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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
----------
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.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
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.
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"'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Why is this moderated troll?"
Because
1) it is a troll.
2) trolling is all this guy is good for. Look at his pathetic posting history.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
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"?
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?
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
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
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
This is not insightful, it is just plain stupid.
"how important is this realistically" ? Wtf this means ? UK is probably the most pro-american part of the EU. If UK refuses software patents, it can be a huge win for the EU. "how important is this realistically" ? Well, as important as it can be. America IP laws are fucked, probably definitely. The only hope is that EU and Japan stand against US, if we want our childs to *own* their thoughts.
> thus still protecting themselves in as much geographical area as possible
So what ? The only way to eradicate software patent is to make them uninforcable. *If* EU refuses software patents, than development companies may have an interest to be in EU to develop software. In this case, the US will have to relax the legislation to keep the software businesses aboard.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
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
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.
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
Software and business methods are nothing more than ideas and thoughts transcribed into digital or written form. There is nothing to patent. Do your propose that patents be issued on the paper or digital media that the ideas are stored upon? You see, that's precisely the problem. You're talking about an intangible object that spurred as a result of someone's synapses firing in a certain sequence to produce a thought. By your argument, one could propose that anyone else whose synapses fired in that same order, and thus, independantly achieved the same idea, is breaking the law. This is absolutely ludicrous.
Using your proposed method, I think I'm going to patent the process of transcribing a sequence of 1's and 0's to a digital medium for the purposes of data archival and processing. I will then proceed to sue every software and hardware manufacturer in the world for violation of my patent.
My point being, where is the line to be drawn? How can an intangible resource such as a thought or business model be "owned" by a single entity or group. This would exclude any other individual or business from "thinking" the same way. The mere idea is absurd. I think the Linux business model and the GPL is the future of software and intellectual property as we know it. Everything will eventually be make made freely available for non-commercial use, and companies will become profitable by providing support and services, not the software itself.
Slashdot: Open Source, Closed Minds.
Others have to provide you with guns/explosives too. Unless you make them yourself.
I can buy those frm someone who has made them. I don't have to force anyone to do it.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
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.
Correction: An armed populace is the only way to be certain your government won't take away too many freedoms, if your populace are all dumb as posts. Likewise the only way for a schoolyard bully to get rich is to beat kids up and take their money. The smart ones figure out cleverer - and more effective - ways.
My feeling is, if the people have sunk to the point where they are too moronic and ineffectual to keep hold of their freedom without resorting to the threat of pointing guns around, then they have lost any claim to said freedom.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
As they always say, "At least with Hitler the trains ran on time."
I can list a million and one things the Nazis did: They glorified white folk, they promoted classical music, they revalued the currency, they recalled some ambassadors, they beefed up the military, they changed the flag.
Quick: Which one of these is the guaranteed first step down an inexorable path to tyranny?
Answer: Whichever one you're arguing against at the moment. Because that's how the "The Nazis Did It" school of polemics works.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
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....
That doesn't work. A copyright is for a specific expression of a thought.
If you copyright "I love walking under the silver moon," that provides you no protection should I write "To me, the light of the moon makes walking a delight." If you paint a picture of a duck with a hat, I can paint a different picture of a duck with a hat, despite your copyright.
Yet there are countless ways of paraphrasing the description of a process. A patent provides protection on the concept, not the words.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
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!
I imagine the number of entirely daft patents that must engulf the US office is probably greater than the total number of UK applications!
Maybe they need to install a paper burning heating system or such like.
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.
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
In today's cut-throat economy, businesses need every competitive advantage they can muster.
If their business method is so bad-assed that they want a patent, they shouldn't NEED a patent to help them out: They will dominate the market because customers like what they do. Business methods don't usually involve a lot of money to think up, just to implement. I could think up Amazon's business method (let people easily buy books online) while sitting on my couch, but it takes a hellava lot of money and effort to actually do it.
What I can't do is to patent that (intangible) idea. Thus another company could come along and create a program that did the same as mine, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T USE MY CODE DIRECTLY, i.e. it is a 'clean room' implementation, and it would be perfectly legal.
IMO this is a good thing since it means that a) I have the advantage since I created the program first, and b) I and the other company must compete on the merits of our code.
As another poster pointed out, this is precisely the opposite of what companies like Microsoft do.
God, and here was I, in my ignorance, unaware that gun ownership was a 'personal freedom'. I suppose you object to our rights to own plastic explosives / cocaine / child porn / slaves being trampled on too.
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.
So? Nothing is stopping us from taking it and making it free either. Stuff like this scares large companies sh*tless, which is why you will probably never see this become a reality in the US. This country is headed in the exact opposite direction. We want to put a price tag on everything.
Oh no, I'm glad to see Britain making this move, but it's just not going to matter over here. Too much money saying otherwise. Of course, you never know what an economic crash can stir up..
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
>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.
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.
I don't quite understand your reasoning here - if you don't want government intervention, then why do you think it's better for the government to protect business method "patents"? If you don't want government intervention, then you should be in favor of letting companies coming up with & executing business methods because it will make them money, not because the government will guarantee them some profit by coming up with the idea.
God, and here was I, in my ignorance, unaware that gun ownership was a 'personal freedom'. I suppose you object to our rights to own plastic explosives / cocaine / child porn / slaves being trampled on too.
Explosives, guns and cocaine, yes. Slaves and kiddie porn, no. People have no right to something someone else must provide (especially if they must provide it against their will) -- ruling out ownership of slaves, and making kids have sex in front of a camera.
But people do have a right to own explosives, guns and cocaine.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
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.