line is that you have to reinvent yourself over and over again if you want to succeed. No single method can win for long, even the tough monopolistic methods of Microsoft and Intel won't keep them in power forever, a hard lesson that IBM learned.
Patenting of methods would actually lead to stagnation of the marketplace and the extension of monopolistic power. After all the biggest companies can afford to buy the best technology and would buy the smaller companies with successful business methods and their patents in order to use them to strengthen their position and crush the smaller opposition in the marketplace. In this way they would be assured of keeping market share forever by suing anyone who tried to get into their markets.
IMHO business methodology patents are only of interest to very big business as a method of stifling the opposition and will lead to stagnation and unhealthy monopoly. Currently with the free flow of ideas the small businesses can change faster than the large and are in fact at an advantage because of this.
If you view a market place as a kind of democracy with the customer as voter then you should view the patenting of business methods as the police force of a one party state. It also incidentally would provide another method of keeping the third world from participating higher up the food chain.
On the other hand here in Britain and probably out there in the third world we dont want to go down that path of granting the power of monopoly to big business as you are doing in the USA by making business methods patentable.
So dont come complaining when our new small enterprising businesses rip the guts out of your stagnant economy. Remember for example, as affluence grows - one day people may lose their taste for branded products like Coke and MacDonalds. The impossible may be entirely possible. Stay awake at the back there.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Yes, people who make software and business models do real work, but that doesn't mean the way that work should be encouraged is by granting it patentability.
I'm happy to hear this news, but what's going to happen to the UK now?
Corporations are still going to get their patents, whatever the government has to say about it. If the UK won't grant it, then they'll just take their business elsewhere. The UK has been an attractive location for high-tech development because of the pound's strength against the euro, and because of Britain's efficient network of rails supporting the industries that support high tech. But a shaky legal situation could undermine investor confidence and shatter these hard-won benefits.
I can't emphasize it enough: you can't fight big business with government. Governments are just another type of business and know how to look after their own. Businesses have a stronger voice than citizens because of corporate finances, and mark my words, this isn't the last we'll hear about this issue. The UK doesn't have a constitution, so all it will take is another act of parliament tomorrow to turn the tables on intellectual property yet again.
Still, it's nice to see the UK serving as a role model for others, a role normally enjoyed by France. With luck, business-model and software patents everywhere will be abolished.
You mean British companies can't patent obvious business ideas to act as leverage to crush compition...you mean they will ACTUALLY have to compete?! If the Britians can compete, we American businesses are DOOMED!
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
This is why countries such as Denmark consistently vote to remain out of the EU.
Denmark is a member of the EU and has been for some time.
Why should a company be motivated to research new business practises if it cannot profit from its own work? In todays fast moving, morphing world, business plans are what businesses live and die by - they are the modern rocket science, and many billions are spent daily on their research and practise.
However, if a business cannot guarrantee that its work will be applicable to only itself, then it will become sluggish and staid - more like a business of the 80's than a business of today. We must, IMHO, protect the rights of businesses to create and carve out their own intellectual business plans.
Leave it to the Europeans to do what they want - they have no conception of the rights of the individual. That Britain has embraced this, I find, as an Irish Unionist, to be utterly dissappointing. Perhaps america will show sense, and stand for the soveriegn principles upon which it was founded, and which Britain has, sadly, forgotten.
--
some people are...The UK has banned firearm ownership, requires you to provide crypto keys to 'the authorities', and a host of other issues where the parliment tramples on personal freedoms. One good bit of news does not change the brits horrible track record... OTOH, if software is not patentable, what does this do for reverse engineering? Will the limeys be the first with OpenWin2k or some such stuff?
I really have to disagree with you on this. A patent for one click shopping and one button starters are drastically different financially. Even something as "simple" as a one button car starter would take a great deal of work to implement mechanically. It would involve electronics schematics and CAD/CAM drafts of physical components. Add that to the cost of the physical components themselves and it would be a medium to large investment. For mechanical solutions, development is costly. And once you manufatured it, anybody can look at your solution and come up with competing solution for a fraction of the cost. Patents were intended to stop this action. It rewards the company for the R&D work spent on implementing their idea.
For software, on the other hand, you spend a few minutes or hours writing your code, and you're done. No costly prototypes, development time is only a small portion of an employee's time. And for most closed-source software, to copy a solution would require the majority of this work. Even if you open-sourced your software, society wouldn't gain that large of a benefit from your work, because there wasn't that much of an investment placed in implementing it anyways. I would have to guess that Amazon spent much more getting the patent for their one click shopping than they spent developing it.
Now of course, the idea of making one click shopping wasn't really rewarded. But patents don't do that. Same thing with the one button starter. You can't patent your idea, only your implementation.
You might have a point, if the USPO weren't so incredibly ... silly? about what they grant patents for. As it is, however, I think the only safe thing to do is deny software patents totally. This may be unfair to a few people, but better unfair to a few than unfair to all.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
RSA
-no broken link
sorry - SA does not have a ban on guns (just strict gun laws); and to keep things in perspective here, please note that what the ANC and the gov. itself bans could be totally different - the gov. is not totally ANC (majority tho') - anything that the ANC (as ruling party) wants to do can be (and frequently is) shot down if the other parties all dont agree with the ANC.
... with the current exchange rate you should be able to live here like a king for a few weeks b4 returning ;-)
as far as our crime stats go - pls check your facts. I know that you have NO statistics for what our crime rate is (only anecdotal stories) 'cos, officially, the goverment refuses to release the stats (so there!).
come visit SA sometime
With your IP address and some geographic database like this one, it is quite easy.
.sig
Take off every
Ni!
the link's in my sig... not the comment
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Anyway, you are describing entire physical systems, software isn't an entire physical system, so no, none of your options are software.
So, if I implement my program on a hard disk, I can patent it by specifying a hard disk itself as part of the patent?
So I file fifty patents, one with my pattern of light and dark spots on a plastic disk (CD), one with my pattern of charged areas on electromagnetic platters (HD), one with it on a electromagentically charged film (FD), one with it as a pattern of holes on IBM punch cards, etc. How is that objectively different (except in my personal expense) than patenting the software itself?
Ultimately, any algorithm must be implemented as a pattern modifying a physical device to be useful outside of a person's head, and patents are all on physical devices made to specific patterns. So the only answer is that either all my examples are unpatentable, or that software can be patented.
Steven E. Ehrbar
From the report:
19. 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.
In short, when does the transition move from a patentable design for a control mechanism to unpatentable software?
Steven E. Ehrbar
You mean the UK Patent office of course
Should the power button on your computer be patentable? A one-click shopping system and a one button car start device are no more innovative than a power switch. It's not a computer thang, it's a simple get some info and cover up the process under a click. Easily done.
A particular implementation is patentable. However, no one has drawn any lines where you stop people from patenting whole markets of software including those completely unrelated to the business of the patenting party.
Just because it looks cool doesn't mean it's an innovation. It's a G I M M I C K.
To make a one button device simply take apart a radio or a remote cotrol, add a small load to power the switch, and instead of the level for the switch being your car key it's a button on the remote control.
Big whoop.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Software is as much a patentable product as, say, a camera tripod or a mechanical pencil. Just because we understand and use the same knowledge in the design and implementation of a program as someone else who may hold a similar patent doesn't mean that all patents are invalid. Instead it means that the patent review process needs to be modernized to be able to provide software products the same type of protection as physical products.
Patents, in general, are not good for the software industry, as it moves so much faster than tangible goods industries. It stifles competition, and inhibits growth. If, for instance, the computer had been successfully patented, I don't think we would have had personal computers until the mid 90s.
A one-click warm-up device for a car is not a piece of software, nor a business practice.
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.
Don't you love it when these high and mighty morons don't bother to come back and read the comments people post to them?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
But you force people to build incompetent designs to stay legal. Only people never created anything think the world is infinite. It's not. The minute you decide that you will create something, you have thrown away a lot of freedom in creating that thing. Information theory applies to buttons and gears just as it applies to inputs and outputs. Info theory is harsh mistress. You really don't have a lot of room.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The bolding was unintentional, I was trying to insert a break. Unfortunately the usual vitriolic imbecilic childish response characteristic of slashdot is provoked. I don't bolding it improved my point but it didn't diminish it either. Grow up.
Well, this is the difference that changes everything. Information can be copied at near zero cost today. What's called "IP theft" doesn't take anything away from anyone. If I write an LZW encoder today, nobody at Unisys will magically forget how it works. (But I'm pretty sure that Jacob Ziv can't freely distribute an LZW encoder he writes--that's what I'd call IP theft.)
Following the usual IP reasoning, if you'd have that little device that could replicate food at zero cost, you wouldn't give food away because you paid for the original template bread.
Dude lissun mkay, you obviously haven't got the integrity to respond to a counterargument, but you have the time to whine about people not respecting your right to have the last word. Don't come in here acting like a hotshot.
When you lose your job because your employer goes broke fighting a lawsuit because some smartass got a patent for something your company implements without even thinking about since it is a common item but not a valuable tool in and of itself, you'll really be a Dancin Santa on 42nd street in Manhattan in drag calling out "Sucky sucky love you long time".
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Yes, I must stop doing that. In my defence, they are based in England..
arnald
A great article to read. They examined the issue well and have identified the problem areas and I think they (Britain) are heading in the right direction. The big question now is how the law is applied. The majority of patent opposition comes from the bad application of patent law to software. The patent office has no idea of the difference between "piece-of-piss" and "bloody innovative".
Law is made in the courts.
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
What is important is that the software component is purely the controller for the patentable application.
See my journal, I write things there
Yeah, but that's because all the GIMP users use the gimp-nonfree package with the GIF and TIFF compression in it.
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.
Despite your subject, the body of your reply doesn't seem to disagree with me (this is okay by me). But I'll use your example to illustrate my point.
y= a*x*x + b*x + c
Math: By this statement, I define a logical constraint that a hypothetical quanitiy "y" and a hypothetical expression "a*x*x + b*x + c" are equivalent (i.e., will evaluate to the same value).
Algorithm:
Evaluate the expression "a*x*x + b*x + c", using previously established values stored in memory locations corresponding to a, b, c, and x. Store the result of this computation in the memory location designated to hold the value of y.
So a patent on the Windows API wouldn't be a threat?
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.
It means that after learning to drive one auto, the skills to drive another are not wildly different. Personally, I think this is kind of neat.
Look and feel and the wasy of using systems should not be patentable or even copyrightable. The technology behind the one-click or the floating-toolbar may be protected by copyright but never patents which completely monopolise concepts.
See my journal, I write things there
The idea that software is not patentable at all is really a step backward. As much as we may bitch and moan about how stupid the One-Click patent may be, is it so much different than an invention that allows one-button starting of a car? Whether or not either patent would be valid is another story, but the fact remains that few would have qualms issuing the second patent. The difference is merely the distance between tangible space and electronic space.
Now should patents be applied to software products? That is a different question. The One-Click patent should clearly explain the process involved in creating a working system (whether through actual source code or through a series of diagrams). In this way, the idea of a one-click system is still open for innovation by other developers who wish to seek new ways of improving on the idea. To prematurely close off a whole area of software by issuing a broad patent would be a bad thing.
Dancin Santa
Definatly an interesting bit there, seeing as how many people would like to argue that any software patent is harmful. At least it points out that "Open Source software has flourished".
mcox.com - Useful Information re: IT, Running, Fitness, Finance, or Ann Arbor!
It can have a big effect. The German gouvernment already has a position against software patents (with a sudden change of opinion...), so there are now the two largest countries (in terms of population) in the EU against software patents. True, decisions are only made with 100% majority, but it is at least an important step.
Sebastian
Sorry, but it's not a bloody tough idea. The whole point of XOR is that you can XOR A and B to get C, then XOR C and B to get A.
If you think about drawing, an obvious feature is being able to draw and then erase without looking up a saved image.
Wow, what a stunning leap of logic it must have taken. That certainly deserves a patent. I mean, your average third-grader couldn't have done it. That certainly meets the standard for non-obvious and innovative.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but using XOR to draw is a basic and obvious use. Maybe a programmer today, in our API-driven world wouldn't think of it, but when cycles counted, they sure would.
And your point is, that it is ok for math to write down equations, but solving them is a process that is better left to engineers amd the patent office ?!?
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
fuck... i'm gettin modded down for everything lately... stupid fucking moderators... i'd rather get bitchslapped and sent to -10 than change my sig though
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Either way it's stupidity.
Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Inventions take time and money to create. If people are able to simply copy your design after you have spent all the time in research 'n development, then you will not be able to make enough money on your product to cover your research costs, since the new competitors will undercut you.
Whether this is true or not, this is how business people think. The result is -- without patent protection, you'll see a huge drop in the amount of new products or innovations on those products. There's a lot of evidence that shows that the strenght of an economy is heavily influenced by the progress of technology in that economy. Therefore, patent law is an attempt to balance the inefficiency caused by temporary monopoly with the benefit of increased technological progress.
Copyright law is a bit less economically sound in its justification, but it's the same kind of thing -- to promote creation of information products (whether fiction or nonfiction, music or movie, digital or analog or sketched in sand).
It's true people created before copyright protection -- but that was also before xerox or even high-speed printing presses, which make mass-copying viable. Not to mention widespread digital media.
And it's true that people will still create without copyright. But having the creator of a work able to control how it's copied is important in our increasingly money-oriented world. If they wish to waive rights, they can do that in our system. The only real problems come about when individuals pass over their copyrights to a large corporation (ie music publisher) for cash. Then both the consumers and the musicians get screwed. (You do realize that most bands get the majority of their money from performances rather than album sales right? The idea is that an album will get more people at their concerts. Most of the album money goes to the publisher)
-------------
The following sentence is true.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Okay, I am not an economist or an MBA (I'm a computer scientist and aspiring cognitive scientist), but I fail to see how development of new business methods qualifies as "research". It is innovation in a sense, to be sure, but on what basis should new businesses be allowed to be granted a 15-year (or whatever--is it that long for business method patents normally?) exclusive right to do business a certain way? Isn't allowing business method patents akin to granting the right to limited (in time) ownership of an idea?
The whole point of patents was that it wasn't the idea per se that was being owned (hence, the reason for publication of the invention), but, rather, the physical realization of it, and the individual (and by logical extension corporation, which is a legal person in the U.S. at least) should thus have the right to grant (or deny) license for others to physically realize the same idea. It's supposed to encourage innovation and invention by enticing others to find better ways to physically realize the same idea, or else to come up with a better idea and, hence, approach to the relevant problem.
It's never been clear to me that business method patents (and software patents) exactly capture this idea. (certainly not as implemented in the U.S. Patent office, but that's another rant for another time....).
--- I've been in school *way* too long....
"Intellectual property" is only "property" and only has value because a government decides to make it so. Exclusive right to sell tacos would also be "property" and have value if a government decided to grant such a right. This is NOT a valid argument for creating such a right. Intellectual property rights are government granted monopolies. Monopolies are generally economically harmful and should be encouraged only where there are sufficient countervailing benefits (eg extra innovation) to compensate for this harm. Where such benefits don't exist (eg because the innovation would occur anyway - as is likely with software and business method patents) the monopoly should not be granted.
Refusing to patent software and buisness methods isn't all they do differently.
Did you know they spell differently too?
It's true.
In England:
Color is spelled colour
Meter is spelled metre
Program is spelled programme
And fag is spelled fagge
Aren't they zany?
--Shoeboy
The whole point being just that - Monopolies in anything, including software and business methods, are a bad thing.
WIPO.org.uk - no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO.ORG - part of UN, paid for (owned?) by big business.
Well, now that scanner technology allows for high quality blowups of any desired body region, .jpegs are more desireable for close viewing than the originals in many cases.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Young man, if you study history, you will see that the most powerful empires were the ones that opened the trade route, then kept them protected.
Empires that did not do this, allowing highway robbers and pirates, did not last long or were not that powerful.
People have to have the effort they make protected, whether it be music or a cart of apples.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
I must respectfully disagree. Business methods must live and die by execution, not concept. Business methods are not like cutting-edge drugs or hardware; they do not require multi-million dollar upfront investment in research and development in order to succeed. Unlike things like these goods, which require a great deal of basic and applied research, business methods are a dime a dozen. I can come up with 20 right here and now, if you want. I don't have to go to a lab, buy multi-million dollar equipment, and do lots of math to figure out if my results are real. This goes to the heart of a capitalistic system: if you allow people to sit around and patent every flakey idea that they have, you stifle innovation, rather than encourage it.
I would argue that Britian is allowing more individual rights, rather than fewer, by allowing a darwinistic struggle for business survival rather than a patent-fest. In fact, this competition can only make business less complacent and staid!
Correct. I was an idiot. Not for posting twice (which was, amazingly, intentional), but for failing to get my subject line right the first time. Thanks for the spirited rebuttal however. Can't get away with slop on Slashdot. Gotta like that.
What society gains is clear in kind, although debatable in amount, or relative value. By limiting (for a period) who may perform these operations, society encourages the inventors to publicise them, so that everyone knows (in principle) that they exist, and could possibly be licensed, and so that after the patent period expires, everyone can use them. In addition, the prospect of a monopoly period encourages the sometimes laborious process of filling in all the details of the original idea and making it usable, which might otherwise not be worthwhile.
This is the claimed benefit of patents, whether of mathematics or of a mechanical design or of a DNA sequence. It is basically a decision for politicians what the cost/benefit analysis is for patents in a particular domain, what the period should be, what the "obviousness" test should be, and so on. In this case, I think the UK has called it better than the US, but I don't really see how algorithm patents are different in kind to other patents.
It's a conspiracy by the US patent office. It's their way of making sure nothing changes.Another word for this is reverse psychology. In the US, they usually do the opposite to what is being done in the UK. If it's liberal in the UK, then it's restrictive in the US. After all, American aircraft engines rotate in the opposite direction to British aircraft engines.
The "pure math" thing is not why software patents are harmful. Patents on actual devices are just patents on "pure matter", so if you construct a collection of matter that someone else has patented, you're breaking the law. Does that make patents on matter wrong?
Software patents are wrong (at least in their current incarnation) because they do not fulfill patents' stated purpose of encouraging innovation.
--
Patrick Doyle
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
> People will create even if they're not paid.
> There were writers before copyright law,
> musicians and artists too. Get over yourself.
Except that even things like Linux haven't gotten out of the garage band state, or the guy-souping-up-his-own-car state. Meanwhile the corporations keep spitting out the Britneys and boybands, a new one every other year (O Spice Girls, how I miss thee) sucking up 99% of the profits and defining the direction the industry goes as a whole.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Many patents have already been granted in europe using this loophole:
examples
some companies just wait for one european law to start enforcing them.
here they say they just need a new way to determine the difference between a software and a software truly tied to a device.
my opinion: they can't.
why do they do that: big firms pressure.
> Exclusive right to sell tacos would also be
> "property" and have value if a government
> decided to grant such a right. This is NOT a
> valid argument for creating such a right
European Union does have laws like this. In a phenomenon not present in the US, over there there are various regions that have traditionally produced this or that product, stamped with the region's name. Then people got the bright idea to make that product elsewhere and stamp it with that name. Champagne is the prime example -- if it doesn't come from that region of France, you can't call it Champagne.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
They didn't say that software was unpatentable, they said it was unpatentable when it provides no technological innovation, which is pretty much status quo.
The part that is au contraire US is the fact that business methods may not be patented. Like one click shopping. Now that is a good thing. But i gather that this is also pretty much status quo for the UK, as the article seems to indicate that they have never allowed patenting of business methods.
If nobody ever re-invented the wheel, we'd all be pushing around flintstones cars, wouldn't we?
If on the other hand you spend a year in your garage developing some innovative thing that had not been done before, but happens to be in software, many /.'ers propose that you shouldn't be able to patent it.
Why the disparity? Here are some possible reasons:
Well, I thought the most interesting part was about how patents have two sides of the equation - the cost to develop, versus the cost to society to have patent monopolies.
Thus it would seem that *one* of the aspects to patenting should be a balance sheet (and yes you can include prior IP investment, but it had better be documented.)
Thus trivial patents (such as 1-click) would be excluded. The idea that the world would be a poorer place is Bezos hadnt thought up 1-click is purely absurb. However, lets say something like Diffie-Hellmann or RSA's research work would be patentable.
Winton
p.s. Maybe Patents could be proportionate to cost/value? Can someone think out a market solution to this ? It ain't easy though.
> Whether this is true or not, this is how
> business people think.
It's absolutely true. Indeed, it's far worse than this. The auto industry takes extreme precautions when designing a new facade for their vehicles each year, especially when there are radical changes. They know competing companies will see it, copy it, test it vs. potential customers, and rush out a copy the very same model year, or the next at the latest.
For every page of patent, there are probably ten thousand pages or more of trade secrets.
People seem to be thieves by nature -- not just business people, but everybody who argued Napster should not be shut down.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
While it's great that the UK has decided not to permit US-style patents of business concepts, the true crux of the matter will be when the EU rules on it.
Since the UK has some minor quirks in law (illegal to do many things that the rest of the EU permits), only then will it become meaningful.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
As the other reply says, you can (and it's automatic usually) copyright your post.
But your copyright won't hold up if it's the simplest possible expression of an idea.
If you mean x times x = y, you write x^2=y. That's the obvious thing to write.
So your copyright wouldn't forbid anyone else from using that, 'fair use' quoting or not.
But, if you wrote x^7/x^5 = sqrt(y^2) or something, and then printed it up in nice calligraphy, your copyright would be much more enforcable because you didn't use the obvious and simplest expression, and you didn't express it in the obvious way (block characters, with a ballpoint, etc).
The nice thing about copyrights is that they allow independant discovery. If you unintentionally reproduce 99% of _Lord_of_the_Rings_ the Tolkein estate can't force you to not print your version. If you can show that you came up with it independantly and it's not derived from any of their copyrighted properties.
With a patent, that sort of thing would cover any use of elves and dwarves with sub-human sized protagonists in an apocalyptic story. And it wouldn't matter who came up with it first, or if both were independant. The patent would win out.
Now, thankfully that's not a valid patent...
But, using XOR to draw to the screen (a very simple exclusive-or logical operation) is patented. That's like patenting using ADD instructions.
"16. The Government does not, however, accept the view - asserted by some respondents - that Open Source software is threatened by the existing extent of patentability. This seems to fly in the face of the facts, notably that during the last decade Open Source software has flourished."
Hey, they've got a point - software patents have been issued often enough in the 1990s, and OSS has boomed nonetheless, much more than in the 80s (then again, so did the entire industry).
Someone quoted the latter half of this, but it's important that the first part is emphasized:
"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."
Perhaps they're more receptive to claims that the patent is not innovative or original, but only actual cases can show this, not statements of principle.
"However, the Government agrees with those respondents who said that at present the law is not clear enough, and that this is damaging. Clarification is needed."
Thank you, few governmental actions bother me more than vague and poorly worded laws. Who knows if anything will come of this, but it's a bit reassuring.
"The Government's conclusion is that those who favour some form of patentability for business methods have not provided the necessary evidence that it would be likely to increase innovation. Unless and until that evidence is available, ways of doing business should remain unpatentable."
That's also reassuring, lawsuits about copying how a competitor operates is something I'd rather not see (or see more prevalent). It's what competition and capitalism is all about.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Interesting point, but I do wonder if associativity, commutativity and distributivity (being mathematical concepts and not sequences) could then be used as patent circumvention devices. The sequence of operations of 'a = r * 22./7. * r' is clearly different from yours and to make it even more difficult, it could have different input-output behaviour caused by finite precision math (see the nifty trick of first multiplying r with 22 _before_ dividing it by 7:-)
Now you've got two possibilities: either get a distinct patent for each and every incarnation of your 'sequence', or get a patent for this equation and all 'mathematically equivalent' ones.
If you opt for the first, there's a much easier way than patents: copyright. If you opt for the second, all hell breaks loose (as it has in the US), because what constitutes 'mathematical' or even worse 'algorithmical' equivalence?
There are numerous algorithms that use different concepts to tackle the same problem using the same time/space complexity. There are even mathematical proofs that all algorithms are equally good (equivalent?) to random search for arbitrary search problems. Can you then patent one and thus patent them all? Mathematics abounds with isomorphism proofs showing that formalism a can be recast into formalism b without any change of meaning. You could get rich by patenting some sufficiently complex algorithm, then hire X mathematicians to prove equivalence between your algorithm and any other and Y lawyers to sue those bastards.
I don't think it is possible at all in software to draw a clear line between two algorithms that do the same thing, and surely you don't want to grant patents on application domains like sorting and searching, right? Yet this is what the practice of granting software patents currently entails: people get monopolies for domains (One Click shopping) or data formats (RSA, GIF), not for algorithms per se.
BTW, here there are programmes on TV but programs on computers.
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
> Lemme know when [Britney] poses for playboy.
Ahh, but will you buy the issue, or steal the intellectual property by downloading a scanned-in issue?
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
by way of sharing information, so that others can build upon and improve a given invention.
Does the current patent system promote advance in science and arts ? NO. Does patents on software stimulate progress ? NO
On the opposite, it is now used to restrict market share and enforce overly broad monopoly, thus stifling innovation and progress.
Since oviously patents do not serve their purpose anymore, they should be abolished.
Patents are a tool dating from the time when communications where slow and scarce, it is not the case anymore, so we should get rid of the patent system.
I don't know if the UK is making a good move here or not, but I do think it will help at least a little bit. The reason is that patents are so out of hand these days that they don't protect anything. I opened a bottle of water the other day and glanced at the inside of the lid and it had three patent numbers listed. The LID of a bottle of water has three patents. There needs to be a little bit of thought that goes into the process of giving out patents. If you can simply say that you created a lid that turns a different number of degrees than some one else or that you have more ridges for grip and get a patent there is something wrong. Software patents are even worse. There are patents on nearly everything and it is just stupid. There is probably at least 6 patents that make it so that this message I am posting is illegal.
My point is that patents don't work. Either a company patents something that they don't really own and prevents everyone else from doing something that is so obvious that there isn't another option OR EVERYONE USES IT ANYWAYS.
PATENTS DON'T WORK
Well I've said enuf.
Coke Pepsi KFC don t patent their recipes. Those are valuable intelleectual properties. However they are protected because though not covered by patents - they are considered trade secrets. Software should also be considered like the recipes for these products rather than being patented. What would happen if someone came up with an algorithm as fundamental Euclid's? Nearly every coder would be beholden to the patent-holder.
--
--
I like to watch.
Other than that, I find this very positive, particularly the notion that innovations should not be left unpatented simply because they are based on software. At least it is a principle of bringing a bit of sanity into the patent system, but then we'll see if it means anything in practice. :-/
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Sweet! I guess that means the Marching Cubes Algorithm is legal now! (at least for the UK)
>Software and business methods represent the blood, sweat, and toil of hard-working individuals
;)
Whoa. Individuals don't get software patents, corporations do. No individual could afford the legal fees to fight off large corporations who want their patents. If nobody wants the patent, and it's useless, then an individual is allowed by the corporations to keep it
What we want in software is the same kind of competition and innovation we've seen in PC hardware.
PC hardware has been open since Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM PC Bios. Although the CPU and OS remained proprietary (and those two companies got enormous profits from their proprietary products atop open hardware), open hardware gave us the PC revolution.
Intel has been able to squelch competition for years: anybody who wants to make an Intel clone still has to pay royalties to Intel. That's why it's taken so long for competitors to beat intel at the PC CPU game.
Furthermore, if hardware patents were being granted the way software patents are being granted, for example: the first "video card", patented, would have ended competition in video cards, and we'd be at the mercy of that vendors rate of innovation, like we are with Microsoft's dictated rate of innovation.
Patents are not currently responsible for the lack of software competition (they've only been allowed since '98), but, they have the potential to replace closed-source proprietary standard lock-ins as the method to stop competition.
For Open Source, we could win the battle but loose the war: rid ourselves of the closed source OS, only to have patents replace closed source as the means to stop competition.
Lets give software competition a chance, and quit continuously locking one company into a monopoly position.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
This is a sensible document and gets back to the basics of WHY we have patents. Patents are an unnatural mechanism designed to encourage investment in innovation. When that mechanism offers unfair competitive advantages for minimal investment then it is bad. Nobody believes that the one click invention would not have been invented without Amazon. A dozen companies would have come up with the same idea by now (and some have independently). So giving Amazon a 20 year monopoly on the idea unfairly enriches them and stifles innovation. In other words it has the opposite effect from that intended. Software engineers close to these issues know this. Companies out there are filing for patents on inventions they never intend to use, they are merely trying to set up road blocks for their competition. It is common practice to try and broaden the scope of a patent beyond the original invention to create as big a minefield as possible for companies who might infringe in future. Patents are no longer about protecting inventions, they have become a system of patronage to wield as a business weapon against unwary competitors. It is no accident that large corporations support them and independent operations do not. Does anyone really think that large corporations are more innovative than the thousands of individual developers out there? Of course not, but patents give them the legal clout they need to tax the rest of the industry and sustain their revenues. The letter posted was remarkably well informed for a government agency IMHO. Well done U.K.
See the LPF page on software patents, particularly the now-somewhat-dated position paper Against Software Patents.
Software and "business models" are not that kind of industry. Even putting aside the sheer obviousness of most such patents, it takes minutes to weeks to come up with the ideas, and a few to a few thousand programmer-hours to implement them.
Also, it's not cost-effective to do a patent search whenever you need an algorithm. This means that
As a result, the only thing software patents do is get in the way, and make any patented algorithm much less useful to the general public. Being patented is a blight on the widespread use of an algorithm; potential users avoid it because of the vast overhead and onerous legal entanglements the patent causes.
And "business models" are a complete scam. How can you have a competitive market if the whole market is patented?
Finally, as many have said, the presence of software patents hasn't kept the industry from being filled with Microsofts. Patents give big business an edge over potential competitors, not the other way around, since big businesses are the only entities who can afford to apply for such patents on a regular basis.
Wow, this article was great! It was nice to see a neutral observer critique the whole OSS / Proprietary Software debate. The courts brought up many new ideas that I tend to agree with, and challenged some of the precepts I most firmly believe in. I'm glad the UK court made this decision, and am doubly glad to see that did it with such dignified thought and contemplation.
---
In once sense, what you're saying is right, since it strikes to the heart of what patents are for: the hard part is the research and development effort required to turn an idea into a working product, and it is this effort that is protected by the patent.
But on the other hand, the problem with software patents is precisely the difficulty in drawing this distinction. It's not at all clear if an implementation is not just a detailed expression of an idea. Basically, if a patent contains a detailed explanation of something (say, my new-fangled B-crap-tree database file structure) through the use of diagrams, UML, or whatever, and no source code, than I've merely expressed the idea in detail and have not given the details of how I implemented it. But if it goes all the way to the level of source code, it's really too particular to be useful as a patent, because anyone can change the structure of their program and implement basically the same thing without stressing their R&D effort too much.
I guess all this does is suggest that answering the question of what constitutes patentable software is an in principle hard question. The same is true of anything, but I think it's a particularly hard balance to strike with software, and hence the difficulty of writing regulations and standards that a government agency will have to abide by.
--- I've been in school *way* too long....
Software patents are abhorrent to me insofar as all patentable software is pure math (algorithms - data like text and graphics are copyrightable expressions, but not patentable). To patent software is to grant a government-enforced monopoly on a set of mathematical operations to a person or group.
Yes, that means if you perform or cause to be performed a set of mathematical operations that someone else has patented, and are discovered, men with guns will come and stop you. Only the patent holders (and licensees, if applicable) are allowed to do this math; because it's a patent, it doesn't matter if you derived these mathematical operations independently or not.
It's hard for me to articulate the degree to which I feel this represents an unconsionable hindrance in the advancement of human understanding. What does society gain by having the government say who may perform what mathematical operations by beaurocratic fiat?
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The summary is misleading. In fact, the conclusion is that software is patentable:
19. 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.
Indeed, the government rejected appeals from Open Source advocates:
16. The Government does not, however, accept the view - asserted by some respondents - that Open Source software is threatened by the existing extent of patentability. This seems to fly in the face of the facts, notably that during the last decade Open Source software has flourished.
The only commitment made is to try to define the boundaries of 'technological innovation' more specifically:
20. However, the Government agrees with those respondents who said that at present the law is not clear enough, and that this is damaging. Clarification is needed. This raises complex and technical questions, but the central difficulty can be expressed simply: how to define the boundary determining when software is, and is not, part of a technological innovation, so that what is patentable will be clear in specific cases in future. The Government intends to take this matter up with its partners in the European Union and the European Patent Convention as a matter of urgency.
As has been pointed out since the days of Turing, hardware is simply 'frozen' software, from the algorithmic point of view. Hence the border between what can and cannot be patented, should not be drawn between the two, and the UK decision makes a lot of sense. I'm not in great favour of software patents, but then again not for hardware either (though I have one pending, but only because the company I worked for insisted ... ;-)
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I think people who invent something new should be rewarded.
But when i look at all these crazy patents i read about at slashdot during the last year i think this was the right decision.
I hope the other european countries will join Great Britain.
Would it make sense to only allow end-user products to be patentable?
No patents on business practices or software techniques, but you can patent a product such as a software product.
*** On the Internet, no one knows you're using a VIC-20
Take your binary, make it into some work of creative art, a painting, an icon, a sculputure; something _physical_. Patent that. There you go.
I'd actually like to see this happen. If nothing else all concerned would get a good laugh.
--
--
#nohup cat
http://www.cs.iastate.edu/jva/jva-archive.shtml
To quote the site:
"On October 19, 1973, US Federal Judge Earl R. Larson signed his decision following a lengthy court trial which declared the ENIAC patent of Mauchly and Eckert invalid and named Atanasoff the inventor of the electronic digital computer -- the Atanasoff-Berry Computer or the ABC."
Atanasoff had filed for the patent right before World War II, but Iowa State University forgot to submit it, so it never went through. ENIAC was basically modeled after one of the two guys came to ISU and copied down the stuff Atanasoff had in his computer.
Computers wouldn't be cheap now and the Personal Computing craze would have been set back about a decade had that Judge not ruled as he did. It might not have happened at all in fact. Depends on how you look at it.
I just find it funny how some of the biggest advancements in technology take place because of failed patenting efforts. Patenting the compuer sounds stupid now, but someone owns the patent on v.90, on USB, and other assorted items that I find ridiculous today.
One-click shopping can be patented, but it's never One-click anyway. You always have to verify. So someone can come up with "Two-click" shopping and if there is a lawsuit because it resembles one click. They'll win, and two-click shopping will be widely used. I don't know what the big deal is about there actually being a patent on a widely used item.