UK Gov't EU Software Patents Public Meeting

drseuk writes "The UK government is holding a meeting to discuss the proposed EU Computer Implemented Inventions Directive (a.k.a. Software Patents) on 14th December. Lord Sainsbury (Science Minister), MPs and invited members of the public (including myself) will be present. An hour has been set aside for questions and answers, so this is a golden opportunity to raise our concerns. I'd value input on good questions to raise. Here is the Patent Office's FAQ on the subject and an example of a UK patent recently granted to ARM Ltd. for 'Simulation of Data Processing Apparatus.' Do you agree that this patent should have been awarded?"

Comments

Misleading headline.

[MindStalker]

Shouldn't there be a coma or something in that headline.

As it is it reads the the UK is patenting the process of a "Public Meeting".

Scared me for a second there.

Re:Misleading headline.

[LiENUS]

To me it looked like they UK and EU Governments had invented some crazy software that had gone off and patented the public meeting, which is even scarier

Re:Misleading headline.

[siriuskase]

Glad I'm not the only one who read it that way.

At first I though they had patented Public Meetings, thought maybe it was a UKism for a political gathering

Re:Misleading headline.

[briaman]

A coma? Well, the poster mentions the UK Gov't, the EU and patents in one line. That's usually enough to induce a coma in most people.

Re:Misleading headline.

[LordK2002]

No, under David Blunkett a Public Meeting is now a terrorist act, and as such is non-patentable.

good write up

[Mstrgeek]

this is good write up talking more about the issue the write up wa done byBy Matthew Broersma, Techworld http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?news id=2175

Small and medium sized enterprises

[eetiiyupy]

The company I work for is larger than an SME - it's sort of a small large company. It's big enough to employ staff to look at contracts, one of us has a law degree. We have no time to lodge patents. Our products do not generate enough income to pay for patents to be registered and defended. It is pretty likely that other companies have enough booby trap patents to stop us trading.

If it's a problem for us, then the SMEs will be in much worse shape. So the question is, where does his Lordship think that these SMEs are going to get the money to pay for all the patent agents they are going to need, and how can they defend themselves against the international mega-corps which have been doing defensive registration for years?

They patented the Turing Machine?

[VernonNemitz]

From the name, if the name really describes the patent, then I'd say NO, because you can't get much more "prior" than the Turing Machine, in the way of "prior art".

ARM Patent

[albalbo]

The ARM patent is discussed on softwarepatents.co.uk, scan down the page to "Patent GB0025696.6". Basically, it's a patent on a method for speeding up CPU emulators. The method in question is "instead of copying memory buffers, why not just copy around *pointers* to those buffers?". This is apparently innovative and technical.

I encourage everyone who plans on attending to keep in touch with FFII-UK; if you're not sure where we currently are, or the problems with the Council directive, they are the people to ask. The UKPTO sent out their one-sided biased view of the directive, get the other side of the story too.

Limiting the patent validity period

[chrisvdb]

I think an important step in the right direction would be to limit patents (all patents, not only SW patents) to -let's say- the average product lifetime in the sector...

In the case of SW that would probably be something like 3 years.

The patent system is clearly broken right now, but that doesn't mean that patents are bad by definition. They *can* stimulate innovation, but only if implemented right.

Cheers,
Chris.

Re: Software patents meeting

[Anonymous Coward]

Scanned text of the letter, timetable, maps, and a fax'd form if you'd like to attend

Some of the:

[jotaeleemeese]

Do they realize that by patenting software any mathematical equation could be "patented"? Do they realize that could cause untold harm to scientific advancement?

How would a system with software patents would benefit individuals that would be in no position to fight bogus patent infringement laswsuits, thus loosing control of their own work to predatory companies?

How do they think a system that incentivates law firms to build patent portfolios, without ever contributed anything to the advancment of computer science, will promote invention if real inveotrs do not have the deep pockets to protect themselves from these companies' actions?

Why do they want to intruduce patents where copyright could equally protect the author of any software?

Why should software be patentable if it is part of a physical device (as it would be if the current proposal is eventually passed) if this would kill competition of other companies improving on the original software by using different algorithms?

What stops people of getting software patents just by enouncing an idea but without writing any code?

Do they realize that any computer program can be as easily be enunciated in any language (English, Polish, Russian, Greek)? Do they realize this makes computer sofware a form of speech which they would be constraining by means of patents? (when there is already copyright for that)

Oh boy, If I can come up with all of the above just by thinkering, I hope guys involved more deeply come with more polished questions....

Debunking leaflet

[Halo1]

At FFII, we've written a 4-page leaflet that debunks most claims made in the UKPTO brochure. You can find it here.

I got an invite to this event...

[Pembers]

It's in London, on the morning of 14 December. Would any UK or EU Slashdotters who can't attend like me to ask a question on their behalf? Post them in reply to this, and I'll see what I can do.

The question to ask a pro-patent spokesman

[fransw]

Please give me one example of an obvious software patent success story (as in: where a software patent is a win-win situation for patent holder, patent licencee and consumers)

I have never heard of such a thing ...

Liability

[Sebby]

Ask the EU folks how they feel about the potential of being sued if patents they grant would result in the cripplement of certain small companies by bigger companies that (ab)use questionable patents they've received (along the lines of this post and I'm sure there are dozens more in the comments), which is the same effect as an abusive monopoly dictating the market place.

Additionally, are they prepared of being dictated how/what software they'll use, and be ready to budget 50%+ of their entire budget for software/licences to companies that would hold such patents? (It will happen - software is here to stay, and will be an integral part of business and governemt, and abusive companies (think MS) will try to grab their share for everything under the sun)

The UKPO paper disassembled

[christianUK]

In addition to the FFII paper above, there is also a paper I put together that shows the UKPO's assertions about what "technical" software is seems to be very different to what the Commission report of 2002 says it is.

Software Patents: Clarity or Status Quo? I mainly would request to anyone who is thinking of attending just to ask them to explain 'technical' in clear, understandable language- what does it mean?.

Is calculating and ordering information technical, yes or no? Are methods of performing mental acts technical? Are computer programs technical in the sense of art 52 epc? What about the rights of software authors to publish their works under Arts 10 and 13 of TRIPS and the fact that the broadness of patents interferes with this? This is the debate they don't seem to want to have in the open- but restating all this nonsense about "technical" software I feel really insults my intelligence and the intellect of every programmer who has had the misfortune to be caught up in this debate.

I would like to see a vote in the House of Commons (or even the Lords) to see if the British government really support this line on unlimited patentability before this kind of pro-council document conference goes ahead- if this campaign is all to be done in the name of the Government, there can be no harm in obtaining consensus through a vote. (The primary executive, not the quangos - an issue this important must be put before the House. IMHO)

I have a feeling that many backbenchers in all parties will be very interested to hear what is going on and being banded about outside the UK as the "official line" , and I doubt that many will support this line after seeing how other countries have pulled up their Governments over the semantic alchemy in the Council document - and demanded a recount.