Report Says Patents Threaten Software Innovation

GORby_ writes "According to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, software patents are 'a particular threat to the European ICT Industry.' Quote from the report: 'There are particular threats to the European ICT industry such as the current discussion on the patent on software. The mild regime of IP protection in the past has led to a very innovative and competitive software industry with low entry barriers. A software patent, which serves to protect inventions of a non-technical nature, could kill the high innovation rate.' The full report (pdf) discusses Europe's ICT strategy."

Comments

In further commentary to this story...

[SirFozzie]

Slashdot users say.. "Well, DUUUUHhhhh.."

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[Anonymous Coward]

So please explain to me, as a software engineer, innovator with several patents and a small business owner, how are software patents hurting innovations?
* If I was unable to patent my idea, then there would be NO use in my pursuing it because a large company like MS could throw money to make their own solution after seeing my development. So how does THAT encourage me to take risk, go out and start a company, thus employing other people?
If I could not patent my ideas, then as soon as I came to market, some larger company could throw lots of cash at it, overwhelm my little company, my work, my personal investment and literally crush my out of the market.
If I did not have protection within the patent system, I would have no desire to innovate.
As to fighting the problem in court? That is pretty rare, more often then not, you set up a meeting with the company in question, fly out, meet with them alone (they will have like ten lawyers in the room), and simply explain to them the idea and that you are interesting in licensing the concept at a rate that is fair to all. This can end up with the larger company either purchasing the rights outright to a simple licensing model that benefits all.
So, back to my original question, how is it that the software patent is hurting innovation? From my perspective and the inventor of multiple patents, it helps and protects me.
Yes, there are some abuses, as with ANY system, but for the most part it greatly works to increase innovation.
Maybe those who are so dead set apposed to the idea should try and actually come up with an idea, try writing a patent, researching it, and then developing the idea in their own small company. I will tell you what, its lots of work, but nothing is more rewarding.
Capitalism vs Socialism, Innovation vs Stagnation. Its a pretty simple choice once you actually have seen and lived how it works.

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[peragrin]

>>* If I was unable to patent my idea, then there would be NO use in my pursuing it because a large company like MS could throw money to make their own solution after seeing my development. So how does THAT encourage me to take risk, go out and start a company, thus employing other people?>As to fighting the problem in court? That is pretty rare, more often then not, >Capitalism vs Socialism, Innovation vs Stagnation. Its a pretty simple choice once you actually have seen and lived how it works.

Funny, England Austrlia and Canada far more Socialists than the US, are growing their economies where as the US is going backwards. We are on the edge of another major collapse, and those that don't see it are ignorant. The quesiton is will it happen today, or tomorrow.

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[andrewmc]

If I was unable to patent my idea, then there would be NO use in my pursuing it because a large company like MS could throw money to make their own solution after seeing my development. So how does THAT encourage me to take risk, go out and start a company, thus employing other people?

In a world of software patents your risk becomes getting sued to hell and back by somebody granted a patent on a scrollbar, double-click or something equally obvious. Where are you going to get the 6 or 7 figure budget to fight that in court? It becomes impossible to do anything without infringing on some dumbass patent or other.

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[Coryoth]

I am listed as the inventor for several patents as well, though the patents are actually held (and were applied for) by the company I was woring for at the time.

I don't see the value of these patents. The patents involved were essentially an attempt to landgrab beyond the bounds of what was actually invented. A mix of copyright, and trade secrets (via closed source code) would have been entirely sufficient to protect the systems I designed from competitors.

What extra value do software patents provide beyond copyright and trade secret? It simply means if anyone else independently invents something similar, you can sue them - with copyright and trade secret you need to demonstrate that they actually stole it from you.

And before someone claims that patents cover the indea, while copyright covers the specific code, let me make it clear that that is not true. Have a look at the literary world, which has no patents, but does have copyright. To file a copyright suit for plaigarism you only need to find an author who has created a startlingly similar book - there's no need for any word for word copying. Want an example? J.K. Rowling sued DMitry Yemets over his "Tanya Grotter" books. The similarities were clear - both books were at wizard schools etc. - but the actual stories (plots for instance) were completely different. Equally there were rumblings of issues with "The Life of Pi" which was similar to a Brazilian book "Max and the Cats" in that they both featured someone adrift on a boat with a large cat after a shipwreck.

Jedidiah

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[Reteo Varala]

One solution, four words:

One Year Patent Term.

One year is a long time for business these days, and it's also a good standard for obsolescence.

Incentive to make money without incentive to make a monopoly.

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[PenguiN42]

Care to link to your patents?

Anyway, the problem with software patents is that with software, the line between "idea" and "implementation" is incredibly wide and fuzzy. This is because, once you have an idea to do *something* in code, there are very few different ways to actually go about doing it. Oh sure, there are different algorithms you could use for each step -- but more often than not software patents don't even get that detailed. All they seem to do is list what each step does, not how exactly it does it, and that's good enough for the USPO.

The other reason that the line between software implementations and ideas is so blurry is because there's never a physical invention. All you're doing is writing down instructions for a machine to follow. In essence, you're just stating your *idea* in a way that the machine understands.

For example, if you're to tell any semi-competent programmer who's never heard of Amazon.com that you wanted to make a web site that lets users buy an item with only one click, the great majority of them will come up with the same basic implementation -- store in a database all the information needed to make a purchase for that user, track which user is logged in, when the button is pressed cross reference the user into the database and automatically send the information through the purchasing mechanism. There really is no other reasonable way to go about implementing this kind of thing. Obviously, there's details depending on exactly how their database is set up, but it doesn't matter. The patent, as it's written and accepted by the USPO, effectively covers any attempt to do this sort of straightforward manouver.

Even if this programmer who's never heard of amazon comes up with the idea all by themselves they can't make a product that uses it because amazon has the "rights" to the idea.

Contrast this with an actual, physical invention -- say, one-button 4 wheel drive in an explorer. Now this is an idea that requires a lot of detail to hash out and get patented. And there's a lot of ways to go about doing it, none of which are very obvious. To get it patented, you have to have an electromechanical system pretty much designed that *works*, and that requires a lot of R&D.

To get the equivalent software patent accepted, all you need is the idea, and a rudimentary knowledge of how computer systems are set up. You practically don't have to do *any* R&D at all. And ideas are supposedly not patentable but for some reason high level software implementations are.

---

Ok, that answers why software patents may be bad philosophically, but you wanted to know why they're bad practically? Well, because it's so easy to "develop" a software patent, companies create thousands and thousands of patents as fast as they can to try to "stake out" their territory on the IP map. All that matters is that they were the first to be granted the patent, and no one else had used that particular technique yet. They may not have been the first to think of it, the first to R&D it (if they even did any R&D), or even the first to file for a patent! But they get a temporary monopoly on that new technology and that stifles innovation.

It also hurts the little guy -- smaller companies don't have the resources to push patents through with the same efficiency *or* to take on the big boys when patent disputes come into play.

Finally:
Capitalism vs Socialism
You think that having the government grant you a temporary monopoly in a certain area is "capitalism" and letting the market work for itself is "socialism"? Wow. Just wow.

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[AuMatar]

Contrast this with an actual, physical invention -- say, one-button 4 wheel drive in an explorer. Now this is an idea that requires a lot of detail to hash out and get patented. And there's a lot of ways to go about doing it, none of which are very obvious. To get it patented, you have to have an electromechanical system pretty much designed that *works*, and that requires a lot of R&D.

To get the equivalent software patent accepted, all you need is the idea, and a rudimentary knowledge of how computer systems are set up. You practically don't have to do *any* R&D at all. And ideas are supposedly not patentable but for some reason high level software implementations are.

I think this is the key. Patent lengths should not be a certain number of years- they should last just long enough to cover R&D costs. Lets say invention X cost me 1 million to develop. In my system, I would be required to license it to anyone on RAND terms, say 100K/year a pop. That means as soon as 10 people buy 1 year licenses, or 1 person has licensed it for 10 years, my costs are recouped and the patent is withdrawn.

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[edrain]

An intriguing idea, but why wouldn't I, as a potential licensee, just wait to be the 11th person?

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[AuMatar]

Because you're losing time to market. You won't be able to know ahead of time when the 10th will buy it, you may end up waiting weeks or months. This will give the other competitors time to introduce products and build marketshare.

THe biggest weakness I do see is how do you accurately estimate costs and how do you punish cost fraud. The second can be done easily (commit fraud- all patents revoked and no new ones for a few years). The first, and detecting any fraud, would be harder.

Re:In further commentary to this story...

[edrain]

Thanks for your reply. It's an intriguing idea and worth thinking about.

No shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a report that favors one side of a heated debate. Who thought we'd see the day.

Software patents are a reality, whether you and me want them or not. There is too much money on the pro side for software patents to go away, so stop dreaming. Better start thinking of ways to deal with the situation.

Re:No shit.

[0x0d0a]

There's too much economic inefficiency associated with the existence of software patents to allow them to exist.

Re:No shit.

[Frans Faase]

If we would give all power to those that are in control of the money, democracy and freedom of speech would be gone soon. Governments are there for promoting the well being of all, and in some cases this means controling the power that the rich (people and companies) have. They also should prevent corruption (the misuse of money for the purpose of executing power). And BTW, there are no software patents yet in Europe yet.

Re:No shit.

[ninthwave]

They aren't in Europe. Most EU countries have a higher test for granting a patent than the US.

Re:No shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

They may go away after a while, but not before the industry leaders have used them to their advantage. If you still hope for Europe to stay software patent free, you're deluding yourself.

Re:No shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no software patents in Europe, but there are lots of patents on devices which are only set apart from general purpose computers by their software. These are in effect software patents, because software without a machine to run it on is useless, but with the machine it is a patented combination.

If you think they'll leave it at that, I admire your high opinion of our political system. I myself expect a little struggle for the media, followed by clear patentability of software.

Re:No shit.

[Halo1]

Software patents are a reality, whether you and me want them or not.

They're not in Europe.

There is too much money on the pro side for software patents to go away,

There's also a lot of money to be lost on the other side for them to be introduced in Europe. In fact within about a week, you'll see a large campaign against software patents in Europe (carried by multinationals) being started.

so stop dreaming. Better start thinking of ways to deal with the situation.

Actually you'd better wake up to the real world, instead of believing you are one of those "realists"...

Re:No shit.

[argent]

There is too much money on the pro side for software patents to go away

Possibly true. That doesn't mean that this is a two-sided debate in any sense... the pro-patent side doesn't involve themselves in the debate. They involve themselves with lobbyists. If you have a reference for the "other side" that actually addresses the arguments from this side, I'd love to see it.

Better start thinking of ways to deal with the situation

Move software development out of the US and other places with broken patent laws. Remember the "ITAR subsidy" for non-US cryptography companies?

That would hit the "pro side" in their pocketbooks.

Re:No shit.

[fitten]

Having software patents has benefits, not having them has benefits as well. Both cases benefit the larger companies.

Without software patents, the instant anybody comes up with an idea, they've generated a new revenue stream for a large company. The large company simply sees and likes the idea so develops a product around it and sells it. Sure, products may become cheaper because not having software patents allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their own versions of the software, but the large companies who can employ a lot of folks can have more resources to develop the application further.

Along those lines, we should do away with copyrights on software as well for the same reason. Once someone writes some code, why should it be limited in how you can use it? Why have to have someone rewrite more code to do the same thing? All code written should be released under the BSD license, then.

It's up to you to figure out if I'm being sarcastic or if I support these ideas.

Re:No shit.

[dtfinch]

That's because we've got the best democracies money can buy right?

Re:No shit.

[torokun]

Software patents are a reality, whether you and me want them or not.

They're not in Europe.

Actually they are. Regardless of the provision you refer to, most if not all software innovations can be patented in the EU.

Re:No shit.

[0x0d0a]

Having software patents has benefits, not having them has benefits as well. Both cases benefit the larger companies.

That's logically nonsensical: Given A or ~A, A benefits large companies and ~A benefits large companies.

Without software patents, the instant anybody comes up with an idea, they've generated a new revenue stream for a large company. The large company simply sees and likes the idea so develops a product around it and sells it.

Except that:

(a) Implementation time in software relative to product cycle time is very long, making the value of being the first person to implement something still valuable without the need for an artificial monopoly. Traditional patents were designed for systems where ideas were pretty simple ("use a new sort of gear here") and the product lifecycle was long ("Yes, we've been making this type of plow for seven years now"). This vastly decreases the benefits of patents in the software field.

(b) Nobody uses patents as intended, in a manner that benefits the population as a whole. Large companies just maintain patent portfolios to keep people from entering and cross-license with their competitors. Little incentive to produce better products. Lots of companies have hard caps on what they'll pay for a license due to outrageous software patent litigation. For example, IIRC (and this may be out of date), Intel has a hard limit on a one-time $100K fee per patent, though they are willing to cross-license with other holders. That's not a very conducive environment to protect that little independent researcher that you're thinking of.

Sure, products may become cheaper because not having software patents allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their own versions of the software, but the large companies who can employ a lot of folks can have more resources to develop the application further.

Software patents have absolutely nothing to do with encouraging companies to do research. In a corporate lab environment, real advancements don't get patented, because then all your competitors have cross-licensed access to your research. They remain secret.

Along those lines, we should do away with copyrights on software as well for the same reason. Once someone writes some code, why should it be limited in how you can use it? Why have to have someone rewrite more code to do the same thing? All code written should be released under the BSD license, then.

Of course not. Copyright doesn't have the problems of software patents (you don't have "obvious copyrights"). Copyright does a better job than patents of dealing with the long-implementation short-lifecycle approach of software.

Re:No shit.

[BlackHawk-666]

Companies still have the option to actually innovate and improve their products. Case example, first person shooter games. There are tons of these games out there, probably a couple of hundred released each year, but only a few truly stand out and get the big dollars spent on them. These are the ones that companies have either innovated on, or polished so they shine like a gem in the muck. For example, Id Sithware has innovated in the tech field by providing a brilliant game engine in the form of Doom III, with a game attached no less. Valve are providing what many hope to be an immersive and well scripted gaming experience. Both companies will move a lot of product without the need of a patent.

Patents have their place and their value, but the software industry is not the right place to be deploying them.

Re:No shit.

[fitten]

Having software patents has benefits, not having them has benefits as well. Both cases benefit the larger companies.

That's logically nonsensical: Given A or ~A, A benefits large companies and ~A benefits large companies.

Only if you think about it simply. Given A, I can use this to my advantage by doing X. Given ~A, I can also use this to my advantage by doing Y. For example, if patents exist, I can take advantage of them to monopolize something, as you mention a number of times. However, if patents don't exist, I can take advantage of their non-existance to effectively "pick the brains" of every developer who writes code and releases it.

Without software patents, the instant anybody comes up with an idea, they've generated a new revenue stream for a large company. The large company simply sees and likes the idea so develops a product around it and sells it.

Except that:

(a) Implementation time in software relative to product cycle time is very long, making the value of being the first person to implement something still valuable without the need for an artificial monopoly. Traditional patents were designed for systems where ideas were pretty simple ("use a new sort of gear here") and the product lifecycle was long ("Yes, we've been making this type of plow for seven years now"). This vastly decreases the benefits of patents in the software field.


It depends on the software. Games and other "disposable" software demonstrate exactly what you say here. Other software has a longer useage. Database servers, for example, can be in production for many years (sure, the version numbers may change and you get newer products, but the patents that lie at the base of the work can be in effect and applicable for many years).

(b) Nobody uses patents as intended, in a manner that benefits the population as a whole. Large companies just maintain patent portfolios to keep people from entering and cross-license with their competitors. Little incentive to produce better products. Lots of companies have hard caps on what they'll pay for a license due to outrageous software patent litigation. For example, IIRC (and this may be out of date), Intel has a hard limit on a one-time $100K fee per patent, though they are willing to cross-license with other holders. That's not a very conducive environment to protect that little independent researcher that you're thinking of.

Guns don't kill people... People do. There are two sides to the situation. If a company or anyone else owns a patent, that excludes me from doing things. However, the other side is that if I have a patent, that means that I can do stuff with it (including not enforcing it and publicly declaring such) and others may not, except under my terms. Most of the people I see arguing against patents have the argument that others have the patents and that means I can't do stuff. I haven't seen any of those folks argue the point where they are the patent owner and what that means, other than to blow it off like above by saying basically "this never happens, the only situation is that big companies own them and use them to crush competition". Well, I work for a startup right now that is based on patent(s) held by the owner. Without a patent, we wouldn't exist and I'd be doing something else.

Sure, products may become cheaper because not having software patents allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their own versions of the software, but the large companies who can employ a lot of folks can have more resources to develop the application further.

Software patents have absolutely nothing to do with encouraging companies to do research. In a corporate lab environment, real advancements don't get patented, because then all your competitors have cross-licensed access to your research. They remain secret.


Again... patents are not only used by companies but "little folks" as well. So, it doesn't encourage companies to do

Re:No shit.

[ipgeek]

No, actually they are.

Check out European patent EP0,129,439. This is the European version of the infamous "gif" LZW patent that was enforceable in Germany, France, Britain, and Italy until June of this year.

Although "technically" the European patent offices are *not* supposed to allow patents to software, they routinely allow patents on what is actually a software invention (and have been doing so for decades). The problem is that the line between a software invention and a non-software invention is a really fuzzy one. Unfortunately, to suggest that software patents are not currently a problem in Europe (as has often been suggested on /.) is just plain wrong. They are already a problem and have been for many years...

Re:No shit.

[0x0d0a]

It depends on the software. Games and other "disposable" software demonstrate exactly what you say here. Other software has a longer useage. Database servers, for example, can be in production for many years (sure, the version numbers may change and you get newer products, but the patents that lie at the base of the work can be in effect and applicable for many years).

Sure, but the main IP affecting a DBMS is in the optimizer, something that is not a one-off project and can be steadily improved. It's quite feasible to work on a DBMS and keep improving it and keep ahead of the curve.

In order for you to argue that software patents are economically worthwhile, you'd have to demonstrate that there is a (worthwhile) specific process involved in a system that costs so much to produce that without patent protection, without a seventeen year monopoly on distribution of any related system to provide funding to produce this process, it could not be developed. And I just can't think of many features along those lines. Perhaps the mechanisms that we currently use in public key cryptography, but even the RSA folks didn't really do their work with direct profit in mind.

Sure, copyrights mean that someone else can't use your code, but doesn't prevent someone else from doing the same thing as you with different code. So, the "little guy" spends a year writing code and releases it into GPL because he's a nice guy. He intends to make money supporting his project. A big company sees it, throws a bunch of resources on it, develops a product in six months, and offers it as a product including support with more features. "Little guy" sees his revenue dry up and he can no longer have the dream of supporting himself through support contracts on his work.

He can't GPL it, because it has patents on it. Patented code (well, without a public release for all derivative works) is incompatible with the GPL. Most such folks don't open source their code. I'm much happier with someone closed sourcing their code and not patenting it (sure, it'll take a while to get reverse engineered, but someone will manage it eventually).

Sure, you say that this fosters "innovation" and "competition", but what it does is makes software a non-money making process.

It makes it more competitive. Which is usually (though, I will admit, not always) a good thing for the system as a whole.

I could, if I wanted, try to set up shop offering services and support for MySQL and/or Apache and prices less than the folks who wrote and maintain that software. I can fork off their code and take their business away, if I were aggressive enough (includes doing it all for free, subsidizing it off my savings, until I drive them out of the game).

A few people have tried (esp. with Apache), and it hasn't happened.

What they rarely take into account is that they might be on the receiving end of that sometime and will need to feed themselves and their families somehow. It's very easy to take the stance of "survival of the fittest" when you ignore the fact that it will also apply to yourself. A person's ego will rarely let them even think that they will be the one to suffer in such a situtation, they will always be the winner in such contests. For every "winner", there is at least one "loser", many times there are many "losers".

Sure, but it's still necessary, if the economy as a whole really is better off. A lot of people have been badly screwed over by shifts in industry (take, for instance, steelworkers in the United States -- the plight of them and the number of them is much more significant than that of software engineers).

When there was no concept of copyright (and later, for a long time, no concept of international copyright), content producers still made content. The rules change a bit, but the system still works.

Re:No shit.

[Elektroschock]

Well, the political debate in Europe is almost won. There is no real business opposition, it's all about patent attorneys. It remains a power question, the fusioned executive branches represent the interests of patent attorneys.. We have to adress the issue of software patents worldwide, also in the USA.

US-Parl software Patents mailing list of FFII

Re:No shit.

[torokun]

Yes, we certainly do need to address the question. We need to make sure software is patentable everywhere it matters. ;)

Re:No shit.

[Halo1]

Check out European patent EP0,129,439. This is the European version of the infamous "gif" LZW patent that was enforceable in Germany, France, Britain, and Italy until June of this year.

We actually made a whole webshop of such examples, but your "that was enforceable" phrasing is very misleading.

It was most likely enforceable in the UK, as there the courts generally do uphold software patents. The highest court in Germany traditionally nullified most software patents in court cases however, though the last few years some exceptions have occurred. I don't know the case law of Italy and France regarding software patents.

I do know that for example in the Netherlands, no one has ever even tried to enforce a software patent in a court however. So claiming that a directive which clearly makes software patents always enforceable simply "harmonises the status quo", is definitely not true. If something is codified, it's at a best a snapshot of the case law of a few courts from yesterday.

Re:No shit.

[ninthwave]

Reply for a paten in the United Kingdom and you need to have a prototype within the year of filing. That working prototype is used as reference on disputes of overly broad patents as the actual product is looked at not the writen description.

History there is now law for software patents in Europe. The Dutch have objected to the inclusion of it in the patent law and the European Union has to withdraw them and redraft them. There is a huge debate in the EU over should software be patented.

So reading material as your assurances do not fly with me against the facts.

http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html

http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html?LANG=en

http://news.com.com/2100-1012-998547.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/19/how_the_ vo te_was_won/

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16984

and so on

Re:No shit.

[ipgeek]

Agreed, "enforceable" is misleading. What I meant to suggest is that such European software patents are granted by the European patent office and are routinely licensed commercially. They can be as big a headache for many companies in Europe since it's a pain in the neck to have to invalidate someone's patent (though Europe has much better opposition mechanisms than the US for invalidating patents).

Re:No shit.

[Halo1]

I do agree with that.

In another news...

[Cyberax]

Smoking causes cancer!

Re:In another news...

[Fr05t]

Smoking patents? Woh good thing I kicked that vice.

Re:In another news...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is right
There is a direct correlation between eating and death.

do you know of anyone who has died but has never eaten anything? I think not!

Who commisioned the report?

[levell]

The ./ effect is stopping me reading it at the moment but what I want to know is who paid for the study?

Re:Who commisioned the report?

[wa1ter]

The dutch ministery of economic affairs.

Re:Who commisioned the report?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny.. the preface is written by Brinkhorst, Who voted FOR software patents.(Against the will of the Netherlands Parlement)

Re:Who commisioned the report?

[geordie_loz]

I heard that the Dutch revolked their vote for EU software patents.

Re:Who commisioned the report?

[wa1ter]

They did as there was some miscommunication between Brinkhorst and the dutch parliament http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16984

Re:Who commisioned the report?

[The Mgt]

If he gets a cushy job with Vivendi when he retires from politics then I guess we'll know why.

Re:Who commisioned the report?

[Golthar]

This has long since been overturned.
In fact, this is the first time that a vote was changed in the European parliment.

Lets hope this is a sign of things to come

Re:Who commisioned the report?

[leonmergen]

Yeah, but then you leave away the fact how such a minister makes a decision... they really don't read up on all of it - they get a document, don't read it, get a few informers, who already have their decision made up, they convince such a minister, and a minister votes. Anyway, I initially was afraid that the study was just 'yet another study without influence', but I think this will be a big move in the right direction for the dutch view on software patents...

Totally OT: Re:a PDF ??

[flossie]

So, I guess PWC are really happy bunnies right now... I'm a subscriber, and I couldn't download the PDF before the link became public

Have a look at the link in the story: www.pwc.com.nyud.net:8090...

This will have no impact on PWC's servers. Then again, I would have thought that they could afford to buy enough bandwidth to keep up.

duh nuh

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty interesting. PWC was purchased by IBM, one of the largest patent holders, many of which are software patents.

Re:duh nuh

[wa1ter]

PWC Consulting was taken over by IBM and turned into IBM Business Consulting Services. Advisory Services (most likely to have written this report) are still PWC.

Coral doesn't work...

[doodlelogic]

Here is the real link

Re:Coral doesn't work...

[GileadGreene]

It works fine for me... maybe the problem's at your end

A good oppurtunity

[intx13]

Although the preceeding comments have been largely on the order of "duh, /. users knew this for years!", we need to make sure this oppurtunity doesn't go to waste. If you've known it for years, then make sure other people know it as well. This is a good oppurtunity to spread the word. As the issue gets more press, it's going to be important to make sure it's given the gravity that it deserves.

Re:A good oppurtunity

[ykardia]

Also, *we* might have known it for years and told people about it, but if a conservative consultancy/ accountancy firm says it, it immediately makes it more credible in the eyes of the mainstream media, the public, and in the eyes of our representative. It makes it easier to convince people that the issue is real and serious.

On a slightly different note, who knows where I can find the MEPs for London?

Re:A good oppurtunity

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

On a slightly different note, who knows where I can find the MEPs for London?
Go to the European Parliament, UK Office - UK MEPs page, click on London.

Re:A good oppurtunity

[ykardia]

Cheers, mate!

Re:A good oppurtunity

[Stokey]

If anyone is interested, I recently wrote to, and emaild, all 79 UK MEPs with a letter decrying the software patent. I have all the addresses and contact details in a much more usable format that allows mail merge etc. Reply to this if you want to get hold of the info.

To be fair to them all, I had written responses from everyone, even a couple of hand signed letters. I also had email responses from at least the offices. The general themes were: We're for them except for the grey areas and we all believe they need more work. That is except for the Green party who are admirably anti SPs.

Cheers,

Stokey

Re:A good oppurtunity

[Elektroschock]

What we can do? We can get organised. As a US citizen you could join US-parl@ffii.org.

There are similar lists for EU member states de-parl, fr-parl, nl-parl and so on.

FFII is a very successful software patents criticism advocacy group. FFII's news site covered the PWC story ~ 14 days ago.

Deja vu...

[mirko]

It's not the first time we read such reports on slashdot...
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...

Now, with whatever threatens innovation, we guess if these reports were true, it should Darwinianly be extinct by now. :)

Re:Deja vu...

[Halo1]

There's however something special about this one. The magic word "PriceWaterhousCoopers" (try saying it quickly 10 times!) opens a lot of ears which remain deaf in other cases.

Now is the time

[Sanity]

Despite setbacks, those opposed to software patents in the EU have had a significant impact, successfully lobbying the European Parliament to reject software patents. Proponents of software patents, who like to dismiss opponents as "extremists", have even taken to flat out denials that they are pushing for a US-style patent system, even though this is precisely what they are seeking to achieve (simply ask them which of the 30,000 illegally granted EU software patents would not be permitted under their proposed language).

There are two opportunities left. The Council of Ministers has already voted in favour of a pro-swpat text, but this has yet to be confirmed, and while uncommon, it is still possible for countries to change their vote. Given the extremely suspect way the original decision was reached (which would be scarily familiar to fans of "Yes Minister"), this could happen, but national governments must be lobbied, particularly the Netherlands and Germany.

If this fails, then the European Parliament gets to amend the Council's text, however this is much more difficult than that first time around, and so all Europeans that care about this issue must lobby their MEPs to ensure that they vote in the correct way.

We have made a difference, we can still make a difference, but only by engaging with the political process. If anyone would like to learn more, please visit the FFII website.

Re:Now is the time

[olderchurch]

This is great news. I know a lot of you think Duh, but you have to look at it from the other side. This report was not meant for the /. crowd, it was meant for the ministry of economic affairs in The Netherlands. The minister himself had to change it's vote after a vote in the parliament.

This give the recall of the vote a lot more cloud and hopefully will start to appeal to parliaments in other EU countries.

Re:Now is the time

[Anonymous Coward]

The Council of Ministers has already voted in favour of a pro-swpat text, but this has yet to be confirmed, and while uncommon, it is still possible for countries to change their vote.

German IT news site heise.de reported today that the confirmation, originally scheduled for tomorrow, has been postponed. There is indication - but no certainty - the paper is going back to the relevant comittee for further discussion and possible changes.

European IT experts and smaller firms have fought hard against software patents over the last months. While the battle is far from won, it is good to see there is some sort of effect, and lobbying work has not entirely immunized the EU to reason.

Re:Now is the time

[RogerWilco]

I'm Dutch and I did send letters. Other Dutchmen/women join me!

Re:Now is the time

[olderchurch]

For Dutch and Belgium citizens, check here for addresses

Re:Now is the time

[Sanity]

Actually, according to this I believe he was instructed to change his vote - but he is still refusing to do-so

outlook

[smallguy78]

Will this be enforced on existing software or is it just new software? All those applications that steal the outlook look and feel (or the components that mimic outlook) could mean Microsoft rake in a fortune.

DMCA erosions

[alatesystems]

It really is sad for IP and science in general when we have to go to court for a while to find out if we can make a garage door opener remote. The DMCA is possibly the worst thing that has ever happened to science in general. It lets companies be anti-competitive legally under a shroud of "protecting their intellectual property".

We all(I already have) should be going to the EFF's DMCA Action Page.

Contact your senators and representatives.(USA).

Chris

Re:DMCA erosions

[Elektroschock]

Well, a fact is that opposition in the USA is less organised. entering mailing lists is a first step. There are only 21 subsribers to us-parl at ffii.org.

Please support us in Europe. It is crucial that we win this vote, we can take on the other issues later. On the UN level we are already very strong. On the long run we will win.

Even the Bad Guys are on our side

[Mirk]

This is excellent news indeed. A close friend worked for PriceWaterhouseCooper until recently, and eventually left because he couldn't keep living with the mentality that cared about nothing but money. I guess this is not unique to PWC, but is a tendency that will tend to afflict all big companies.

The point is that they, unlike for example Richard Stallman, most surely have no axe to grind when they talk about software patents stifling innovation. When they complain about the effects of software patents, they are complaining only about their effect on the bottom line - and every informed analyst will know that. So their stance against software patents will carry a lot more weight than that of the people who've been crying out in the wilderness for all these years.

It's strange the friends we seem to be making these days ... First IBM, now PWC.

Re:Even the Bad Guys are on our side

[anothy]

they're not bad guys, really. they're interested in making money, but that doesn't inherently make them evil. IBM and PWC simply have more foresight and long-term vision than most other companies. we hate the DMCA and friends because they're bad for innovation, which means it's harder for us to do our jobs and we have less interesting toys to play with. they hate the DMCA and friends because they're bad for innovation, which means less stuff for them to make money on. there's no conflict here. and you're right, it gives them a lot more weight, since governments are much more interested in people who make (for themselves, and generate) money than people who want nifty toys to play with.

Re:Even the Bad Guys are on our side

[mboos]

It's strange the friends we seem to be making these days ... First IBM, now PWC.

IBM owns PWC. So in essence, these two friends are one and the same.

Re:Even the Bad Guys are on our side

[Pig Hogger]

This is excellent news indeed. A close friend worked for PriceWaterhouseCooper until recently, and eventually left because he couldn't keep living with the mentality that cared about nothing but money. I guess this is not unique to PWC, but is a tendency that will tend to afflict all big companies.

Hellooo??? nothing but money is the frigging point for **ALL** companies, big or small.

It's worse in a small company, because in a big one, you have some leeway to hide somewhere. You don't have that when your boss ***OWNS*** the whoe damn place and can be everywhere and know all that happens.

The upside (every cloud comes with a silver lining attached) is that there are no meetings in small companies... :)

Re:Even the Bad Guys are on our side

[Tim C]

they hate the DMCA and friends because they're bad for innovation, which means less stuff for them to make money on.

Not quite. They hate the DMCA et al because they think that more money can be made without them, than with them. It's got nothing to do with stifling innovation, and everything to do with stifling profit opportunities.

If they thought more money could be made in licensing deals, they'd be backing the laws.

Re:Even the Bad Guys are on our side

[Ocrad]

It's strange the friends we seem to be making these days ... First IBM, now PWC.

IBM owns PWC. So in essence, these two friends are one and the same.

October 2, 2002
"IBM paid about $3.5 billion in cash and stock for the PricewaterhouseCoopers unit, which specializes in global management consulting and technology services".
See full article here

Re:Even the Bad Guys are on our side

[PugMajere]

Hey, PWC is an accounting firm.

I think they're *supposed* to only care about money.

Hmm..I don't think...

[SimianOverlord]

...that this is just the fault of the patent system, it is a flaw in the legal system, and it is a flaw in the community. Where patents are demonstratedly wrong, it should be easier for small companies or individuals to challenge that bad patent. Bad patents shouldn't just stand becasue one party has deeper pockets. And parties who are in thei right shouldn't be so cowardly as to run from these fights, if they want to change the system, they must work at it. It's all very well bitching about C&D and takedown notices, but you Americans meekly agree to do whatever they say anyway, grow some backbone.

I feel sorry for the USPTO. They obviously lack technical expertise, and can't afford the salaries to attain it. If they were getting feedback on what patents were downright bad from the court system, they could train and evolve to start granting more deserved patents.

Re:Hmm..I don't think...

[Pig Hogger]

...that this is just the fault of the patent system, it is a flaw in the legal system, and it is a flaw in the community.
...
I feel sorry for the USPTO. They obviously lack technical expertise, and can't afford the salaries to attain it. If they were getting feedback on what patents were downright bad from the court system, they could train and evolve to start granting more deserved patents.

You are right (on the first point) and wrong; the USPTO **HAS** the technical expertise, it's just that their hands are tied by the legal procedures, and it's the deep-pocketed clients who patent stuff that pour all the money they want into legal proceedings.

Re:Hmm..I don't think...

[SimianOverlord]

Yes, this article is about Europe, but the underlying issue that PWC were investigating, and which has been discussed and voted on in the European Parliment, is whether Europe should have a US style software patents system. That is what PWC are discussing, so I don't feel it is to offtopic to bring up problems in the US style system. I type and spell well, but I don't prewrite rants. Blame the superior educational system over here.

alternative link

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ecp.nl/dossier_files/pwc_rethinking_eur opean_ict_agenda.pdf/

Re:alternative link

[AVee]

Now just remove the slash and the link works...

The specific problem as I see it....

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

...is that the large software companies have patented so much of the fundamental building blocks of software engineering that even if you do come up with something truly "new and innovative" they can still get you on the sub-component functionality.

This means they can effectively hold to ransome any new software venture that turns out to be succesful, regardless of what they do.

Minister Brinkhorst

[Frans Faase]

Most interesting is the fact that the Dutch parlement is trying to force Minister Brinkhorst to change his vote and that he continues to refuse to do so. The only reason he seems to be able to get away with this is that it is not a political issue, because the Dutch media not understanding software patents is not giving it any attention. The infection in the feet of our prime minister is far more interesting. (The latest rumours are that it was a rather serious infection, which might have killed him.)

Re:Minister Brinkhorst

[Pig Hogger]

The only reason he seems to be able to get away with this is that it is not a political issue, because the Dutch media not understanding software patents is not giving it any attention. The infection in the feet of our prime minister is far more interesting. (The latest rumours are that it was a rather serious infection, which might have killed him.)

Infection in the feet? Does it impairs his mental abilities???

Re:Minister Brinkhorst

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest rumours are that it was a rather serious infection, which might have killed him.

Bah! Madam Pomfrey will have him fixed up in no time.

Re:Minister Brinkhorst

[Frans Faase]

He suffered from an aggressive streptococ/stafylococ bacterial infection and had to undergo surgery more than once to remove damaged tissue from his feet. He has had a fever for about a week. And although people around him are saying that he seems to be very alert and in good mental health, others have expressed their doubts whether he will be able to resume his normal (very busy) working schedule in the coming weeks, and that he might require some months to recover from it completely.

I BET

[Wolfier]

The report will be pulled within one week.

Re:I BET

[Wolfier]

Well, it happened before. A security firm has its article retracted and the analyst fired.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but a lot of companies DON'T like the report, that's for sure.

Well yes, but

[RsG]

I don't think anyone here is surprised. And I'm glad to see a report that supports what has been a rather undereported debate.

What concerns me though is: if we do away with patents what will replace them? Have any /.ers seen or thought of a solution to this problem? I'm all for making software as "free" as possible, but I'm also of the mind that there would have to be some kind of IP structure in place.

My thinking has always been that too much control of too much information has been in the hands of too few individuals. Software patents, as they're presently implimented, worsen this problem by allowing exclusivity and ownership of ideas that are otherwise easy to disribute. What concerns me is that those ideas don't come from nowhere; creativity is required at some stage. Even if the originator of an idea doesn't own it, (s)he was still presumably paid for it. Do we, the geeks, beleive that total freedom of information will leave an incentive to actually invent anything new? I've seen the argument that the benefit will come from somewhere else, like geeks supporting the software, bands getting paid by touring, etc. Ultimately you can't get something for nothing, though, and unless I'm mistaken the above shift would have us bitching about ludicrous ticket prices and support charges.

Has anyone run into an IP scheme that would balance the creator/user relationship? Our present system is skewed and prone to monopolism, and a total absence of ownership would entail its own set of problems. We have to pay for something, somewhere (not that I'm a free market capitalist, but when the flow of money stops people starve).

Re:Well yes, but

[dyfet]

It's called copyright. Software was and remained subject to copyright even with the very recent addition of software patenting. In fact, while copyright deals principly with the dissemination of a work, patents deal with the legal right to use or perform. Since the two represent different and somewhat complimentary exclusive restrictions, most every other technical field that uses patents does not permit or use copyright as well, since both together are especially oppressive.

Furthermore, patent filings, which express the "ideas" of a patent, are themselves neither patented nor even allowed to be copyrighted. After all, patents were intended to give incentive to disseminate information, and restricting patent filings in effect would undermine their claimed purpose. Similarly, source code expresses the "ideas" of a given software work and certainly should not be subject to patents in part for this very same goal.

Finally, since patents are about use, when they are applied to non-tangible things where use is expression, they in effect are a legal barrier to the very right to think. Hence, for thinking about, or using an idea, even in private, is at least theoretically a patent infingement. Certainly we do not patent books, and for many of the very same reasons we should not patent software.

All in all, I would love to see an active software patent repeal movement in this country.

Re:Well yes, but

[JaredOfEuropa]

What concerns me though is: if we do away with patents what will replace them? Have any /.ers seen or thought of a solution to this problem? I'm all for making software as "free" as possible, but I'm also of the mind that there would have to be some kind of IP structure in place.

I think patents serve a useful function , however in the case of software patents we can do without them altogether.

Most software involves problem solving that is merely the means to an end, not an end in itself. Take for example the (patented) use of the XOR function for mouse pointers. The XOR function is not an invention that stands on its own as a result of long, painstaking and expensive research that eventually enabled the mouse pointer to be invented. It's the other way around: someone was programming a mouse pointer and decided to use the existing XOR function to solve the problem of restoring the graphics that the pointer passes over. This use of the XOR function does not qualify as an invention or research, it was simply a (very obvious) solution that needed to be solved to achieve the end result. It needed to be solved because these guys were the first to implement a mouse pointer, and as such they were able to patent this solution.

Simply being the first to solve a trivial and hitherto irrelevant problem should not be good enough to be awarded with a patent. Patents are designed to establish ownership of the result of expensive and difficult research, but most of the software patents protect things that were neither expensive or difficult to find, and are not worth 'protecting'

Our present system is skewed and prone to monopolism, and a total absence of ownership would entail its own set of problems. We have to pay for something, somewhere (not that I'm a free market capitalist, but when the flow of money stops people starve).

Ownership of software can be (and is) established through copyright; we don't need patents on top of that. Look at the current crop of lawsuits concerning software patents. Are they
a) An effort to defend the fruits of painstaking, expensive research that resulted in genuinely new ideas, or
b) An effort to lock out competitors, who would have spent the same 5 minutes to solve the problem under dispute without any effort, had they been there first rather than second.
Most cases are of type B. This is not surprising as another ./ poster pointed out with a good analogy, comparing software to a recipy for apple pie.

Take Mom's Secret Recipe for apple pie. Copyright protects the entire recipe: I'm not allowed to publish it without Mom's permission. However if I decide to publish a slighty different recipe, using cinnamon rather than vanilla essence or something, I'll probably be in the clear.
Software patents are similar to patents on the various steps to make the pie: Mom might have patented the use of flour and butter to protect her particular recipe, but this means that I owe Mom royalties even if I am making apple pie to my own recipe, or even a completely different kind of pie.

Re:Well yes, but

[pjt33]

I haven't RTFA, but the summary implies it was specifically about software patents. Europe doesn't have them at the moment - why would the US need something to replace them? Companies will continue to innovate because there's an advantage to being the first in a field; academics will continue to innovate because that gives them papers to publish.

Re:Well yes, but

[blancolioni]

What concerns me though is: if we do away with patents what will replace them?

Quicksort, simulated annealing, B*-trees, ReiserFS, the Banker's algorithm, quad trees, top down parsing, binary search, programming languages, PGP, PNG, bongo drums.

These are things which were never protected by patents, and yet were still created. What should replace software patents? Nothing, that's what.

Re:Well yes, but

[AstroDrabb]

It is called copyright and prevents me from taking your work. We do not need anything more then that with software.

Could I go out and patent addition, subtraction, multiplication and division? NO. Why, because it would encumber the building blocks of mathematics. However, this is exactly what has happened with software patents in the USA. Most of the basic and especially trivial building blocks of software have been taken and held ransom by big corporations. So even if I as a programmer create something new and innovative, the big patent holders will have some basic building blocks of my software creation patented and can hold it ransom for money.

This is also the reason why you can not get a patent on a recipe. Imagine if I were allowed to get a patent on adding salt and pepper to a recipe. I would be rich. I could patent so many ingredients that it would make a chefs job incredibly hard if not impossible. Yet as programmers we are supposed to sit back and let big corporations take away all of our fundamental building blocks of software creation. It is sickening to me.

The driving force behind software patents is not to expand the public domain and create novel and innovative creations. The driving force is BIG MONEY. Big money from big corporations going into the hands of politicians to get laws passed to remove copetition and further fill the coffers of big corporate entities.

Re:Well yes, but

[AstroDrabb]

Mod parent up.

blancolioni, is right on the money. Many people falsely believe that if software patents go away, all innovative and novel ideas go away. That is just rubbish. IMO, without software patents, innovation will take off like a bat out of h-e-double-hockey-sticks. People and companies will always innovate because there is the incentive to being the first to market, having the better solution or the more cost effective solution. There are unlimited ways for a company or individual to differentiate their work. The only things currently holding back that unlimited differentiation are software patents and costly litigation over software patents.

Here is a gem from the report::

[Pig Hogger]

Breaktrough 6: Develop a strategic response to job migration to low-wage countries
Economic growth and employment can be seriously affected by the accelerated job migration to low-wage countries. The EU needs to develop a strategic response.

duh? Well, how about CUSTOMS TARIFFS designed to bring the price of low wages countries products more in line with those in the high wages coutries??? If a country pays jack shit to it's workers, the tarrifs go back in the importing country's government's pockets who can then use it to help increase that country's competitivity. But if it pays it's workers better, in turn, THEY BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE, because the receiving countries' tarrifs drop, and the extra price they are able to get for their products stays in the exporting country as profits, instead of tariffs in the importing country!!!

Geee whizz, in the last century, Henry Ford generated quite a commotion when he raised his worker's pay; that enabled them to BUY automobiles, which propelled Ford at the forefront of the industry!

But nowadays, bourgeois have no more foresight, and the swarms of MBAs they fatly pay have no more common-sense than a brain-dead sponge (with or without square pants), so they keep doing everything in the name of ultra-myopic short-sight. Free-trade only benefits the company owners, for the rest of the population, it means a steady decrease in the standard of living!

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[0123456]

"Well, how about CUSTOMS TARIFFS designed to bring the price of low wages countries products more in line with those in the high wages coutries???"

What a brilliant idea: let's increase the cost of goods to poor people in the West and shovel even more of their money to unproductive government workers through the new taxes.

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[Pig Hogger]

What a brilliant idea: let's increase the cost of goods to poor people in the West and shovel even more of their money to unproductive government workers through the new taxes.

This is ***EXACTLY*** what governments were doing before the widespread free-trade treaties of the last 15-20 years. Remember those times where nearly everyone made a decent living for a reasonable amount of work and when a man could support one family with one job, and when people weren't crushed by 60 hour-weeks because half the people don't work and the other half work for two???

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[0123456]

"Remember those times where nearly everyone made a decent living for a reasonable amount of work and when a man could support one family with one job, and when people weren't crushed by 60 hour-weeks because half the people don't work and the other half work for two???"

You mean before the government started stealing nearly 50% of our income in one tax or another?

I read an interesting study a few years back about US families: turned out that the lower-paid worker in a couple typically took home just about as much money as the higher-paid worker paid in taxes... cut the taxes back to the absolute minimum, and they could survive on one income.

But hey, there's no problem that can't be solved by increasing taxes, right?

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[jeanlo]

Well, how about CUSTOMS TARIFFS designed to bring the price of low wages countries products more in line with those in the high wages coutries???

Well custom tariffs may cause your trading partners to impose additional tariffs on your own products. Which may not be the outcome you look for. There are more subtle or obivous ways to make the imports of foreign products less attrative and your export more attrative. A dollar devaluation would be one obvious way. Ironically, strictly enforcement of overly broad patent systems is one way the US is using to keep US salaries higher than other countries. Other subtle ways are for instance imposing import restriction based on health concerns. Think mad cow disease. Simarly I read that people in Japan have an obsession about consuming fresh products, and that there are quarantine rules that cause foreign food products to be less fresh than domestic ones. Also acts like a soft import restriction.

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[hng_rval]

Well, how about CUSTOMS TARIFFS designed to bring the price of low wages countries products more in line with those in the high wages coutries??? If a country pays jack shit to it's workers, the tarrifs go back in the importing country's government's pockets who can then use it to help increase that country's competitivity. But if it pays it's workers better, in turn, THEY BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE, because the receiving countries' tarrifs drop, and the extra price they are able to get for their products stays in the exporting country as profits, instead of tariffs in the importing country!!!

Clearly you have no understanding of international business. You can't just impose tariffs, especially if you are within a free-trade zone (such as Mexico/US). If you impose tariffs on them they can impose tariffs on you (not necessarily for the same goods). All tariffs do is reduce the trade between countries (or groups of countries)

When countries are able to offer lower wages they do so generally because the standards of living are lower. When products can be produced for less, that country has a competitive advantage in producing those products. While sometimes, lax environmental laws or other legal matters make it unfair for some countries generally the cheaper production costs should be utilized. In situations where there is unfair competition tariffs can be imposed in that case, according to a NAFTA or WTO agreement.

But nowadays, bourgeois have no more foresight, and the swarms of MBAs they fatly pay have no more common-sense than a brain-dead sponge (with or without square pants), so they keep doing everything in the name of ultra-myopic short-sight. Free-trade only benefits the company owners, for the rest of the population, it means a steady decrease in the standard of living!

I'd rather not mention your disrespect of MBAs at this point, as I'm getting one (after working as a software engineer for a while) and there are plenty of MBAs without the greed you suggest. Also, many of them are extremely intelligent, and you would be best off not underestimating them just because you lack the capacity to understand what they do. As for the idea that free-trade only benefits the company owners, you are wrong there too. Free trade benefits:

1. Yes, company owners
2. The economy in general, as more money is available for investment
3. The global economy as there is more money available for innovation
4. Consumers, who get cheaper products
5. Most importantly, it helps the new workers who would otherwise be unemployed

What's more selfish? Moving your employment offshore to get your investors money, or trying to justify your high paying job when someone living in poverty could do just as good a job (situational) for much less money?

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[Olathe]

Yeah. Let's see who benefits from trade barriers. Do consumers benefit ? No, they have to pay higher prices. Do in-country business owners benefit ? Yes, their competition was just hamstringed. Wow. You got it exactly backwards.

All economics is based on human nature because the actions of humans combine to make the economy. If you don't understand basic human nature, you can't understand basic economics.

Here are the basic principles of human nature you miss :

• insulate people from the effects of their inefficiency and THEY WILL NEVER LEARN TO BE MORE EFFICIENT.
• more money BEFORE good results NEVER LEADS TO BETTER RESULTS LATER, in salaries or government programs.

If you were able to race against a bunch of people who had to wear lead shoes (analogous to tarriffs) when you didn't, would you try as hard to compete ? Salaries are nice, but when I get the salary someone who outdid me should have gotten, that doesn't lead me to conclude I should try harder. It leads me to conclude that the politicians are useful idiots I need to cultivate.

Assuming that government throwing money at the problem of competitiveness will help is absurd. Look at the effectiveness of nearly any government program. Why do public schools turn out morons when trillions of dollars have been spent on education ? Because more and more money is shovelled at it when it fails in order to "help it out" instead of waiting to shovel more money after it produces good results.

Let's look at the logic of Ford in your example: give money, get it back, lose a car. Net loss: one car, net gain: absolutely nothing. Ford succeeded by becoming so EFFICIENT it could offer LOW-PRICED cars and the masses (that didn't work for him) could buy lots of them.

You deride people who disagree as myopic. Let me spell it out for you :

• You aren't insulated -> you have to actually outdo your competitors -> you get more efficient to do this -> you can offer lower prices than your competitors -> the masses benefit from lower prices.
• You are insulated -> politicians just made it where you don't have to outdo your competitors -> you cultivate politicians -> you get rich and the masses have high priced crap.

Why in the hell do you think corporations spend so much time lobbying ?

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[Olathe]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. ***EXCELLENT*** reasoning.

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[zx75]

Yes, and lets impose Customs Tariffs to keep companies from investing in poorer nations, forcing even them to cut more corners (such as reduce already pitiful wages even further) in order to compete in a marketplace that is already tilted in favour of the rich.

Countries that impose protectionist tariffs are not known for voluntarily and unilaterally reducing those tariffs for the benefit of foreign competition. If anyone thinks imposing tariffs as a threat for a country to pay its workers better, guess what? It doesn't work because those tariff rates are almost never dropped to reward countries that do!

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[Pig Hogger]

blockquote> Clearly you have no understanding of international business. You can't just impose tariffs, especially if you are within a free-trade zone (such as Mexico/US). If you impose tariffs on them they can impose tariffs on you (not necessarily for the same goods). All tariffs do is reduce the trade between countries (or groups of countries)

Of course other countries can impose tariffs!!! That's called levelling the playing field !!! The idea is to let governments act for the BEST INTEREST OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS!!!!

When countries are able to offer lower wages they do so generally because the standards of living are lower. When products can be produced for less, that country has a competitive advantage in producing those products.

Perhaps, but they are more reliant on external capital, as they are unable to raise the proper capital themselves.

While sometimes, lax environmental laws or other legal matters make it unfair for some countries generally the cheaper production costs should be utilized. In situations where there is unfair competition tariffs can be imposed in that case, according to a NAFTA or WTO agreement.

The problem is that the standard of living of the populations are NOT covered by the agreements; in that, governments have FAILED to protect the interests of their populations.

I'd rather not mention your disrespect of MBAs at this point, as I'm getting one (after working as a software engineer for a while) and there are plenty of MBAs without the greed you suggest.

The fact is, the MBAs have a disproportionate influence, and that influcence is **ALWAYS** towards the bottom-line, wich is all too often contrary to the long-term benefit of the populations affected by the decisions of the too-big companies they work for.

Also, many of them are extremely intelligent, and you would be best off not underestimating them just because you lack the capacity to understand what they do.

Their main capacity is not hard to understand: how to squeeze the most profits from any given situation. Doing otherwise would be a dereliction of duty for them.

As for the idea that free-trade only benefits the company owners, you are wrong there too. Free trade benefits:

Yes, company owners The economy in general, as more money is available for investment The global economy as there is more money available for innovation Consumers, who get cheaper products Most importantly, it helps the new workers who would otherwise be unemployed

1. They only have to look-out for themselves.
2. Society is not the economy alone. There are many things besides the economy, all things being just as important as the economy itself. Therefore, anything who only looks AT the economy can be quite destructive for society in general.
3. What good are consumers who cannot afford the goods produced by the bourgeois? At one point, the bourgeois will be SOL without any middle-class consumers to buy their shit! Again, this is proof of the blatant shortsightedness of the bourgeois and their MBA minions!!!!
4. What new workers? Lemme guess why you're getting an MBA. Because employment's tight for a software engineer? (Or maybe you are a lousy software engineer?)

   What's more selfish? Moving your employment offshore to get your investors money, or trying to justify your high paying job when someone living in poverty could do just as good a job (situational) for much less money?

This is taking advantage of poverty. In the book of anybody with a sense of ethics, this is despicable.

But, of course, we expect an MBA to find this perfectly allright.

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[Pig Hogger]

Yeah. Let's see who benefits from trade barriers. Do consumers benefit ? No, they have to pay higher prices. Do in-country business owners benefit ? Yes, their competition was just hamstringed. Wow. You got it exactly backwards.

What good to a country it is when consumers send money out of a given country? Look at the US trade deficit.

Look at how Spain became economically backeards after it stole all the south-american gold. The same thing will happen to the US...

All economics is based on human nature because the actions of humans combine to make the economy. If you don't understand basic human nature, you can't understand basic economics.

Here are the basic principles of human nature you miss :

• insulate people from the effects of their inefficiency and THEY WILL NEVER LEARN TO BE MORE EFFICIENT.

One man's inefficiency is another man's way of life. US capitalists fail to see this by tying to shove down their culture down the throat of the rest of the planet through free-trade agreements.

• • more money BEFORE good results NEVER LEADS TO BETTER RESULTS LATER, in salaries or government programs.

If the good results brought more money, I'd agree with you, alas it is not the case. The standard of life has been dwindling for the middle class of all the countries involved.

If you were able to race against a bunch of people who had to wear lead shoes (analogous to tarriffs) when you didn't, would you try as hard to compete ? Salaries are nice, but when I get the salary someone who outdid me should have gotten, that doesn't lead me to conclude I should try harder. It leads me to conclude that the politicians are useful idiots I need to cultivate.

And what is the point of competing more? Make more widgets? What if no one can buy the widgets because they've become nouveaux pauvres thanks to the new improved (for whom?) economy????

Assuming that government throwing money at the problem of competitiveness will help is absurd. Look at the effectiveness of nearly any government program. Why do public schools turn out morons when trillions of dollars have been spent on education ? Because more and more money is shovelled at it when it fails in order to "help it out" instead of waiting to shovel more money after it produces good results.

Public schools turn-out morons because the bourgeois have no use for an educated population. A moronic population will dutifully do what it's told without question, and buy whatever shit the bourgeois throws at them so they can be cool.

It's no surprise that the bourgeois send their offspring to private schools, because there, they can have better edcation that tells them how to become leaders and screw the population for their own benefit!

Let's look at the logic of Ford in your example: give money, get it back, lose a car. Net loss: one car, net gain: absolutely nothing. Ford succeeded by becoming so EFFICIENT it could offer LOW-PRICED cars and the masses (that didn't work for him) could buy lots of them.

Nevertheless, FORD doubled or tripled their worker's salaries SO THEY COULD BUY THE WIDGETS. Nowadays, the companies are cutting salaries and benefit that the workers cannot afford the widgets anymore. It's getting to the point that there will be no middle-class left to buy the goddammed widgets, leaving the bourgois up the creek!

You deride people who disagree as myopic. Let me spell it out for you :

• You aren't insulated -> you have to actually outdo your competitors -> you get more efficient to do this -> yo

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[Olathe]

Your responses do nothing to my rebuttal.

Paraphrase: "Money leaving America is bad. Money (in the form of gold) entering Spain ruined it." That's a blatant contradiction: either money in a country helps or it doesn't. It builds up the wall of your economic theory in the places I'm not attacking. My attacks had nothing to do with money supply. You'll need to do better in showing how your ideas about the money supply defend against specific points in my rebuttal.

One man's inefficiency is another man's way of life. US capitalists fail to see this by tying to shove down their culture down the throat of the rest of the planet through free-trade agreements.

If there are tarriffs, foreigners have to work harder to get the same profit from Americans than they would have. How in the hell can removing those barriers lead them to work harder ?

If the good results brought more money, I'd agree with you, alas it is not the case. The standard of life has been dwindling for the middle class of all the countries involved.

I didn't say anything about whether good results bring good pay. I agree that good results sometimes have bad pay, but you haven't touched the core concept of my rebuttal: don't reward before good results or you get corruption. If you look closely, you'll see two different concepts.

Public schools turn-out morons because the bourgeois have no use for an educated population.

You have a nice overview of why public schooling sucks and I agree. But even when the politicians in charge are truly interested in helping children and not keeping them slavish, they botch it by shovelling money before good results occur. Politicians always do this with government money. That's why government money never helps. You originally said government money would help and my rebuttal of that is still there, untouched by you.

Nevertheless, FORD doubled or tripled their worker's salaries SO THEY COULD BUY THE WIDGETS.

I never said "Ford didn't raise salaries, you bloody liar". I said that you were wrong about the cause of Ford's success. You still haven't shown that employee purchases led to Ford's success (which is what you said). I'm still waiting for you to do that.

The masses? How about you who end up working for two, and paid half as much?

What is this, appeal to pity ? Post hoc ergo propter hoc ? If you want to argue that trade barriers help citizens, you'll need to do more than use fallacies, no matter how obvious you think your conclusion is.

Don't think that a longwinded response is a good defense. When you answer a point, don't just repeat your ideas over and over again, especially when it's not related to the point you're answering. You need to point out the logic or reasoning errors in my arguments and the chain of reasoning in your own. Your responses aren't as obviously true as you'd think.

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[cpeterso]

If a country pays jack shit to it's workers, the tarrifs go back in the importing country's government's pockets who can then use it to help increase that country's competitivity. But if it pays it's workers better, in turn, THEY BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE, because the receiving countries' tarrifs drop, and the extra price they are able to get for their products stays in the exporting country as profits, instead of tariffs in the importing country!!!

Why would the foreiegn country raise its wages? If their low foreign wages + import tariff > domestic wages, then HIGH foreign wages + import tariff >> domestic wages. Then NO ONE would b

Why would the receiving country drop the import tariffs? They want to keep out cheap imports and FORCE people to buy their overpriced domestic goods. They only people helped by tariffs are the politicians' fatcat corporate buddies. Poor people have no choice but to buy shoddy, overpriced domestic goods.

This is EXACTLY what happened to the US automobile industry in the 1970s. The US government raised import tariffs on Japanese cars. How did Detroit react? They raised their cars' prices to match the cost of Japanese cars + import tariff! So the US government's "helpful" tariff only helped Detroit executives to make more money.

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[cpeterso]

You sound like a well-meaning person. If you have the time, you should read Johan Norberg's "In Defense of Global Capitalism". He was a leftwing anarchist who become a "classical liberal" (liberatarian) when he saw how global capitalism is the "race to the top", not the "race to the bottom". He documents how developing nations that adopt free trade are freer, have cleaner environments, less corruption, better health care, and LESS income gap between the rich and poor. I found his book very informative.

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[Pig Hogger]

This is EXACTLY what happened to the US automobile industry in the 1970s. The US government raised import tariffs on Japanese cars. How did Detroit react? They raised their cars' prices to match the cost of Japanese cars + import tariff! So the US government's "helpful" tariff only helped Detroit executives to make more money.

Hey, it's certainly not the government's fault if Detroit was stupid enough to price it's cars like the higher-quality japanese jobs...

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[cpeterso]

it's certainly not the government's fault if Detroit was stupid enough to price it's cars like the higher-quality japanese jobs.

Detroit wasn't stupid; they were SMART! After the import tariffs, US customers could choose between cheap American cars or artificially expensive Japanese cars. Detroit saw that they could raise their prices and STILL be cheaper than the artificially expensive Japanese cars. Why wouldn't they raise their prices? US tariffs hurt US consumers.

Re:Here is a gem from the report::

[True Grit]

He documents how developing nations that adopt free trade are freer, have cleaner environments, less corruption, better health care, and LESS income gap between the rich and poor. I found his book very informative.

But still flawed in some respects:

First, the effect of trans-national corporations interferes with this. Does American companies using cheap labor over the border in Mexico help Mexico as much as if those companies were Mexican?

Second, Johan's book is about the fusion of capitalism and (representative) democracy, not simply a book about capitalism. This means for example that what he documents does not apply to any repressive country that happens to allow a marginally open market economy. China, among many others for example, has lots of capitalism, but none of the other things: they aren't freer, their environments are getting worse (NYT has an article now about rural China becoming a dumping ground for industrial waste), corruption is horrendous, health care outside the cities is abysmal, and the income gap between the new rich and old poor, which mainly breaks down to the cities versus the rural areas, is still massive. Most of China's population is OUTSIDE the cities still, and they are mostly subsistence farmers.

Third, while this may be great for some of the developing countries, including countries opposed to democracy, it sucks for the developed, and largely democratic, world. Census figures in the US show the average American is getting poorer and the income gap between rich and poor is widening. Since the rest of the undeveloped world still has an ENORMOUS amount of work to catch up, this means most American's quality of life is going to slowly ERODE for the next few DECADES. Why am I supposed to be happy about that, especially when many of the beneficiaries are countries that have no interest in any individual's freedom?

Not like this report will change anything :(

[Gentlewhisper]

I heard the Irish govt is one big Microsoft customer.. and it seems like the guys backing the software patent nonsense in the EU are also the irish.

Presumably due to "lobbie$" and "political contribution$$$" I guess.

Many other EU states are against it actually.

Same bullshit everywhere.

Which brings to mind, why are the irish so powerful? Are they what, the president of the EU or something?

Not that I'm very in tune with politics in that part of the world, so would like to hear more from those living there.

Re:Not like this report will change anything :(

[killbill!]

Which brings to mind, why are the irish so powerful? Are they what, the president of the EU or something?

They were last year, when they brought this up. The EU is (for now) using a rotating presidency: every 6 months, presidency goes to another member country.

Besides, such issues that are not seen as big ticket issues by the general public are commonly used as bargaining chips to get support for other proposals. Add to this either incompetence or malice/corruption of some of the representatives of member countries, and a small country can manage to pass such a nonsensical law.

Re:Not like this report will change anything :(

[pjt33]

They had the Presidency for the first half of 2004.

Introducing Monday

[ozric99]

Is this the same Price Waterhouse Coopers that recently changed their name to Monday and registered introducingmonday.com forgetting to register the .co.uk domain? :D

Re:Introducing Monday

[ozric99]

Well, you live and learn.

Those interested in buying patents

[tdvaughan]

Should check out the "Best Deals: Patents" link under "Related Links". Clicking on it allows you to Comparison shop for patents. Thank God the slashdot devs decided to implement this fantastic functionality rather than making Slashdot W3C compliant!

Re:Those interested in buying patents

[bhima]

Did you see the first thing that comes up with that link?

Something to clean the power out of my DDR sockets!

Dear Megacorp,

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

Thank you for your letter of 28 September 2004, the contents of which I note. :D

In it, you are asserting that $FEATURE of my software product is infringing upon your $PATENT.

What is interesting, is that we recently received a similar letter from another company claiming that $FEATURE is infact an infringement of their $PATENT.

On further examination, it would appear that the USPTO has awarded you both a patent for the same thing ROAFLOL :D

If you chose to take this action no further we shall also consider this matter closed. If, however you wish to continue with a claim for breach of patent infringement our first line of defence shall be to have your patent annulled on the grounds of duplication. You may wish to consider this seriously if you are already receiving royalties from $PATENT from other parties.

Yours,

PHB.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if profits are your motivation, then all patents, copyright laws, trademarks and registered designs are a good thing.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to write some decent software, patents are a very bad thing. What's more productive, coding, or running patent searches to see if you're allowed to use what you just wrote?

In fact, software patents and "real things" patents are very different beasts. Note the number of "RL activity... but on the Internet!" patents awarded. I couldn't patent, say, putting an index to a large document in the margin of each page. For some reason, though, a patent examiner awarded a patent on browser frames.

In any case, patent law was designed for the benefit of society, not the inventor. The aim was (and should be) to maximise the pool of useful innovations available, not maximise profits.

But, companies don't have ideas, people do. If we take away patents, some companies might get mad, but new software ideas will still appear. And FLOSS coders will be able to act on them.

A good number of times, patents don't do any good anyway, if you plan on producing products. Anything you do will infringe on somebody's patent, so they sue, and either you lose your profits, or cross-license, and gain competitors until the market is similar to one without patents. Except, of course, the non-patenters aren't in the market at all. And less competition = bad for the end users. And if you don't produce a product, merely patents, your company is a worthless leech on society.

There may be a few pieces of true innovation which deserve a good reward. This can be achieved, if desired, by selling the program at a reasonable price and being nice to your customers. Patents not required.

Hitting mainstream media

[epexegesis]

There was a bit of a discussion about software patents on the BBC Radio4 program 'You and Yours' yesterday.

You can listen to it if you want to. But I think that if it's getting time on a mid-morning general interest program then people must be becoming more aware of software patents and the problems they might cause.

Re:Hitting mainstream media

[epexegesis]

Sorry, bad form I know, replying to ones own post, but I thought it might also be useful to post the blurb from the You and Yours site:

PATENTS In America patent law is being exploited by some people who register patents they had no part in inventing - and then demand large amounts of money as a license from anyone using that technology. The European Commission is considering how to stop such abuse happening this side of the Atlantic

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[SlashdotMirrorer]

Note the number of "RL activity... but on the Internet!" patents awarded.

And not too many years ago it would have been "Everyday activity... but with a steam engine!". None of us would claim that the automobile patent is unjust.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[Lonath]

You can patent a music box. If you record the sounds coming out of the music box and make copies on CDs of those recordings and sell them, can you get sued for patent infringement for making "a software implementation of a music box"?

If yes, then we can patent music and movies and books and everything else that's under the domain of copyright because it IS possible to make a piece of hardware that has only one book or movie or song on it. If no, then software patents don't make sense either.

And, I WILL support software patents strongly if they allow me to get patents on music and movies and books and so forth, because then I will know that the courts understand that they're allowing patents on expressions of abstract thought.

And if that's how they want to roll, that's fine by me. I just don't like it when I see them making an arbitrary distinction between code and data, because I see a CD as a set of instructions that causes a CD player to carry out a process, just as a computer carries out a process by running software. And, I believe that a new piece of music is in fact novel, nonobvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of making music, and it's useful as it bring enjoyment or other emotions to people.

Not all sugar and spice

[Anonymous Coward]

This report isn't quite as "nice" as the summary makes it sound.

First, the paragraph quoted goes on to say that there are two sides to the issue (the other side being represented by "[m]any large companies operating on a global scale, including European ones, seem to be in favour of a software patenting regime.") So it's not nearly as anti-software-patent as it may seem. Second, search the document for the phrase "digital rights management" and you get several mentions, like this gem:

Content is considered an important engine for future economic growth and employment. The EU needs to fuel this engine by realizing the vision of 'any content, anytime, anywhere, any platform' by e.g. introducting multiplatform access for content producers and new digital rights management regimes.

So while it's good to see that the report at least acknowledges things that have mostly been ignored by the powers-that-be up to now, it's not all puppies and kittens.

-HJ

Re:Not all sugar and spice

[Anita Coney]

Of course large companies are in favor of software patents because patents protect the status quo. Large companies can file absurd software patents, e.g., one click shopping, to keep smaller companies from competing.

Once all software patents are enforced throughout the world, innovation will come to a standstill. It will be impossible for any new company to create anything. And large companies will rest on their laurels.

The Rationale for IP Protections

[tabdelgawad]

This may seem obvious, but legislators seem to forget (boy do they ever!) that the rationale for IP protections (patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc) has nothing to do with who deserves compensation for their work, and everything to do with guaranteeing that markets provide certain types of innovative goods for consumers. This is even codified in the US constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Of course, the "limited Times" phrase is there because protections prevent other types of innovation (based on immitation) from taking place. It is there so that (sadly) politicians can decide where to strike that balance for each market.

So the main question about software patents should be: to what extent has the absence of software patents negatively impacted the pace of software innovation? As far as I can tell, copyrights have been more than sufficient to strike the balance I talked about earlier, and patents would simply tilt the balance and harm innovation. European legislators should understand this and avoid going down the misguided path of the US congress in their counterproductive copyright extension route.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[SlashdotMirrorer]

Certainly it can be argued that software code source instructions is not a result of creative, abstract, thought processes, in any other way than a steam engine, girdle, or anything else patentable could be considered.

I'm not sure why the bearded-terminal-hacker-set seem to think that the creation of software is in any way more of an artform than any other kind of invention. What would you say to the man who invented the Lava Lamp? Would you be able to look him in the eye?

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[lynx_user_abroad]

What harm is there in allowing someone who is clever enough to come up with something new, that other people can use, to profit from his or her discovery? [R]ealize that our work has real value for society.

No one I know is asserting that software is worthless. This is a discussion about how much society values these inventions, and how to best go about extracting that value for the benefit of the society. It's a question of wether patents, applied to software, are the best (or at least a good enough) mechanism to use.

Remember that life itself does nothing to guarantee a clever software developer can earn money from that which he develops; this function is provided only by society, and only at society's whim.

Most people would agree that a painting by one of the great masters has value. Less would argue that we should, therefore, lock it in a vault, away from public view, and demand a large payment from anyone who wants to view it. That wouldn't be in anyone's interest.

So the question is, what would motivate you, the clued software developer, to innovate? More money, or less hassle?

this just in!

[loonicks]

A recent study shows that 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population!

Curious

[stratjakt]

The mild regime of IP protection in the past has led to a very innovative and competitive software industry (in the EU)

Why have most new software products and the corps that rule the software world been based in the US or Japan?

Maybe, just maybe, there is something to this "financial incentive" business that patents bring to the table.

A probably stupid question: What is ICT ?

[Klact-oveeseds-tene]

I have checked the report and made a Google search, but still can't figure out what "ICT" means.

Re:A probably stupid question: What is ICT ?

[Wimmie]

How about "Information and Communication Technology"

Re:A probably stupid question: What is ICT ?

[pjt33]

Information Communication Technology. It seems to be the currently fashionable term for IT.

Re:A probably stupid question: What is ICT ?

[wikinerd]

Go to Google and type

define:ICT

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[argent]

I believe that if you were to look at...

Have you looked?

Until you do, your belief is nothing more than that. Your faith in the patent system is touching, but in this case it's misdirected.

Software is inherently more complex than just about anything else that individuals are able to build and expected to understand. Any non-trivial program involves hundreds of techniques that are potentially patentable under the current regime. Most programs people would consider trivial are going to contain dozens. This means that, first, determining if a program violates any patents requires first a detailed analysis by an expert in software patents to determine what potentially patented techniques are used, then hundreds to thousands of patent searches to determine if any of these techniques are patented. After this, you need to arrange licensing for the dozens of actual patented techniques that are used, and given the investment you have already made it would only be prudent to apply for patent protection on the remainder.

And that's for a program like, say, "Minesweeper".

Either that, or you just ignore the whole problem and hope for the best. Since even a company like Microsoft can't afford to hire an expert patent lawyer who is also a software developer and half a dozen paralegals for each programmer, this is all you can do.

So, since most people who develop potentially patentable techniques can't even tell if they're patentable or already patented, and a reasonably talented programmer would probably be doing so several times a week, software patents do not provide any useful protection for most inventors of potentially patentable software. They just provide a chilling effect on the development of publicly documented interfaces and protocols.

No political reasons for the delay

[Klact-oveeseds-tene]

Heise (and Cohn-Bendit) are wrong on this. The delay is due to administrative reasons only ( translations into 20 languages are necessary!). No governement has yet indicated it might change it's vote, even the Dutch have not. As a EU presidency they don't want to be the ones who complicate the situation in the EU council. It will take more pressure from national parliaments to make governments change their positions.

Re:No political reasons for the delay

[Halo1]

Heise (and Cohn-Bendit) are wrong on this. The delay is due to administrative reasons only ( translations into 20 languages are necessary!)

The last translations were ready on 17 August (see e.g. the Slovak translation).

When I called the Council secretariat a few weeks ago to ask some questions about the procedure, the person responsible for this dossier told me they were just busy doing some final juridical-linguistic checking and then it was good to be approved. It would surprise me if this final formal checking would suddenly take two more months.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[innerweb]

Cluestick time!

Patenting of software is the same as patenting musical progressions (or riffs). Imagine where music would be if the riffs were patented. Imagine if authors could patent unique expressions that convey meaning more effectively than other expressions. Imagine if artists could patent color combinations that more effectively conveyed an image.

Hopefully, by thinking outside the cubicle for a moment, you may see the ramifications of this. The music industry would starve with patents on music like software patents. The writing industry would starve with patents on writing like software patents. All art and engineering would evolve much more slowly and be much^2 more expensive with the patent system that software enjoys.

InnerWeb

High Innovation Rate?

[servoled]

A software patent, which serves to protect inventions of a non-technical nature, could kill the high innovation rate.

What high innovation rate? Software is doing the same shit today that it was doing back in '95, we just have prettier interfaces now. I'd hardly call that innovation.

I keep hearing that the computer world is special because of the high turnover rate of products, but outside of the hardware world I really don't see it. Most people I know have been using the same basic software since at least 2000 but have upgraded their mobo/proc at least twice during that period of time.

The only "innovation" I have seen out of software is various bug fixes which shouldn't be there in the first place, but since the software writers are held to ridiculously low standards for quality control they can release the same piece of software 5 times and say: "Look at our high rate of innovation". Perhaps someone can point out all the great software innovations that have occured over the last 10 years. Since there is such a high rate of innovation it should be a trivial excersize for the typical slashdot reader.

Re:High Innovation Rate?

[Control Group]

• MP3
• DivX
• Napster
• eBay
• weblogging
• SETI@Home
• DeCSS
• mouse gestures
• ICQ

I have a hard time believing that you can honestly look at your OS of choice and claim that there have been no innovative changes in it since 1994.

Does it still provide the same basic functions? Sure; file handling, I/O, disk writing and the like are still what the OS does. But by the same token, transportation without personal labor is what the car does...just like the horse and buggy did.

I don't think anyone who uses computers on an even vaguely regular basis can honestly look at them and say that the state of software hasn't changed in the last 10 years. Sure, you can claim that much of that is due to hardware improvements, and that's true. But making software that couldn't exist before because the hardware didn't exist is also innovation, otherwise we'd all still be running DOS 3, but at blazing speeds.

Re:High Innovation Rate?

[nightfire-unique]

What high innovation rate? Software is doing the same shit today that it was doing back in '95, we just have prettier interfaces now. I'd hardly call that innovation.

We all see what we want to see, I suppose. How about:

- Konqueror's KIO abstracted protocol interface
- Extensively reliable plug-in based software (IM, firefox, etc). Do you remember what generic software extensions were like in 1995?
- Dancing tree filesystems
- MPEG4/divx/ogg vorbis, theora
- Hashing-based multipart/swarming P2P clients
- Freenet - New Linux VMs and schedulers
- Mouse gestures
- Bayesian spam filters
- MOSIX

No innovation? Open your eyes.

Re:High Innovation Rate?

[basfromasd]

According to the history of MOSIX
http://www.mosix.org/faq/output/faq_q0003.html,
M OSIX has been around since 1977.

An interesting, but not very strong example...

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[Lonath]

I go with what my sister told me. She is a musician who also programs and she's told me that programming is like writing music. It also feels very creative to me, but I don't do much else besides write sometimes. I don't understand your point about the lava lamp person, and you totally ignored the question about whether or not a recording is a software implementation of a music box or not.

Bad Patents threated ALL innovation

[nuggz]

It isn't just a software problem.
Patents threaten innovation across all fields.
But it was decided that this was a fair trade off to get commercial interest in developing these new ideas.

What we need is to fix the patent system.

Banning software patents will just require a bit more lawyerwork to change it into another category.

Re:Bad Patents threated ALL innovation

[wikinerd]

You may be interested to read this.

No, you don't...

[argent]

Bad patents shouldn't just stand becasue one party has deeper pockets.

And a patent system that makes it too hard to challenge patents and too easy to amend them to expand their reach isn't at fault?

Software patents? No, thanks!

[wikinerd]

RMS gives very interesting and informative talks on software patents from time to time. Recently I went to such a speech and discovered how rewarding it can be for people who want to understand better the problem with patents. (I wrote some info on my blog). People who are interested on these subjects should have a look at FSF website.

EU should never allow any kind of software patents. Such mistake would destroy the software economy and force small or mid-sized companies to spend more on legal costs rather than software research and development. Also, the patents will not protect small businesses from hungry MegaCorps (tm): These laws are made for MegaCorps, not for protecting innovation. Inventors and programmers do not want and do not need software patents; without public domain stuff you cannot build or invent something new.

Re:Um... yah!

[thegnu]

FEH! Depends on where you're standing!

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[jimicus]

I know I'm feeding the trolls, but this is a fundamental concept that few people can understand. However, I'm going to give it a go. Repeat slowly after me...

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INNOVATIVE SOFTWARE.

And there hasn't been in years. Modern software builds so much on previous work (much of it from before the days of software patents) that the amount of prior art renders the very idea of patenting it laughable. At a very high level, all software is is a means of making an existing job easier by automating that which lends itself to automation.

As computers progress, it becomes easier to automate more things. But ultimately, taking an existing business practise and appending the phrase "... on a computer" doesn't make it innovative.

Parent is responding to "The sky is blue"

[thegnu]

I just woke up, and enclosed it in greater than less than brackets instead of tagging it [i]

Whooa, hold your horses

[ykardia]

Does anyone else also think that the text is more equivocal than suggested by the submitter?

As far as I can tell, this is the relevant paragraph from the report: 342 There are particular threats to the European ICT industry such as the current discussion on the patent on software. The mild regime of IP protection in the past has led to a very innovative and competitive software industry with low entry barriers. A software patent, which serves to protect inventions of a non-technical nature, could kill the high innovation rate. However, opinions on software patent in its current proposed form vary a lot. Many large companies operating on a global scale, including European ones, seem to be in favour of a software patenting regime. But most small enterprises are strongly opposed. Only very few European companies have prepared themselves for the consequences of a software patent regime. It raises the question how the introduction of the European software patent interacts with a European strategy based on widespread use of ICT's.

This is not the whole-hearted indictment of software patents I was hoping for.

Re:Whooa, hold your horses

[Halo1]

Most texts from "established authorities" spout the same nonsense:

• TRIPS requires us to have software patents
• Innovation needs software patents
• Software patents are good for SMEs
• Only a small group, which consists of piracy extremists, opposes software patents

The balanced point of this report, which really is nothing but an objective observation based on available data, is a refreshing change.

The fault with software patents

[Lucky_Norseman]

Normal patents are supposed to protect one particular solution to a problem.
Most of the software patents are defined to protect all possible solutions to a problem.

Normal patents prevents someone from stealing their solution. It does not prevent them from inventing a different and better one. Software patents often do.
Especially since so many patents describe very generic and obvious things.

Exactly ...

[gstoddart]

...is that the large software companies have patented so much of the fundamental building blocks of software engineering that even if you do come up with something truly "new and innovative" they can still get you on the sub-component functionality.

It seems like most of what I studied in university is becoming patented. I can't think of any other professions where the basic techniques can get patented.

Imagine if the 'using a bunsen burner to apply heat' or 'using a saw to chop wood' was patented.

The creepy effect of saying only large companies may write software would be to cement all of the money and choice to those large megacorps who already have patent portfolios.

I really hope some sense gets brought to this issue soon.

Where does the quote come from?

[jeanlo]

Anybody can tell me what page the quote is on? I'm tired of trying to figure out why my acrobat reader can't find the world "patent" or "threat" in the document.

Doesn't seem obvious to me that this report is about patents.

Good Thoughts, but incorrect premis

[FreeUser]

What concerns me though is: if we do away with patents what will replace them?

You start off with a false premise: that something must replace patents (else there will be little or no innovation)

Patents do not need to be replaced with anything. The software world experienced much more innovation without them, and continued innovation in the United States only exists because they go largely unenforced.

Have any /.ers seen or thought of a solution to this problem?

There is no such problem. Your assumption is false.

I'm all for making software as "free" as possible, but I'm also of the mind that there would have to be some kind of IP structure in place.

I am assuming you are new to the software industry (apologies if this is not the case, but your statement indicates that you are unfamiliar with how the software economy worked in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s prior to software patents, and prior to their being widespread). Having said that, you have some interesting thoughts despite the false premise from which you begin (you very correctly identify and express unease with the monopoly entitlement the government is granting on so many basic ideas and software implimentations, and the catastrophic consiquences to a robust and free market that follow).

Software has always enjoyed the protection of copyright, which has always been enough protection for companies large and small (c.f. Apple Computers, Microsoft & Joe's consulting) to make excellent profits. Patents are in fact antithetical to this, as they lock down basic ideas. Patents only came along much later (in the 1980s IIRC) If you write software in the United States, you violate patents. You can thank your lucky stars no one has decided to enforce them against you ... if they did, you would probably be broke.

Has anyone run into an IP scheme that would balance the creator/user relationship? Our present system is skewed and prone to monopolism, and a total absence of ownership would entail its own set of problems.

It depends on what you mean by "IP". If you're talking about trade secrets, the current laws work reasonably well. If you're talking about trademarks, the current scheme works pretty well modulo people abusing trademark law to silence critics using their name (this seems to get sorted out reasonably by the courts most of the time).

If you're talking about patents, the best reform is to eliminate patents. Government entitlement monopolies have been shown historically to not only NOT encourage innovation, but to actively stifle it. As an example, read up on the history of the airplane, the Wright Brother's patents, and America's desperation to catch up to advanced European (non-patent-encumbered) aviation technology during world war I. For those to lazy or uninterested to look it up, the short answer is that the US Government, in a tacit admission that the Wright Brother's patent on airplanes stifled innovation and improvements, effectively seized their patent (nationalized it), paid them a flat 1% royalty, and threw the technology open to all comers and competitors to develop modern airplanes. The amount of innovation that followed was truly phenominal.

If you are talking about copyrights, some have suggested a form of non-monopoly "authorright" as an alternative ... a type of non-transferable copyright with manditory licensing attached, where the author is entitled to some percentage of any money made on their work (or derivative works), but cannot restrict how their work (or any derivative works) are used, with anti-plagerism statues requiring citation in perpetuity. Others have suggested shortening the length of copyrights back to their original 12 or 24 years. Reform is needed, and many have suggested all kinds of innovative approaches to replace or at least weaken the current monopoly entitlement schemes ... it is a subject that has b

Why software patents are so poorly examined.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is not strictly to do with the law, or how patents are processed. It has to do with the nature of the industry. The patent review process depends on the ability to take concepts back to the prior art. For instance, if I propose to patent a modified rocket which can use air intake at high altitude, everyone who bothered to look into it would know that I was talking about the scram jet, which all kinds of rocket scientists were working on. You wouldn't know the details: that's their private research. But you'd know what they were doing.

However, software development is much closer to the conceptual domain. Knowing that someone is using a particular algorithm is almost as good as knowing their code. Many publications stop at description of the algorithm involved without bothering with any implementation, as any programmer with a little experience can go from one to the other. Thus if I propose to patent the technique of ... maybe ... caching the results of IO expensive queries to accelerate some database action, noone will spot it. Although everyone who has a database will have some kind of caching, MS, Oracle etc are hardly going to publish such details about their software because it would be almost equivalent to posting implementations.

There are other fields that behave like this: the field of novel writing simply couldn't have patents. If I proposed to patent "writing the ending first then structuring all the other chapters to introduce needed plot elements", we'd hardly have JK Rowling saying "look, I've been doing that for years". Or rather, she might say it afterwards, but there'd be no chance of it being public knowledge ahead of time. In that industry, it has to be copyright rather than patents, because people won't give away details of their works or the method of their composition, it would be too likely to compromise their own position.

Anyhow, you can see how it goes from there. The patent office starts out in good faith, and soon discovers they've approved a few patents for techniques that were already in common use, just in places noone published. Then it all starts to come apart, and everybody who beleives in principles like the consistency of law leaves, and the place fills up with empty minded officials who are happy to rubber stamp their way to a retired pension without thinking too hard. Disappointing, really.

I guess my point isn't really that patents are bad. They're a great idea. The last thing you want is people dedicating their lives to inventions that benefit all of society, and the profit of this stolen away by the big players. The tragedy is it nearly always happens anyhow.

The real problem is that the software industry doesn't have the openness needed for the prior art to be a useful examination. It's not impossible that open source could offset that (by filling out the prior art with a robust body of implementations), if only the relevant authorities would take OS seriously.

Ah well, that's all from me for now (goes back to working on thesis submission).

You can't be sure of that...

[alispguru]

Maybe, just maybe, there is something to this "financial incentive" business that patents bring to the table.

Maybe. We won't know for sure unless:

Someone comes up with a way to measure the contribution of "innovation" to the economy that doesn't depend on counting patents

That measure is applied to places and times with and without patents (US before/after software patents, US vs. EU vs Japan)

Without that kind of measure, we're reduced to dueling anecdotes - patent holder beats up megacorp and makes money, startup is crushed by megacorp with patent basket, etc.

Obvious to *us*, but...

[mwood]

...when accounting/auditing firms say it, it begins to become obvious to the suits. This is indeed good news.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[0x0d0a]

Funny, that. The people that I know most rabidly against software patents are those who would, by your way of thinking, stand to gain the most from them -- computer science academics.

Well...

[zev1983]

...if they run Windows on all their computers...

Re:This would be funny

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

Thank you for the explanation, but that still doesn't change the point I was making which is that it is highly likely that the USPTO has issued duplicate patents, simply because of:

a) the stupid incomprehensible language in which these things are written

and

b) the volume in which software patents are coming at them, with lip service given to actual prior art searching - even within their very own patent database.

"Issue 'em all and let the courts sort 'em out."

Patents are Unfeasible

[Don Tobin]

The Deadweight Loss (economics term look it up) created by the rampant implementation of patents across the board, specifically in the Software Industry, are larger than anyone has even guessed. Back in the days before globalization when there was a little thing called the "Infant Industry Argument", modern economic theory provided solid reasoning to a government protecting a single corporate entity such that it could grow and prosper quickly enough to stave off the foreign implementations of the new technology. This lead to what was commonly called the "Dying Swan" effect, which basically graphed any innovation sufficiently worthy enough to warrant foreign competition from the relative viewpoint of the original country. It took off, peaked, then died off as foreign interests lead to better faster cheaper models (largely due to the lack of their need for investment in the various machinery and/or research necessary to create a superior product / the barriers to entry might be high but their profit margin was still higher than that of the original interest who had sunk costs to still pay off or wear out).

Now that governments admit they can do nothing terribly helpful about outsourcing and the equalization of international labor wages and globalization is a thing taught in history books to 6th graders international economics and domestic policy certainly do not support the Infant Industry Argument any longer. Thus, the US Patent Office is nothing more than a vestige of the past in need of dying out, to the sick and twisted people who believe that research and development brooks complete entitlement to cut a CD or set up a web and database server you are definitely not protecting anything - you are society's worst enemy and the singular cause for the largest most devastating deadweight loss our global economy and technological progression will ever know. These days will be known as the second dark ages, once we get rid of the idea of entitlement to something which by definition may be accomplished an infinite number of ways (software is the topic).

/born 500 years too soon, want my quarter back

Platform Independence Too

[Bob9113]

From the report:

Breakthrough 4: Realize the vision of 'any content, anytime, anywhere, any platform'

Content is considered an important engine for future economic growth and employment. The EU needs to fuel this engine by realizing the vision of 'any content, anytime, anywhere, any platform' by e.g. introducing multiplatform access for content producers and new digital rights management regimes.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[unoengborg]

What harm is there in allowing someone who is clever enough to come up with something new, that other people can use, to profit from his or her discovery?

I have no problem having patents for new and innovative things. The problem is that, at least in the US, most of the patented stuff is obvious to an experienced worker in his field of expertiese, or it just reimplements something from real life on a computer.

E.g. nobody would ever try to patent sorting papers on you real life desktop into stacks, but doing so on your computer desktop all of a sudden becomes worhty a patent even though the task of fixing this is trivial.

If the things patented are trivial, then we can expect that any person with a university degree and/or some years of experience is extremely likely to produce patented solutions without knowing it just by coding what naturall comes to his mind. He could do patent searches, but this is quite hard since much in software design is about general ideas with sometimes overlapping contexts, chances are that he will not find what he is looking for as he expresses the same idea in different terms.

If we let a couple of monkeys hammer away at a keyboard they will sooner or later have written the complete works of Shakespeare. Now imagine that Shakesspeare had written all his stuff in a language containing the only words if, then, else, while. The time for that to happen would have been greately reduced. Now, replace the monkeys with humans that use this very limited language to express themselves, and you will very soon see sentences that look quite Shaksperian even if the never ever read a line from the original auther.

So if you like software patents, why not patents on litterature, and art. After all if I think that I'm the first person who write a crime story where sombody is killed by a knife why shouldn't I patent it. I'm quite sure that such patent have never been filed. As I privately have a slight suspicion that sombody actually may have written such a story before me, I am happy to licence the idea to other authers for a fee slightly less than it would cost to take the dispute to court. The only one who would not go to court would be sombody that positively would know that he could prove prior art, but as that person is most likely to be dead there is little risk.

Now it strikes me, why write a book in the first place. After all, the part where sombody is killed by the knife is a very minor part of a normal crime novel. Why spend all that time. Why risk to be sued by the auther holding the patent on having characters being transported by a car, or having a conversation, or kissing, or..., In fact by actually writing a book I open myself to all kinds of liabilities. Besides I'm not much of a writer anyway.

I think I just stick to just filing the patent on the knife usage. Then I can wait for some real auther to get a bestseller using my knife concept. After all people are known to have been killed by knifes as early as Julius Ceasar, so its bound to get into a novel soner or later. So I sit back and wait unitl somebody actually write such a story and get what is rightfully mine from him. That way the risk of being sued is much less, not to mention that it is much less work. I don't have any costs for marketing either.

Now, If software patents are so important for the software industry, the same thing would be valid for other ways of expression like litterature and art. So why should it not be possible to have patents in this field as well? After all there is big money in this business just as in software. Look at the movie and record industry, or that software industry such as Microsoft buy the rights to digital publishing of classic art.

The strange thing is that you seldom hear people argue that patents on art would be a good thing, even though my guess is that there are more artists in need of some extra income than there are software developers. Why should they not be able to get some money from their way of express themselves, when the software developer can?

Or is it just that patenting peoples way of expression themselves is a bad idea?

Re:Frist

[strictfoo]

Amazing report!

This just in: "Fast Moving Bullets Hurt Face"

WRONG!

[ian13550]

Wow -- I can't even tell you how wrong you are.

A simplified history lesson for everyone

1) PwC spun off their MCS group (think large ERP/system implementations..e.g. Accenture) to become PwC Consulting

2) PwCC rebrands itself "Monday"

3) IBM Global Services buys Monday [insert horrible markeing jokes here]

PwCC/Monday was ~ 35K (I think) employees.

PwC STILL HAS OVER 130K EMPLOYEES.

PwC is the largest of the Big 4 Audit firms.

IBM does not "own" anything of PwC.

Non-technical?

[Aidtopia]

A software patent, which serves to protect inventions of a non-technical nature, could kill the high innovation rate.

Is that a typo? Who says software patents protect "non-technical" inventions? Many software patents here (in the US) are pretty hardcore. Is there something different about the European software patent model that targets them to "non-technical" inventions?

Re:Non-technical?

[dtietze]

Huh? Are you kidding?
Don't tell me you're not aware of patents on such things as clicking a button a bit longer (MS), selection palettes in dialogs (Adobe), etc. MANY software patents, esp. in the U.S. are *extremely* trivial.
Check this out: http://webshop.ffii.org/
Dan.

Re:Non-technical?

[dtietze]

P.S. I'm well aware that the site I linked to in turn only links to EU patents. Since the original poster referred to the U.S., maybe this will help: http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/index.en.htm l
Or this: http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/1click/index .en.html (Amazon's one-click shopping patent).
Dan.

Re:Non-technical?

[Aidtopia]

Yes, there are lots of trivial software patents. But that wasn't my point. There are also lots of technical patents that are implemented in software, such as DSP algorithms for processing sensor data in medical devices.

My point was that the original wording implied that the patents are intended to protect non-technical inventions. I found that surprising. I suspect that they are intended to protect inventions (as other patents), but that there's a reporting bias that assumes all software patents are non-technical.

Re:Non-technical?

[Halo1]

Yes, there are lots of trivial software patents. But that wasn't my point. There are also lots of technical patents that are implemented in software, such as DSP algorithms for processing sensor data in medical devices.

A DSP algorithm is pure maths. That's only technical if you take the definition of technical from the EPO: in that case, processing "image data" suddenly renders a mathematical function technical.

My point was that the original wording implied that the patents are intended to protect non-technical inventions. I found that surprising. I suspect that they are intended to protect inventions (as other patents), but that there's a reporting bias that assumes all software patents are non-technical.

It is simply correct. From the "short" theory introduction I wrote for the MEPs:

One does not need patents on "computer-implemented inventions" to keep real inventions patentable when they are described using software. A computer program is just an instruction manual in a language that can be interpreted by a machine. A computer program executed by a computer that steers lab equipment to perform a chemical reaction, is functionally identical to a technical manual describing the same thing.

Even though the chemical reaction could be patentable, the technical manual can't be and publishing it cannot constitute a patent infringement. Additionally, the fact that the chemical reaction is described using words in a book does not make the reaction itself unpatentable.

Consequently, similar rules were made for patentability regarding software in the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973: achievements described using software may be patentable, but the fact that software is used to describe them does not have any influence on their patentability, and the software itself is not patentable either

One only needs software patents (or patents on "computer-implemented inventions" as defined by the Commission proposal) in order to be able to patent achievements which are currently npatentable, such as mathematical algorithms and business methods. Along with computer programs, these are all achievements which are currently excluded from patentability by the EPC. Software patents are used to get around these exclusions, in direct contradiction with the law.

My bottom line is: whether or not you do something using software should be completely independent from whether or not it is patentable subject matter. If a mathematical algorithm is not patentable when described in plain English (in the sense that you cannot infringe on a patent if you do that), then why should it be patentable if it is described in C or assembler?

Note that the fact that you do something in software and you patent that, does not make the result a software patent. I mean, controlling a weaving machine is obviously always done using computers nowadays. If you find a new positioning of the blades so they can cut threads more easily, and all you have to do for that is change the value of one variable in the program, then a patent on this is not a software patent.

After all, your achievement is finding how the blade has to be positioned, not the software itself. In case of a DSP algorithm, the achievement is the mathematics, which are not patentable. The only thing that automagically makes it patentable, is the fact that it's implemented in software (because a computer suddenly makes everything technical).

Re:Non-technical?

[Aidtopia]

I guess I don't understand the EU proposal regarding software patents. Here in the US, there is no specific regulations regarding software in regard to patents. Some inventions are accomplished using software. Patentability (in theory) is based on novelty, originality, etc. Admittedly, we have some problems with trivial things being patented, which in turn set precedent that led us down this spiral.

From your description, it sounds like the EU has a similar set of criteria. So what is the proposal regarding software patents?

In many Slashdot discussions, it seems that people consider any invention which is implemented entirely in software as a "software patent." For example Microsoft's patent on double-clicking a mouse is really a general process for detecting different intent based on the timing of button presses. It's just a process that can be described in English, in software, or even in hardware. Yet many people called this a "software patent." (I'm not defending the patent; it's trivial and has loads of prior art and it should have been dismissed on those grounds.) I think many people in these discussions are working with different definitions of "software patents."

Re:Non-technical?

[Halo1]

I guess I don't understand the EU proposal regarding software patents. Here in the US, there is no specific regulations regarding software in regard to patents. Some inventions are accomplished using software. Patentability (in theory) is based on novelty, originality, etc.

There's also the very important concept of "patentable subject matter", i.e. whether or not it potentially could be patentable at all. Although in the US this concept has been widened to "everything made by man under the Sun", this still excludes some things (like e.g. laws of nature). In Europe, there are more exclusions (see below).

Admittedly, we have some problems with trivial things being patented, which in turn set precedent that led us down this spiral.

The problem with trivial patents is basically inherent to the patent system. "Non-obvious" does not mean the same in patent law as it does in real life. It's basically an extended novelty test: novelty checks whether or not what you claim to be your invention has already been published somewhere or not, non-obviousness tests whether it isn't a literal (and then I mean really "literal") combination of published things.

The reason is that it is impossible to set an objective standard which can be consistently applied to determine the "inventiveness height" or so. For the patent office, it is however very important to have such a standard. Patent officials know this, see e.g. this discussion between a deputy director of the UKPTO and a programmer. There is nothing you can do about this without overhauling the entire way patent law works, and people are very reluctant to do this. You cannot "fix" it by improving examination.

Now, traditionally, it has been assumed that despite its flaws, the patent system had an overall positive effect. If you patent a trivial improvement to a hammer (e.g. a hook at the bottom to you can hang it onto a wall), this patent could have little value (because people may be able to work around it easily, or because no-one would be interested in your improvement).

Since software is pure mathematics (all a computer can do is compute), patenting improvements in software itself is patenting math improvements (when this math is interpreted by a computer). Pretty much all math improvements are trivial by design. The whole mathematical system is built that way. And patenting one improvement blocks a whole lot of other people. Someone even made a theoretical proof using lambda calculus showing that because of this, several assumption made about the patent system simply are not true for software.

From your description, it sounds like the EU has a similar set of criteria. So what is the proposal regarding software patents?

In Europe, currently there are 4 requirements for patentability: you have to have an invention (patentable subject matter) and this invention must be new, non-obvious and industrially applicable. One by one:

• invention: since you don't know what will still be invented, you can't positively define what an invention is. Therefore, they have adopted a negative definition, i.e. a list of things that are not inventions. You can find the list in Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). Among others, the list of exclusions includes mathematical methods, rules for performing mental acts and computer programs.
• Novelty: not yet published anywhere
• Non-obviousness: not a literal combination of other published things
• Industrially applicable: you can make money with it.

Now, in article 52(3) of the EPC (on the same page), they say that the exclusion of those things being inventions only applies to those things "as such". This originally meant that if

Re:Non-technical?

[Aidtopia]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on several points.

[I]t is impossible to set an objective standard which can be consistently applied to determine the "inventiveness height" or so.

I think we do have a reasonable standard here in the US (nonobvious to a skilled practitioner in the field), it's just not being applied. In nearly all cases, patent examiners are not skilled practitioners in the field.

Now, traditionally, it has been assumed that despite its flaws, the patent system had an overall positive effect.

I'm a firm believer that the patent system continues to have an overall positive effect.

Anecdotally, my brother worked for a small medical-device startup company. He is co-inventor on several patents for devices that can non-invasively measure pulserate and oxygen saturation levels in blood. After several years and tens of millions of dollars of research and development, they succeeded in making devices that are more reliable and accurate than the devices then on the market (meaning the difference between life and death for some patients). The invention is a method of extracting data from the sensor waveforms. In practice, it's implemented primarily in software. This company licensed their technology to the big players in this industry, but soon one of the customers simply copied it, canceled the contract, and began selling it as their own. The startup prevailed in the patent lawsuit and is once-again collecting royalties.

Now, without a patent system, I suspect this startup never would have existed (nobody would have funded it), and therefore the state-of-the-art in this field would have stagnated. Or worse--except for regulatory disclosure for medical devices and the potential for reverse engineering--they could have kept their inventions secret and maintained a monopoly on them indefinitely, denying others the inspiration to find even better solutions and preventing the commoditization of the technology at the end of what would have been the patent protection term.

Furthermore, this example illustrates that patents can help protect the small guys when they go up against the big guys. I've never understood why so many people think of patents (and copyrights) solely as weapons of the megacorps. (Maybe because of the cost of securing and defending a patent? That seems to be a general problem with the legal system here, not the patent system.) Sure, patents are often wielded by the big guys, but could little guys go against megacorps without such tools?

Many people think patents prevent innovation because they stop people (for a limited time) from using certain methods. In actuality, it forces inventors to look for new solutions (to get around the known one that has patent protection), and often they come up with better solutions. Would we have PNG today without the LZW patent encumberance of GIF?

We always hear about the silly patents, and the lawerly harrassment related to patents. I don't think we get a balanced picture.

Yes, there are problems. But I think they can be fixed. Raise the bar for inventiveness. Adjust the protection term depending on the field, much shorter for rapidly-changing fields, a tad longer for high-risk and large-investment creations. And eliminate "submarining" with a defend-it-or-lose-it doctrine. Remove the incentive of the patent office to approve everything by basing fees solely on applications. and evaluate examiner performance on something other than the volume applications reviewed.

We've ventured off-topic by discussing the patent system in general. In terms of software patents, I'm still unclear on the definitions. (Given that I'm uncertain after reading and rereading most of the PDF and all of your comments, I suspect that many people are still working with different definitions of software patents.) I still don't know why the term "non-technical" was applied.

Some consider my brother's

Re:Non-technical?

[Halo1]

[i]t is impossible to set an objective standard which can be consistently applied to determine the "inventiveness height" or so. In nearly all cases, patent examiners are not skilled practitioners in the field.

I think we do have a reasonable standard here in the US (nonobvious to a skilled practitioner in the field), it's just not being applied.

We have exactly the same standard in Europe (for assessing the "inventive step". However, as Reinier Bakels (a law scholar who wrote a study on software patents for Committee of Juridical Affairs of the European Parliament) once wrote in a mail (translation from Dutch, the caps were also in the original post):

"The law clearly says that inventions must be "non-obvious to a person skilled in the art". If you take those words literally, than that is a VERY LOW threshold: this "person skilled in the art" doesn't mean anything, of course you don't go from a layman's point of view, and obvious does mean obvious! I have even once heard the reasoning: if an invention is new (another requirement for patentability), then CONSEQUENTLY it is "not obvious", otherwise it would have been invented already! The law is only a split hair away from literally stating that trivial patents are allowed. Another illustration of the fact that the directive does not change anything to a recognised weak point of the patent system."

I believe that in the US, there is no separate novelty requirement, but the end result is the same. You simply cannot say it must be "very" non-obvious, or "how skilled" in the art the person must be. You have to have a consistently applicable rule, otherwise you're going to get appeals and maybe even lawsuits to no end from applicants who feel their "person skilled in the art" was too skilled compared to the one that assessed someone else's patent.

I'm a firm believer that the patent system continues to have an overall positive effect.

But appart from anecdotical evidence, do you have any data to back this up? Even in the fifties, there were already doubts about this. You probably have heard this quote already, but if you haven't: in a study for the US Congress, Fritz Machlup said back then:

If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it.

So he's saying the overall effect was considered to be bad, but that you can't just take everyone's patents suddenly away, so you have to keep it. That's different from extending it towards new fields (such as software) though.

Furthermore, this example illustrates that patents can help protect the small guys when they go up against the big guys. I've never understood why so many people think of patents (and copyrights) solely as weapons of the megacorps.

At least here in Europe, we do not consider copyright to be a weapon of the megacorps, on the contrary.

(Maybe because of the cost of securing and defending a patent? That seems to be a general problem with the legal system here, not the patent system.) Sure, patents are often wielded by the big guys, but could little guys go against megacorps without such tools?

The cost is certainly a very important aspect. Whether it's due to the legal system or something else is not very relevant: it's the reality in which we live and how the system works. Many proponents of software patents often say "if we would have an ideal examination procedure which would get rid of all bad software patents, then they would have a good effect".

That may be so (although even that is debatable), but t

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[Halo1]

Well, if profits are your motivation, then all patents, copyright laws, trademarks and registered designs are a good thing.

That's not true. Software patents only help you profit if

1. you don't sell any software yourself (so you can sue people, but they can't countersue you)
2. or if you have a large enough patent portfolio to force everyone (except those from point 1) into cross-licensing agreements

If you are a regular small company which writes and sells software, you don't belong to either category and you're screwed. Coincidentally, such companies provide for 80% of employment in the IT sector in Germany and 60% in Belgium. It's probably similar in the rest of Europe.

Re:Hmm.....

[pavon]

I don't think that this is just the fault of the patent system, it is a flaw in the legal system, and it is a flaw in the community. Where patents are demonstratedly wrong, it should be easier for small companies or individuals to challenge that bad patent

I strongly disagree. This is a problem with the patent system, because there is no acceptable method for determining when a patent is "wrong". The qualification that they patent office uses now whether there is prior art. But it truely is difficult to determine whether something qualifies as prior art because it is valid to build off of prior art to create a patentable work. This is necissary because everything is built upon older ideas, but makes the patent system difficult because you can argue that any idea you have is an extention of the prior art, not a duplicate of it, and thus your patent is valid. Besides even if we did get rid of all the patents that had prior art, we would still be left with a bunch of stupid ones.

Everyone on slashdot keeps arguing that we should use a different qualification whcih only allows "non-trivial", or "meaningfull" advances to be patented. But those are subjective terms and what one person thinks is genious is obvious to another, especially given the differences between foresight and hindsight. People say we should create a "non-baised" panel of industry experts to advise the patent office, but as soon as these people have the power to decide the fate of a patent - which will have huge financial impacts for the companies filing them - the panel will quickly become highly political and biased.

Copyright works because every creative work is unique, and copyright only gives control of that specific creative work, so you can hand out copyrights to everyone without impeding everyone else. Patents, on the other hand restrict ideas which by their very nature are not unique. Handing them out to everyone who asks is intollerable as it greatly restricts the ability of others to independently develop thier own ideas and products. Therefore, the success of the patent system is dependant on a beurocracy to determine what is a "good" patent and what is a "bad" patent. IMHO, this makes it inherently flawed and unfixable.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[Lonath]

You're not really making sense, and you're still avoiding the central questions that I asked you. Going to your previous post above the parent, are you saying that software is not the result of creative, abstract thought processes?

Writing a piece of software is like writing the solution to a word problem: a math problem with numbers and symbols that represent real-world values. All software could be written and run on paper very slowly, and writing the solution to a math problem you don't know how to solve and where there's no simple formula you plug things into is the result of a creative, abstract thought process. Granted, if you know the formula and you plug in numbers, that's not terribly creative, but coming up with the formula to use is creative. So, software is also the result of creative, abstract thought processes. In fact, the kinds of software that require those creative processes are new algorithms, which are the kinds of things you want patented.

I still don't understand why you don't answer the question about whether or not you can be sued for patent infringement for recording and distributing the output of a patented music box. (And btw, I just want your opinion. I don't expect you to be a patent attorney who knows the real correct answer.)
Creativity has nothing to do with whether or not a string of bits giving instructions to a machine to make it carry out a process is patentable or not. Or, are you saying that there are certain kinds of strings of bits that give instructions to machines to carry out processes that are covered by patent protection because the creator thought certain ways and other strings of bits are exempt because the creator thought in other ways?

Since you're hung up on this whole creativity thing, do you program? I assume you must, but maybe you're just grinding out boring details repeatedly for problems you know how to solve and that makes software seem uncreative. That's like plugging in numbers into a math formula you know, not coming up with a new formula. There are programs that require creativity to write, and like I said above, those are exactly the kinds of programs that should be covered by patents if you like software patents.

Read as "Parents Threaten Software Innovation"

[chitownIrish]

"Get outta that damn computer and go cut the grass!"

Re:Read as "Parents Threaten Software Innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the only one... I was like "Tell me something I don't know! Sheesh!" And then I RTFA and I was like "Tell me something I don't know! Sheesh!"

Now, "Software Innovation Threatens Procreation" is what I call a headline!

econimical calculation of the efffects of patents

[phooka.de]

I know I'm a bit late to be read a lot.... but here's a link to something interesting:

Someone with sufficient understanding of economics has done the math and calculated the effect of patents in different scenarios:

Industries where innovation comes largely independent of each other, like medicine and

industries where inovation builds upon prior art.

Interestingly, it can be shown, that in the latter scenario (software!), patents harm not only the public, but even the paent-holder. A very interesting read (at least for the economics-geeks out there...). Here's the link.

Larry Ellison is against software patents

[PHPgawd]

I don't think this is a "duh" issue at all. The issue is complicated. For instance, let's take the following test:

Larry Ellison (CEO of Oracle) is against software patents because:

a) He is a really nice guy, a humanitarian, and wants to do the right thing for The Children.

b) He wants to foster innovation that could potentially allow smaller competitors challenge Oracle's dominance because industry-wide innovation is more important than Oracle's stock price.

c) He knows Oracle, being the second largest software company in the world and having the deepest inroads into corporate IT departments, can steal the ideas of smaller competitors and wipe them out easier when those pesky software patents are out of the way.

Surely the patent system is flawed, and it has problems, and it needs to be fixed, not eliminated altogether.

Before we call this a "duh" issue, can people please exercise their brain just a little to ponder why Larry Ellison, one of the most ruthless businessmen the world has ever seen, is against software patents?

Re:Larry Ellison is against software patents

[Minna Kirai]

why Larry Ellison, one of the most ruthless businessmen the world has ever seen, is against software patents?

Because he IS the little guy, next to a far more ruthless businessman.

(If Microsoft, IBM, or Sun started enforcing all their software patents, they could eliminate every other professional computer programmer. Patent-wise, Oracle is small potatoes compared to them)

Re:Larry Ellison is against software patents

[PHPgawd]

Oracle is small potatos? Now I've heard everything!

You've obviously spent zero time in an average Global 1000 IT department. Oracle is just as entrenched--if not more so--than Microsoft on most of them.

At those levels patents don't matter. Oracle isn't going to crush MSFT or IBM with software patents, or vice-versa. For these guys they are an annoyance at best. MSFT has paid out millions in patent license fees, but there's no way billg has ever said, "we can't do that because its patented". It's more like, "we've got to pay off that small company that owns that technology". Microsoft, IBM and Oracle are going to do what they want; the only difference is whether they get to do it for free by stealing stuff or whether they will need to share some of their $gigaprofits with the people that actually invented the technology.

Re:Larry Ellison is against software patents

[Minna Kirai]

Oracle is just as entrenched--if not more so--than Microsoft on most of them.

Irrelevant. I'm talking about patents.

At those levels patents don't matter

If all software patents were actually enforcable, then Sun would own Oracle, and Microsoft would own Sun. It's just that they don't want to fully enforce the patents they have, because such blatant anti-innovation will encourage legislatures to fix the laws.

Oracle doesn't even have 1% of IBM's patent count. Sun is a weaker company overall than Oracle, but it has a stronger patent position.

Re:Larry Ellison is against software patents

[PHPgawd]

If all software patents were actually enforcable, then Sun would own Oracle, and Microsoft would own Sun. It's just that they don't want to fully enforce the patents they have, because such blatant anti-innovation will encourage legislatures to fix the laws.

Um, wow. Where to begin... Let's see... Sun was founded in 1982 and Oracle was founded in 1977. Perhaps one of Sun's Oracle-killing patents is on the time machine?

Meanwhile, you clearly have never seen a software patent in your life if you think patents allow you to "own" a company.

For instance, why doesn't Yahoo "own" Google now? Yahoo successfully sued Google when Google ripped off Yahoo's (Overture's) patent on paid search engine keywords (an idea everybody thought was really stupid at the time, but it was highly unique, and Overture developed the product and the demand for the concept over time at great expense, etc. etc.).

Yes, Google paid dearly for the rights to Yahoo's technology, but Yahoo certainly does not "own" Google. Sheesh.

Re:Larry Ellison is against software patents

[Minna Kirai]

Let's see... Sun was founded in 1982 and Oracle was founded in 1977. Perhaps one of Sun's Oracle-killing patents is on the time machine?

So what? Oracle never built up the kind of patent-pumping "research" assemblyline that Sun used to have. Sun is going downhill, and has a weakening marketshare- but they still own a lot of patents on common software techniques.

Meanwhile, you clearly have never seen a software patent in your life if you think patents allow you to "own" a company.

Actually I've read more than 100 entire software patents. (Yes, it was very painful. Thanks for your concern) So I know that no patent actually contains text "Transfer 51% of all voting stock to Bill Gates". But they do cover "inventions" so fundamental that nobody can even run a C++ compiler without infringing them.

That means that IF existing software patents were fully enforced today, Microsoft could go to Oracle and forbid them from selling any more product. Then it's a simple buy-out of the bankrupt company. The ability to shut down an entire business by fiat means you can "own" it for a nominal fee.

But, as I said, the patent-holders will never abuse it to that extent, because it'd bring down the government on them. What's more realistic is that Microsoft will ask 100 of it's best database guys to file patents on whatever random idea they come up with, without stopping to check if it's a good idea, or even if it really works. Then if Oracle ever independently comes up with one of those ideas and puts in the major investment to turn it into a useful product, Microsoft can grab the victory out from under them.

In the world of software development, patents are a way for speculators to lay claim against the hard work of actual productive engineers.

but Yahoo certainly does not "own" Google. Sheesh

Because the keyword-search thing was not so fundamental to Google's business that denying it would've shut them down.

Re:Larry Ellison is against software patents

[noworks]

So the initial poster of the comment thinks that B.Gates for instance, who is for s/w patents, is :

a) He IS a really nice guy, a humanitarian, and wants to do the right thing for The Children.

b) He WANTS to foster innovation that could potentially allow smaller competitors challenge Oracle's dominance because industry-wide innovation is more important than Oracle's stock price.

c) He knows MS, being the first largest software company in the world and having the deepest pockets, can block small inovators by enforcing them MS patents on them.

what a joke, s/w idea patents are not about inventing ANYTHING, they are about printing an idea on a piece of paper. S/W are not accompanied by their implementaiton, usually there is none. The patent "owner" just expects someone to ACTUALLY implement what "resebles" his idea in order to steal him.

and btw the level of s/w patents grant is very low. the patent office actually makes money by accepting patents, I am not aware of any other private organization that sells monopoly rights.

In the real world...

[Anonymous Coward]

you need protection for your innovations. It's the only way for investors to assess just how valuable the software companies are. Microsoft for instance isn't valued based on the millions of lines of code it has - not just because the quality is hard to assess but also because it doesn't give any information about leverage on their competitors.
Also one shouldn't forget that about 50% of all patents are invalidated when taken to court, that coupled with the fact that when engineers unknowingly use patented technology, the companies aren't fined (but forced to license or decist) means that only that only the safe and truly valuable patents will be enforced.
Finally, if one looks at history, patents were created so that small companies and inventors cheaply could protect their inventions against big firms. This still holds, the problem with software patents lies not in the patents themselves but their broadness. By restricting what is software innovation and what isn't, one could get rid of most issues. For instance Amazon.com's one-click technology isn't really an invention but passed because the definition of software innovation is currently too vague.

You gotta look in the right place for innovation.

[argent]

Since 1995, the following events occurred: Palm introduced the Palm Pilot, the first really hand-sized handheld computer, which was followed by five generations of PalmOS-based products from a dozen manufacturers, and a large selection of increasingly Palm-like devices running Microsoft's Windows CE. The EPOC-based clamshell devices had a short-lived Palm-style child. Royal came out with a collection of cheaper and shoddier devices, one of which Palm was able to stop them selling because it infringed on some of Palm's intellectual property. Their victory was short lived... not only did Microsoft add a similar interface to Windows CE, but in a plot twist ironically similar to the Xerox-Apple-Microsoft debacle, Xerox sued them over a software patent, and while they fought it they dropped the innovative "Graffiti" single-stroke input software that had been their flagship product (and part of the reason for the Royal suit) and replaced it with a much more clumsy multi-stroke input method based on Jot that they labelled "Graffiti 2". Palm eventually prevailed in court, but it appears that Graffiti is gone forever.

Final score: Palm - 0, Xerox - 0, Royal - 0, Microsoft - 1.

Software patents stifled innovation and provided no value to anyone. Royal worked around their problem by changing the interface on later models, Palm did the same thing while they were fighting the Xerox lawsuit, and the intellectual property being fought over is now only available as a good clone on later versions of Microsoft's Pocket PC.

And all that happened since 1995.

You have to look in the right place for innovation. The Windows OS isn't that place as often as Microsoft wants you to think with their "freedom to innovate" shpiel.

Re:Um... yah!

[Eric119]

Water isn't wet. It makes things wet.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[torokun]

This is COMPLETE BS.

Music is not functional. It does not do work. You do not achieve particular results with one song that are less efficient with another song.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[torokun]

Your argument does not hold water.

You say:

software builds on so much previous work... patenting it is laughable.

software is a means of making an existing job easier.

taking an existing practice and doing it on a computer doesn't make it innovative.

None of this supports the proposition that no software is innovative.

All you're saying is (in a conclusory way) that some software is not innovative, and therefore you think no software is innovative. That's not an argument.

Furthermore, it's OBVIOUS that all other technologies are based on hundreds or thousands of years of prior art. The patent system REQUIRES patentable matter to be novel and nonobvious. This means that if ANYONE can show that the prior art teaches what's in the patent, it's invalid.

If you think that it's too expensive for people to find prior art, or bring it to the patent office, that's one thing. But nothing you say here is convincing.

Where is it? just here!

[AigariusDebian]

If you wonder, where the cited phrase is in the report, see the point number 342 on 52nd page of the PDF.
That is the only place in the report where the swpatents are mentioned and the point doesn't sound good enought to be used in any intergovermental talks, sorry.

Disclaimer

[Anonymous Coward]

From the beginning of the TFPDF:

The publication does not seek to provide advice, and should not be read as if it does, but raises a number of issues and theme's that would be well advised to discuss around the new European ICT agenda.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[innerweb]

I guess you have never played music. How you play a riff (or a chord on a keyboard) is very important to the sound and more importantly, the PLAYABILITY of the music. Why do you think guitartists do not play notes simultaneously on all the different frets at once? Why do you think guitarists have a clip across the neck of the guitar to change the key? How do you think a D minor sounds when played on the third fret as opposed to open?

Not BS at all, get a cluestick and whack yourelf up side the head. Then, go learn a musical instrument besides voice.

If it does not do work, then how does it lift one's spirits, bring excitement and enhancement to scenes in movies? Whole lot of nothing going on, eh?

InnerWeb

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[jimicus]

There is a difference between making a poor argument and speaking complete tosh.

Clearly in this instance, my argument was poor. Let me try and rephrase it.

It is my opinion, based upon the current state of IT, that there is no software in existence which demonstrates novel, nonobvious ideas. I am not convinced that such software is even possible.

You are welcome to disagree with this opinion, however, I would appreciate you understanding how I reach it.

Firstly, I wish to discard the typical Slashdot approach "it's all numbers, how can you patent numbers?". While technically correct, you could apply the same argument to any tangible object in existence, viz: "It's all atoms, how can you patent atoms?". The clever (and, in theory, patentable) bit is what you do with the numbers.

My argument is therefore:

The concepts of IT (by which I don't just mean binary logic, I also mean things like HCI, data representation etc) have been around for many years, and have no patents surrounding them because they're not inventions, they're established concepts which are too abstract to patent.

Copyright already protects software, as does the inherent difficulty in reverse-engineering any significant program. Therefore, the things which get patented are simply more (generally fairly abstract) concepts - and frequently such basic ones as to make anyone versed in IT laugh out loud.

It may be that I am incorrect, and that there is some truly innovative software out there. Software which does what nobody in the history of IT ever even thought of doing before. It may also be that such software is patented. I've yet to see any evidence of this, but absence of evidence is not proof.

It is my belief that the patent system as it currently stands is fundamentally unsuited to IT. So much so that the necessary changes would make software patents so different that they really should be called something else. Specifically:

• Patent offices clearly cannot afford experienced IT staff to examine patents. This problem's easy: throw enough money at it.
  
• There is no clear definition of "novel, nonobvious" largely because there's little case law - the thought of a patent battle with IBM is enough to put most executives in a negotiating mood.
  
• The barrier to entry in developing software is much lower than with most professions - all you need is a computer, a text editor and a compiler. It is precisely because of this low barrier to entry that so much libre/gratis software exists today, and how much richer is the IT world for it?
  
• And finally, 25 years may be acceptable for ideas in fields such as engineering, but in software it's absolutely crazy. The whole point of patents is that they grant a LIMITED monopoly - enough time for them to be exploited to make the inventor a reasonable sum of money - before eventually allowing everyone a crack at the whip. This may take many years in most fields, it can happen in a much shorter timeframe with software.
  
• One last point: This post is so huge, and the words so long, that it is almost guaranteed to be modded down. Further, you've stopped reading by now so I may as well say what I like. Wibble.
  

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[torokun]

Actually, I did read it, I just don't have time to write a proper reply.

I still disagree though. ;)

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[torokun]

Well, I thought you were referring to compositions of music rather than the process of actually making it.

If that's what you're talking about, then sure, I do think innovative processes for playing instruments should be patentable.

This is similar to patents on sports techniques, such as various ways of hitting a golf ball...

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[Halo1]

Certainly it can be argued that software code source instructions is not a result of creative, abstract, thought processes, in any other way than a steam engine, girdle, or anything else patentable could be considered.

The point is simply that writing code is the same as writing down a description of something (just in a language which can be translated to something which can be interpreted by a machine). How you describe something (in C or in English) should be a completely irrelevant as far as patentability is concerned. It should be about what you describe.

Nevertheless, lots of things which are normally not patentable (such as mathematics and business methods) do become suddenly patentable if you describe them in a way that can be interpreted by a computer.

I'm not sure why the bearded-terminal-hacker-set seem to think that the creation of software is in any way more of an artform than any other kind of invention.

People don't invent software, they write it. You don't write a steam engine or a lava lamp. This has nothing to do with art or creativity, but simply with the fact that software is a literary work (not just in practice, but even juridically, even in TRIPs).

If you write a technical manual on how to perform a (possibly patented) chemical reaction, that does not make the book patentable nor can publishing it constitute patent infringement. But for some reason when you describe it in software, that software itself does become patentable.

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[Lost Race]

Mod parent up to 11; argent nailed the problem dead center.

Programming is a process of continual invention, or at least application of known techniques to new problems, which according to the patent office is indeed invention. We spend all our time solving problems as efficiently and completely as possible. How could patents possibly be of any help to this process?

I think the original idea of patents was to keep a public archive of inventions, so that we wouldn't need to keep re-inventing the same things over and over, so that truly unique and deeply insightful solutions to problems would not be lost to obscurity. So instead of sitting here burning 100 watts of brainpower trying to solve programming problems, I should be able to pose my problem to the patent database, find an existing solution, pay a licensing fee, integrate the solution into my program and move on to the next problem. And that should be easier than (re)inventing solutions to the problems myself.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find it utterly impossible to find anything useful in the patent database. I have no idea how to search for a solution to a given programming problem. It's much easier for me to invent my own solution; that's what I'm paid to do, and I do it pretty well. Even if I somehow did come up with the right keywords to search for, there's no way I could translate from patent language back into compilable code, or even a high level algorithm -- that dialect of English they use (let alone the dialect of German or French or Swedish or whatever they're going to be using in Europe) is utterly incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't they have to be written in a common programming language, or at least a common pseudo-code? "A method for composing a plurality of elements comprising a plurality of..." etc, etc. Huh? I've been a highly-paid expert professional programmer for 20 years -- I know a LOT about programming -- and half the time I have no idea what a given software patent is trying to describe. (The other half of the time it's completely obvious, something I would have "invented" myself in five minutes.) How could they possibly be of any value to the industry in general, for their stated purpose of promoting progress in the useful arts?

Re:A Mature Look at Patents

[argent]

I think the original idea of patents was to keep a public archive of inventions, so that we wouldn't need to keep re-inventing the same things over and over, so that truly unique and deeply insightful solutions to problems would not be lost to obscurity.

That's part of it. The two parts are: to provide an incentive for inventors to publish their techniques rather than to keep them secret, and to reward them for the significant work of converting an invention to a product that could be easily manufactured so that people could benefit from it. Writing software, as you say, is a process of continual invention, and in software there are very few patentable ideas that require the same kind of effort to reduce to practicality and publish as a new kind of light-bulb or insole does... and none that require the capital investment of a manufacturing facility, raw materials, and an expensive distribution network. On the contrary, commercial software publishers spend a considerable amount of time and effort keeping people from "manufacturing and distributing" their software.

So this key rationale for the temporary and limited monopoly to the use of an idea granted by a patent applies poorly if at all to software.

And of course, you don't go to the patent office to find an algorithm for sorting widgets, you go to Knuth and O'Reilly and Google. And you hope that someone hasn't already patented the stuff you find there... because even if you can get the patent invalidated, you can't afford to do it over and over again for every block or function in your application.

[what, every one? Why yes, if you have two functions doing the same thing, after all, you make them one function... and usually you didn't write the second function at all, you just called the first one again]

Re: OT: Coral?

[siriuskase]

Coral is a system that is supposed to eliminate the /. effect. Apparently it isn't perfect, but at least, the OP diverted some traffic with it, so it does help a little bit.