Slashdot Mirror
Poland Blocks European Software Patent Vote, For Now
Anonymous Brave Guy writes "Thanks to the Polish Minister of Science and Information Technology, Wlodzimierz Marcinski, Europe has dropped the current proposal for software patents. He made a special journey to Brussels to withdraw the proposal, basically in protest at the way the patents were being pushed through by the back door. Since the European presidency is about to pass to Luxembourg, this has effectively killed the idea, at least for the immediate future." More at FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure). This means that the promised move to delay actually worked.
at least slashdot didn't forget about poland. :)
Luckily some people still vote right
Maybe the EU saying no to software patents will have some sort of influence on the US. Especially if people in Europe could make it a point of contention.
EU readers please Thank Poland!
Good news for everyone, all we need to do is stop it completely and see if we can get the rest of the world to follow suit. Respect to the EFF, FFII and other organisations involved.
Time for the obligatory troll - 7th post =P
It was quite a surprise, and thanks God - it is done. Of coarse, they (we know who they are) will try again and again, but in fact that they lost it second time, so I think they will eventually run out of arguments if they will try it next time.
:)
Thanks to open source, free software and small IT business advocates and lobbies who made it happen, everyone who tried to provide insightful information to diplomats and goverments.
Thank you
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
No, it is NOT a dupe. If you read the summary it states quite clearly, that this is a follow-up on yesterdays story.
Keep open minded - but not that open your brain falls out...
Yeah, I'm sure that the police will be coming and arresting Firefox users all over the EU soon.
This may be only a temporary reprieve, but it could also, quite possibly, be a sign that the tides may be changing in the Council. Let's all hope for the best, and do what we can to make it happen.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
I for one am grateful to our Polish voting overlords.
It's about time one of the countries in Europe had a government with a spine. I'm from the UK and ours doesn't, unless it's about introducing draconian ID card measures without listening to anyone and ignoring any consultation it required and dismissing it as irrelivant.
Go POLAND!!!
I hate to accuse them of posting the story three times, because I know they work very hard to make sure it's only posted twice.
PS Actually, I don't think I'll have time to read it today, can you please re-post the story tomorrow, so I don't have to dig through the "previous stories" link?
So much for axis of the willing...
I don't need a signature.
In other news, Canada reports many cancellations of immigration requests from EU citizens...
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
i say: damn it!
You forgot about poland!!!
Who do I have to blackmail to get some representation around here!?!?!?!?
That is twice now they hav saved Europe's ass. Being the first to break the German's Enigma machine and now this.
Granted in the whole scheme of things, that first one might have been a little more important.
So I never understood this, why does Poland seem to end up being the butt of jokes? Or is that just a US thing?
Its unlikely that Poland would have done this as a pure solo effort, for fear of a backlash. There must have been others behind the scene agreeing with the position, with Poland making the defiant stance.
Does this mean that Poland acted as the front for a number of smaller countries. Or did a politician REALLY make a stand based on principle against all commers.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Winning one battle isn't enough. The enemy will persist until they get their way. In addition to keeping them down, perhaps someone in the EU should push for legislation that explicitly bans any form of patents on software in the future.
this is great news - they were worms for trying to sneak it in on the holiday season when the people who don't want patents would not be paying attention because we all have lives and family and money isn't that important to us in that we wouldn't be trying to do backhanded politics during the holiday season. that's the way politics works in the states - if a special interest group/corporations can't get what they want passed by itself they try to sneak stuff in with another bill or when they know people won't be paying attention. again - what slimey disgusting worms - I hope they have really happy holidays.
Intriguing. So this is what they mean by government for the people. I've never seen that before (being a citizen of government for the big corporation).
He made a special journey to Brussels to withdraw the proposal, basically in protest at the way the patents were being pushed through by the back door
:-/
Cool, someone got it.
Here's hoping this action by Poland will make MORE clueless ministers go "huh? why did he feel it so necessary to stop that" and actually start reading up on the subject.
I fear the software giants will bring up this over and over again as long as EU says "no" though.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
don't give up sex or breathing.
Best Slashdot Co
there is something good coming out of poland.
Being polish myself, i know that's hard to do.
Next week: After geting hammered on Vodka, the Polish government bans alcohol.
GO POLAND, FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
Now Polish people get to tell EU jokes.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The screen door one is true!
Uh, I think you forgot about the Battle of Warsaw , where Poland really saved Europe!
"Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to worldwide conflagration." - General Tukhachevsky, Red Army, 1920.
It has come to my understanding that the Dutch government has been making an aggressive (but futile) push for software patents. I feel the need to apologize on behalf of the Dutch people, and I hope that ere the next elections arrive, everybody will see our prime minister Balkenende and his cronies for the bastards they really are and vote them into oblivion.
Microsoft loses it's appeal, software patents are blocked, and satan just called to ask if he could borrow my skates.
What other than software can be both copyrighted and patented?
Considering the fact that the Dutch hold the EU presidency for the remainder of the year (to be replaced by Lux. next year), is there any evidence that the Lux. presidency will take a different approach? I haven't been following the more subtle aspects of this issue, but Lux. is part of the Benelux trio (Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg) that often ally themselves for leverage against some of the larger EU countries. Is it likely that Lux. will take a different stance on this issue or continue down the same path?
And that would be sarcastic because patent infringement is a civil matter and shouldn't involve the police, like copyright infringement?
its not an american thing....(well maybe it is now), it started with the nazi's back in WW2.
Huh?
-mkb
They did break the first version, it was later upgraded with an additional wheel, and that upgraded one was cracked by Turing at Bletchley. A few links: http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/virtualbp/poles/ poles.htm, http://www.armyradio.com/publish/Articles/The_Enig ma_Code_Breach/The_Enigma_Code_Breach.htm, http://www.enigmahistory.org/enigma.html.
This and other Polish contributions to WWII were kept quiet at the end of the war to avoid annoying Stalin, and it was carried into history writing (especially in the UK) for a long time. Too many exaples to mention, the Enigma is but one...
I guess Audioscrobbler will still be around next year.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Thank you Poland!
I'm very ashamed too be a citizen of the Netherlands under which leadership these very undemocratic actions took place. I'm really starting to ask myself why our government is trying to enslave us too big (american) cooperations against the democratic will of our parlement.
- Giving Microsoft a complete dominance in govermental IT for years against the wish of our parlement which voted for more open standards and open source. Trying to let it look like a "upgrade" so no competition had a chance to opt in.
- Trying to push the patents law, bypassing the EEC parlement who voted against it.
- Signing a deal for the Joint Strike Fighter costing billions (again in a very controversial manner).
disgusting!
Given the recent bittorrent raids in Europe at the behest of the MPAA etc..
What agreements are there between Europe and the U.S. concerning patent law?
I know the Berne Conventions have established parity between the U.S. and Europe regarding copyright law - essentially making U.S. copyrights enforceable in Europe and visa-versa. Are there similar agreements regarding patents?
If so, European developers may not be off the hook. Sure European companies won't be able to create software patents - but that wouldn't stop Microsoft or other U.S. companies from enforcing their patents.
Is there a lawyer (or someone that passes for one) in the house?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
because with out an appropriate checks and balances system there is no way to make sure that kind of stuff does no happen, or at least there is some one accountable to the citizens.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Even though people pull jokes and Poland's not really been any of the 'top ranked' countries in the west (or the east for that matter); I have never been prouder of being polish!
Find your Polish Roots
There you go.
hey today is the nice day, first I read about how .eu court kick M$ on butt and then on slachdot find about this great news that poland is the only country in .eu gota real IT Minister ;)
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
For me this is the first really good thing coming out of the bigger EU. If you'd like to comment to the party of Brinkhorst, contact D66 (Dutch, but you probably will understand it), his party, or mail them: international@d66.nl. Here's a quote from their site:
I remember as a child in the 70's that Polish jokes were a lot more popular. The US always had a lot of Polish immigrants and if you don't know Polish, their names appeared pretty weird to us. They also tended to work a lot of jobs like coal mining where you don't have to have a college degree to be there. ...
So I'm guessing that 1) weird names that aren't pronounced (in English!) like they are spelled 2) make mistakes when they speak English, like dropping definite articles, because their language doesn't have these features 3) work manual labor jobs like coal mining
that all of these things led to the idea that Poles were "stupid". It seems to me that things changed with the crackdown on Solidarity in the 1980's and ever since then, I haven't heard as many Polish jokes. Americans had a lot of sympathy for Poles because they viewed them as freedom loving people who were forcibly imprisoned in a system (Communism) that they didn't want. I think that Americans have a favorable view of Poland in general and honestly don't think they are stupid people.
It seems that all kinds of people in America have jokes about various subgroups depending on where they live. I had a guy from Minnesota tell me a Swedish joke, which really wasn't all that funny to me because I live in Georgia and we don't have a history of large scale Scandinavian immigration here like they do in Minnesota and some states near it. I've had relatives from Texas tell me "Aggie" jokes, which are jokes about Texas A&M University. These jokes mean nothing to me and they aren't all that funny. Maybe Polish jokes originated in places like Pennsylvania or Illinois, where there was large scale Polish immigration over the years.
well, thanks for the enlightenment. I simply didn't knew what i was doing here four years long... ;-)
you are not your sig
The US has to get their patent system in order or it will collapse. The only real purpose for the patent system with software is to employ lawyers in the software business and to harass innovative companies competing with larger companies. Both are counterproductive in developing computer technologu and for that mater mankinds development.
The EU wants to develop their software business and do not want to let the likes of Microsoft come in and stifle growth with legal harassment. Even if you do no infringe, the mere fact a small company or individual is legally challenged is enough to put them out and under. The EU is doing it right by not letting in US legal problems into their system. A good recent example is how long and how far can SCO go before someone puts the execs in jail for extortion? Or perhaps the SEC for stock manipulation.
And since most software patents can find their root in previous works or ideas developed in public universities and not really inside the business they originated in, most are fraudulent patents. Patents were meant to protect the original developing company from infringement. Microsoft didn't invent windows, XEROX/PA did. MIT did X before Microsoft had an OS. So So by rights, any patent on Windows by Microsoft is derived work and not an original invention. These patents should be rejected.
Unless Canada and the US revise the law, I figure in 3-5 years most of our software will come from EU, India or China. Want a software development job, go to EU, India or China. Poland has the right idea, it will develop and keep their people at home.
EU tried to rush the legislation through on a meeting between ministers of agriculture and fishery.
This is how seriously software patent issues are taken in the European Union. "We need to fish more herring, mackerel and patents on software, or else the fishers will dump something smelly in front of the building"
Thumbs up for Poland for stalling the process.
------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
I was going to say "we (Europeans)" but since this could influence the US then we should do what we can while there's still something we can do.
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
-My former co-worker who was from Poland.
Well, our Dutch minister Brinkhorst unfortunately still hasn't changed his vote, although our own parlaiment has voted against software patents. I did send an e-mail last spring to his party's office that his behaviour on this subject was a mayor reason for me to no vote on his party in the last european elections.
According to himself he's just afraid to lose face by changing his vote. But I think there's more to it. Any dutchies reading this, please let then know they are loosing votes over this issue.
http://www.d66.nl/contact
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Irony doesn't play well on /.
1) I design a new type of machine to efficiently sort apples - I get a patent on my machine. You can build a machine to sort appples, that works differently, but not one that works like mine.
2) I write a book about how to sort apples and I describe my machine and how it works. I get a copyright on my book. You can write a book about how to sort apples and can describe my cmachine and how it works, but you can't use the saem words I used, nor paraphrase them.
My patent gives me some protection for my useful machine. My copyright on my book does not protect my machine or my method of sorting apples.
Now I write a new computer program to efficiently sort a database. Didn't this take the same type of mental effort that it took to design the apple sorter? Aren't I entitled to the same type of protection? Doesn't it make sense to use patent protection designed for protectiong useful things and not copyright designed for protecting expression of ideas, but not the idea itself?
At least with the patent, the duration is limited (20years) and there is someone checking to see that the patented item is really new and worthy of protection. Copyright doesn't have those checks, it's just a form you file and you can get over a 100 years. Teh reason is that it's not supposed to cover useful inventions, it's just supposed to cover expression, so anyone can write the same software as long as they don't copy the way you expressed your idea.
I hadn't realized it until you said that. Day was seeming dark, just like the rest lately, but instead, I realize two major victories for the common people - plus the shortest day of the year was yesterday, so it's a few minutes more sunlight everyday for the next six months!
:) I will take a day off from my normal paranoia! :)
Yay yay yay! It's a good good day!
I hadn't thought it that way, but that's fantastic. Since we (in the U.S.) can't convince anyone who matters that software patents are bad, maybe the europeans can put a few "IP Scroungers" out of business and force the USPO to come to their senses.
He has been an IT manager in private business and studied Mathematics - i almost wet my pants of happiness as i read his CV. :) - Heres to Wlodzimierz Marcinski!
:\
This is one politician i want to decide such matters as he actually has knowledge of what he is doing. Im so glad Poland is now in the EU
I wish we had politicians like him in Denmark when we decide IT politics
damn.. i was just ready writing my patent application for the for loop. :-)
deserves +3 funny at least
Thanks.
The Software Patent Directive has been withdrawn from the Agenda of the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Have I really not been paying enough attention to realize that when people said, "it's being pushed through the back door," that this is what they meant? Or does the EU have strange, overgrown branches of government (such that Agriculture and Fisheries really does control software rulings)? Or was this just a joke from the FFII?
"If so, European developers may not be off the hook. Sure European companies won't be able to create software patents - but that wouldn't stop Microsoft or other U.S. companies from enforcing their patents."
It's just the oposite. EU companies can still create softwarepatents abroad, but it forbids softwarepatents in the EU, even when USA companies would try to enforce it.
It comes down to: we can get patents there, but they can't get it here. All other objections to SWP aside, this alone should make it clear the EU has an economical benefit for not allowing softwarepatents.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Too bad I'm not an artist. It would be awesome. Does anyone know if it is copyrighted?
Donate free food here
One argument I use against software patents is what happened in the 80s with the IBM PC. They had a monopoly on that particular architecture. So another company (I think it was Phoenix, please correct me) did some clean-room engineering and produced a compatible BIOS, enabling competition. Had IBM patented the BIOS, there would have been no competition and the entire PC industry could have turned out differently
I've written to my MP and MEP, but was wondering who I should write to who's the UK equivalent of this Polish chap.
"Didn't this take the same type of mental effort that it took to design the apple sorter?"
No.
"Aren't I entitled to the same type of protection?"
No.
"Doesn't it make sense to use patent protection designed for protectiong useful things and not copyright designed for protecting expression of ideas, but not the idea itself?"
No.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Stupid argument, which can be met with an equally stupid example.
You need to cross a river. You construct and patent a "bridge". VOILA! Now no-one can build another bridge of *any* design anywhere without your permission. Can you say "ANTICOMPETETIVE"?
Problem with software patents, you can't search patent database to see if you are not infriging. If you do you might be considered contaminated, since you have seen other ideas.
That reminds me like getting patent on "closed-room murder" for mystery novels.
Thank Tux for the Poles!
Their Infighting has ensured the Democratic Will of the European Peoples and their elected MSP's has prevailed over the totally undemocratic Council of Ministers - recently led by A Mickey$oft sponsored Irish Presidency.
They know Democracy is hard won and citizens must defend it.
Hurrah....I've a feeling it's not over tho'
Ha! Didn't see that one coming.
Poland hasn't forgotten the debates, either - they've pulled out of Iraq. What kind of America makes Poland look like compassionate conservatives?
--
make install -not war
The software patent decision was twice undemocratic, first the parliament was ignored, second it was passed through the council of ministers by trickery.
No matter what you think of software patents, everyone should be happy that someone in EU thinks democracy is worth taking serious.
Funny that it should be one of the new members, given the "superior" attitude most of the old members take.
"Now I write a new computer program to efficiently sort a database. Didn't this take the same type of mental effort that it took to design the apple sorter? Aren't I entitled to the same type of protection? Doesn't it make sense to use patent protection designed for protectiong useful things and not copyright designed for protecting expression of ideas, but not the idea itself?"
No. The problem lies in that you'd get a very general patent that actually COULD cover any kind of database sorting. Very dangerous.
Our most densely populated areas, like LA, Phoenix, Denver, and NYC, have been drowning in smog and waste for centuries. Our problem is that our sparsely populated areas are full of morons, who vote against the government that can clean up those areas, because their own areas seem clean. Mainly because anyone smart enough to vote right moves to the dense areas to work.
That being said, the USA has by far the highest per-capita productivity in the world. Of the $30T produced annually on Earth, over $10T is produced in the USA. That's something like 35% of production, from 5% of the people, using only 25% of the energy. The numbers are big, but actually show that the USA leads the world in responsible production - not just clean, but efficient and competitive economically. China and India mask their per-capita pollution numbers with hundreds of millions of people who produce little pollution, but who don't help other humans live much at all. Debates about the necessity of consuming $30T:year by 6B humans ($5K:human:year) are another story, but as long as we're doing that, we're much better off producing it the "American way" than the way other countries do. Otherwise, everyone would drown in smog and waste.
--
make install -not war
First the MS decision then this.
I think there is a Santa Claus!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
nuf' said!!
I'm Polish!
there's nothing slimier than a stupid german!
You dumb german hick!
I believe I would like to buy that man a beer.
The EU is looking promising, but what action can we take here in the states to help push the anti-software patent movement forward? Can anybody post up some resources regarding this info? or email me at civil-disobedience@earthlink.net
How many Polacks does it take to block a European software patent vote?
Apparently, just one.
The mental effort, while applaudable, is irrelevant.
All you have actually done is write a detailed technical manual describing a method of sorting a database ... unless you can think of a way in which a computer program is something other than a detailed set of instructions.
"This has nothing to do with entitlement, and everything with consequences for the economy and innovation. Software patents are generally not beneficial to either, so it does not make sense to have them."
So why is it that it's beneficial for innovation and the economy to issue a patent on the apple sorter, but not the database sorter? If you want to argue that all patents are bad for innovation and the economy, fine, but almost all countries disagree and have patent laws.
I can imagine Washington and Redmond right now:
(From the script of Dr. Strangelove)
Now look boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches. But I got a pretty fair idea that something doggoned important's going on back there. And I got a fair idea of the kind of personal emotions that some of you fella's may be thinking. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human beings if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelings about software Patents. But I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a countin' on ya, and by golly we ain't about to let 'em down. Tell you somethin' else. This thing turns out to be half as important is I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for every last one of you, regardless of your race, color, or your creed. Now, let's get this thing on the hump. We got some lobbying to do.
> Now I write a new computer program to efficiently sort a database.
[...]
> Aren't I entitled to the same type of protection?
Except that software patents are given for the idea of sorting a database, not for the specific implementation. That's equivalent to patenting sorting apples, not patenting a given mechanical machine for doing so.
Further than that, proving non-obviousness is nigh on impossible. So the patent office doesn't try. Yet to any experienced software engineer, many database sorting mechanisms are obvious.
Add to that, if you hold a patent for an apple sorting machine, that gives you the ability to monopolise efficient apple sorting (until someone devises a competitive alternative).
If you hold a patent for database sorting, nobody else can sort databases. You've just crippled every industry in the country that uses databases; that's the IT industry, finance, telecomms, travel, manufacturing, oil, and pretty much everything else. And nobody will devise a competitive alternative because you've patented the idea, not the implementation. So nobody will extend the sorting to optimise it, simplify it, take it into new areas - in other words, innovation is being prevented.
So no, I don't agree that you are entitled to the same protection. It just isn't needed. Look how far the software industry has come in the last 50 years, without software patents, and look what it's provided, and please, tell me exactly what benefit there is to society from introducing them?
~Cederic
"... some clean-room engineering and produced a compatible BIOS, enabling competition. Had IBM patented the BIOS, there would have been no competition ..."
You assume they could have "patented the BIOS," but that's not certain. Big mainframes used a similar startup procedure and that might well have prevented a patent from being granted on a BIOS.
In fact, when IBM challenged the alleged copying of their BIOS the court concluded that the copyright in the BIOS was not infringed, in part because the BIOS seemed more like part of a machine and the competing BIOS was simply performing the same functions. Copyright law for computer software has changed enough that the "clean room" procedure probably won't work for application software even if you write your own code and never see my source or object code. copyright protection now extends to what the program does (its machine-like function) and not just how you wrote the code, i.e., the "expression" you used and your style of code drafting.
As an example, let's take arithmetic coding, which is a compression method patented by IBM. It's known to be generally optimal, but usually the inferior Huffman coding is used instead because there's no patent on it. If you imagine all the data that's ever been transmitted using Huffman coding (which includes every MPEG file ever downloaded, for starters) and work out how much throughput could have been saved by using arithmetic coding instead, it's obvious that the patent on arithmetic coding has been enormously costly.
Donate free food here
I am Polish from my fathers side (the other half being German) and I have never been prouder of my distant Polish heritage!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Polish Minister of Science and Information Technology found face down in a shallow creek. Clutched in his left hand, a piece of paper with the words "U h4v3 833n 4551m1L4t3d". Death ruled accidental drowning by the European Union.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
"Problem with software patents, you can't search patent database to see if you are not infriging. If you do you might be considered contaminated, since you have seen other ideas." I presume you are using "contaminated" in the context of situations in which copyright infringement was alleged and the plaintiff has to show the defendant copied the plaintiff's work. In those situations, the defendant is far better off if he can show that he's never seen the plaintiffs copyrighted work, i.e., he's not "contaminated." However, your concern here is purely related to protection of software by copyright and your concern just emphasizes my point taht patent law makes more sense for things that are more like machines than books. Under patent law, there is no such thing as "contamination" since there's no need to prove copying. There's a written description of the patented invention - the claims - and if you're not doing the same thing specified in the claims, then you're not infringing. A copyright 1) has no written description of what is protected, 2) no one checks to make sure that it's worthy of protection (new, etc.) and it lasts for nearly forever. "That reminds me like getting patent on "closed-room murder" for mystery novels." And that's why patents make sense for software - no one could get a patent on a "closed room murder" since it's not something that's new and therefore it does not meet the standards of something that is deserving of a patent. YOu may have a concern about the poor quality of patents being issued - I have that concern too, but that's far different from saying that software patents don't make sense.
Well, other posters have explained it already, but it could also be summarised by what you yourself say:
"In case my point was not clear, a computer program, to my technical mind, is more like a machine than a book."
A computer program, to my logical mind, is a book, not a machine.
Therefor, all your arguments, which are based on your premise, have little validity in my eyes. You could say the same, ofcourse, which is why, ultimately, it comes down to who has the most power to uphold ones' view...currently, in europe, we're doing not too bad to give some struggle, and, who knows, maybe we'll win.
When that happens, all your questions will indeed be answered with 'no', because we start with another premise then you.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
You need to cross a river. You construct and patent a "bridge". VOILA! Now no-one can build another bridge of *any* design "" That's not how patents work. There are lots of patents issued on specific designs for bridges. Those patents ensure that the guy who spent the time and money to figure out a good bridge design can pay for his R&D. The competitor is encouraged to design another type of bridge, and guess what, that improves the whole bridgebuilding technology as designers consider and reject alternatives. Sure you can label it "anti-competitive" if you want, but most countries disagree and have passed patent laws. At least in the U.S. it was considered so important to encourage "progress of the useful arts and sciences" that patents were written into the Consititution. I'm still lookiing for a reason why software should be considered different from other patented technology.
how can the logical sequence of mathematical ideas and expressions be patentable? If it is, let me be the first to patent the "algorithm" which is defined as a sequence of equations, decisions and other programming structures that is used to manipulate inputs and outputs.
Being able to patent software is just ludicrous - this means that unless you want to do something brand-spanking new in code, you will probably be infringeing on something even if you've never seen someone elses code. Let's say, for instance, you want to write some software that makes shopping lists and tallies the total cash you will spend - you'll get nobbled by M$ cos they've patented Excel and they have lawyers with liberal interpretations of the claims to do with a spreadsheet program.
Brings me in mind of something I was taught a long wile ago - programming is the creation of sequences of expressions. Something to think about...
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
"The problem lies in that you'd get a very general patent that actually COULD cover any kind of database sorting." This is a legitimate concern, but why are you more worried that the software patent would cover all types of database sorting than you are that the example patent would cover all types of object sorting, and not just fruit or apples specifically? Sure, you're worried about overly broad patents, but that's not a concern that's limited to software. It sounds like an unjustified scare to me sinc eit applies to everything patentable. The decisiosn was made long ago that the rewards for issuing patents are greater than the downside risks. Patents are all about incentives to build the better database sorter and incentives to design around the last patented sorter to get an even better one. Why give up a system that has worked and driven technology for the betterment of all?
well darn it then, if it's in the american constitution it must be right.
1 0_1.ogg0 _2.ogg
t icTour/0407 22/avaloeng10_1.ogg_ swpat/BalticTour/0407 22/avaloeng10_2.ogg
And lots of other countries have been pushed into exepting patents, so how bad can they be?
perhaps becouse patents aren't used like they where designed.
useless for the small person, a weapon and a form of currency for the big person.
richard stallman explans it rather good in the following video.
richard stallman on software patents:
http://www.itcollege.ee/dl/OGG/avaloeng
http://www.itcollege.ee/dl/OGG/avaloeng1
mirror:
http://www.nightlabs.de/anti_swpat/Bal
http://www.nightlabs.de/anti
I would assume that there is complete equality here: US patents do not apply in Europe.
Both EU and US companies may file for patent in the US, applicable to the US market. They cannot in the EU, and the US patents are not applicable in the EU market.
Thus, any company, whether US or EU, may develop software that violates a US patent, but may not sell it in the US, but in the rest of the world.
Where is the competetive difference between US and EU companies? Do I misunderstand patent rules?
http://members.aol.com/Amerikanski/autry.htmli darity_center.shtml
http://www.theartofposter.com/RED/113.htm
http://www.contemporaryposters.com/solidarity/sol
No idea whether it is copyrighted or not, though I doubt the author would mind either way.
"The decisiosn was made long ago that the rewards for issuing patents are greater than the downside risks."
The decision was also made long ago that it was for physical objects, not ideas or concepts or algorithms... nor software, originally (even in the USA). If that was an argument, software should not have made patentable in the usa.
Also, as Halo1 already indicated, the rewards in cases of softwarepatents do not outweigh the downside risk, which means another argument bites the dust.
"Why give up a system that has worked and driven technology for the betterment of all?"
Because that system was conceived for physical objects, not programs.
Besides, we're not 'giving up' a system, we just want to see it used the way it was intended.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"All you have actually done is write a detailed technical manual describing a method of sorting a database ... unless you can think of a way in which a computer program is something other than a detailed set of instructions."
There are two ways to look at this, which is why the copyright and patent laws have gotten so tangled up. First, you can see software as an actual physical machine. When software is loaded into memory, it produces an actual device with electrical charges that causes the processsor and display and printer to perform in a predetermined way (at lest it should :-) That's a machine and should be patentable if it's something that is new and meets patent standards. Software code is simply the way we describe that machine.
You can also see software as a written manual. It has the author's style and expression just like any other written book or manual. Different source code can compile to the same object code. The compilation process removes much of the author's expression IMHO, but not all. I would limit copyright protection more than it is now, which would lead to more freedom to write competing programs.
"Except that software patents are given for the idea of sorting a database" We agree they should not be, and the patent law as I understand it agres with both of us. "Further than that, proving non-obviousness is nigh on impossible. So the patent office doesn't try." The patent office has to show that it's obvious, but they have to do that with everything else too. Why should it be harder for software? "Yet to any experienced software engineer, many database sorting mechanisms are obvious." Then the patent office should reach the same conclusion. This problem occurs in all areas of technology, not just software, why do you think software should be handled differently? "Add to that, if you hold a patent for an apple sorting machine, that gives you the ability to monopolise efficient apple sorting (until someone devises a competitive alternative). If you hold a patent for database sorting, nobody else can sort databases. You've just crippled every industry in the country that uses databases; that's the IT industry, finance, telecomms, travel, manufacturing, oil, and pretty much everything else. And nobody will devise a competitive alternative because you've patented the idea, not the implementation. So nobody will extend the sorting to optimise it, simplify it, take it into new areas - in other words, innovation is being prevented." If the stakes are that high, the incentive to design around will be higher. Patent law specifically states that patents are not granted on ideas, but only on specific inventionsthat implement the idea. "So no, I don't agree that you are entitled to the same protection. It just isn't needed. Look how far the software industry has come in the last 50 years, without software patents, and look what it's provided, and please, tell me exactly what benefit there is to society from introducing them?" The same benefit that all other forms have technology have received. Increased incentives to improve, increased incentives to try other options that wouldn't be funded or tried if not for a blocking patent.
In related news today, Germany invades Poland, mumbling something about Intellectual Property Lebensraum.
This is one of the better posts I've seen on Slashdot, and about the chilling effects of software patents.
Thank you for making it. It ought to go into a compendium of the negative effects on Software Patents.
I'd only add the effects on Digital Cash as well. This was locked up until the past few years. But during the late 90's, it was a prime reason why no one else pushed the idea much. And then the company which owned the Patents folded, no less.
A case of stopping the development elsewhere; and hindering the assets that it had. Oh yeah, another classic case of how Software Patents can have a very negative effect on development.
"That's a machine and should be patentable if it's something that is new and meets patent standards."
No, the computer is the machine, and the software is the instruction that the machine follows, as the poster said.
Is it that difficult to see? You seem to be of the opinion books (and the content therein) can't be patented, right? Now, imagine computers get smart enough to understand normal written words...then suddenly, ordinary text could be patented too?
Software is *not* a machine, it does *not* produce electrical charges: the electrical charges are provided by the powersupply of the computer. The only thing it does, is instructing these charges how to behave. Since instructions are mental processes and not physical objects, it falls outside the scope of patents.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
in the end you agree with the guy you're replying to -- if patents were enforced back then the way they are enforced in the US it would have hindered innovation and competition. Sort of the exact opposite reason why patents are tolerated (I think his point).
I think it was Benjamin Franklin (amongst others, of course) who wrote eloquently why patents should only be tolerated as long as they are beneficial to society, as depending on how they are used they can have the opposite effect.
When software is loaded into memory
:-) That's a machine and should be patentable if it's something that is new and meets patent standards.
... but there is nothing inherently novel about this - all the states of the machine can, given sufficient computing power, be enumerated. What you are really describing here is a discovery.
... asexually reproducing plants;-)
In otherwords, you agree software is not a device per se?
How is this different from me taking your book describing the apple sorter reading it, follwing the instructions, and operating it on data (apples)?
You seem to be asking why software should be a special case and I agree, but why should it be a special case not covered by copyright?
it produces an actual device with electrical charges that causes the processsor and display and printer to perform in a predetermined way (at lest it should
What you describe is basically a special 'state' of the computer - certain bits in memory are set to a predetermined pattern described by software
Furthermore, this state you have discovered is one which is intrinsically linked to a function, i.e. the state describes the function. The two cannot be separated - the machine "reacts" to the state it is in along a set path, which performs whatever database sorting you described.
As I understand it there are two broad classes of patentable 'things':
1) a novel device
2) a novel application for an existing device.
The first will be not valid because it is technically a discovery, not an invention. You cannot create a 'new' device from software, you cannot extend the bounds of computing beyond the limits of the hardware - you have simply discovered a pre-existing state (not of course that discoveries are not worthwhile but computers are a long way from the only discoveries patentable
The second is not valid either, because you have an unbreakable link between state and function for a given machine. There are no novel applications for something defined by its functionality by definition.
Did the use of software patent keep us from developing useful web apps in the mid-to-late nineties? Is that why some ideas never took off? I'd like to know if we already have the 'shot self in foot' kind of history.
Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!
Unfortunately, here the story ends as Barnes and Noble found out.
The Germans and Italians outnumbered them.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
In theory, software patents are not permitted in Europe.
In practice, they are granted.
So yes, the EPO should check for obviousness, etc. But they don't. They're brain dead. It's incredibly difficult for a patent examiner to understand computer based concepts - what's blatantly obvious to me may seem an incredibly gifted piece of innovation to him.
And yes, software patents are granted on ideas.
> The same benefit that all other forms have technology have received. Increased incentives to improve, increased incentives to try other options that wouldn't be funded or tried if not for a blocking patent.
Sorry, the software industry needs additional incentives. Oh, of course - we've stopped innovating, there's no new software technology being devised, written, implemented. We don't need patents, we're doing extremely well without them and it would be stupid to grant them under such conditions.
~Cederic
ps: could you please preview next time? your comment was tricky to read.
So, can anyone actually explain why this is good, without being a broken record? Hmm?
"We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
We well manage to be ahead of the US to such an extent that no US company can break the market.
And why is this, because we don't have patents.
As for the Kyoto thing above, my carpet isn't as clean as it could be because I don't have a 'Dyson' vacuum cleaner, I have an inefficient power hungry one because I refuse to buy anything that's advertised as 'with 1 million patents and patents pending' and then charges twice as much as everyone else.
Dyson will never get a penny of my money so long as he holds onto those patents.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Yup! We never give it to pressure
Actually if you look through history - for the last 300 years Germans plundered Poland during many, many wars.... Not a single of these wars was started by Poland ...
In 1796 Germans robbed Polish Royal Treasury with artefacts dating XI-th century!!! They melted crowns and insignia into coins ...
A lot of Polish cultural and common goods were stolen by Germans during WWII. Very few came back ...
Germans stole from Poland hundreds of billions of dollars... And they make jokes about a few Polish gangs stealing a few cars ...
(actually most of them may be Russian mafia gangs
with Polish members - most stolen cars go to Russia ... )
Thanks. I'll be here tomorrow night.
Then again, maybe not. I have a life, you know -- a social life.
No, serious!
"So why is it that it's beneficial for innovation and the economy to issue a patent on the apple sorter, but not the database sorter? If you want to argue that all patents are bad for innovation and the economy, fine, but almost all countries disagree and have patent laws."
All countries have _limited_ patent laws. Patents rarely last for ever, for instance, and rarely apply to every type of 'invention'. These limitations are not inherent to the nature of patents, but rather are a result of the law.
Patents are a type of industry regulation. The sort of patents a country should allow depends on the benefits for society. Generally, modern capitalist societies see innovation as an important benefit; they see innovation mainly as the result of healthy markets, and see competition mainly as a measure of healthy markets.
The little we know about software patents seems to suggest that they are abundantly used for stark anti-competitive, anti-innovation behaviour. That is why at this point in time, our western, capitalist societies should reject software patents.
For the EU, the situation is even clearer. The EU is a net importer of patent and copyright licenses. The companies waiting in the wings for software patents to happen are predominantly American and Asian. Software patents in the EU would mean that gobs and gobs of our money should be given away.
Furthermore, an apple-sorting machine is not trivial to make. A data-sorting program is trivial to make.
And yes, I am for the abolishment of all patents. They were introduced in a time when inventing something meant building it. A huge investment of time and materials were required--you know the sort of thing: inventing a better lightbulb (scroll down to incandescent lamps for the English text).
Nowadays, however, inventions more and more acquire a software-like nature; development and testing can take place in virtual environments, often cutting down on investments. This means that the patent on the modern-day apple-sorting machine comes cheaper, and can also be used for anti-competitive behaviour, which seems reason enough for me to shut that whole racket down.
The Polish have been very kind.
As a sign of respect - please check out their Linux Distro
which they are very happy to share with the world,
getting lots of feedback.
So if you want to show your appreciation
please have a look into this wonderful distro
and join their friendly and chatty mailing list.
Thank you.
(ok how do I post this anonymously now?)
Of course, man! Poland is the country with the highest percent of Catolic population! (except the Vatican, of course).
Strength, balance, courage and reason. If you know what's this about, contact me!
Another established Canadian firm is QNX.
Actually the problem was down to the RSA algotithm being disclosed in Europe before any attemp was made to patent it. Regrettably, earlier versions of PGP used the IDEA algorithm (developed in Switzerland and patented by ASCOM in various European countries) for symmetric cryptography. Some EU countries at the time allowed software related patents and some didn't. ASCOM themselves permitted non-commercial use of IDEA but didn't permit commercial use. Later, it was established that algotithms were definitely unpatentable across the EU but IDEA had already been replaced and new asymmetric algorithms were chosen.
Talking about the "Battle of Warsaw", I thought you were referring to the time the Mongols struck! [That would be the 1300s I think.] I can't recall if they were beaten, but Warsaw was about where they turned around & went home.
So that's one more for your list.
"you agree software is not a device per se?" Yes I do, but it's directly transformable into an actual physical device simply by compiling it and loading it into a suitable computer. "How is this different from me taking your book describing the apple sorter reading it, following the instructions, and operating it on data (apples)? My point exactly! It's not at all different! If you want to protect your new design for an apple sorter, you don't write a book, send in the $30 and get a copyright, then sue someone 50 years later for copying the apple sorter design you described. That would be unfair, since no one checked to see if the design of your apple sorter in your book was really new. You have to write a patent application, send it in, have it examined to see if it's new, then you only have 20 years of protection. Right now, software is following the first model more closely than the second. It just does not make sense to me. "You seem to be asking why software should be a special case and I agree, but why should it be a special case not covered by copyright?" I think software should definitely be covered by copyright. Anyone who copies the source code exactly or the object code exactly, should be liable for copyright infringement. However, if the open source community wants to replicate the functions of that software by writing their own routines and without "copying" the "protected expression" of the software author, then they should be allowed to do that, unless there is a patent, because they are copying what the software *does* and how it *functions* and not copying the style or text or "expression" selected by the software author. "What you describe is basically a special 'state' of the computer - certain bits in memory are set to a predetermined pattern described by software" Agreed. "... but there is nothing inherently novel about this - all the states of the machine can, given sufficient computing power, be enumerated." True. But the number of possible states is so large that finding a specific one (by writing sotware to initiate that first state) is "novel". This reminds me of the following question - Walk into a digital camera store and ask the salesman "How many different pictures can this digital camera take?" The first reaction is that it can take a picture of anything, surely the number of things it can take a picture of are infinite, yet the number of possible pictures is not infinite. Each pixel can have a finite number of states (colors) and there are an easily enumerated number of pixels so the number of pictures it can take is easily defined by those two numbers, one to the power of the other. Yet, copyright protection is afforded to digital pictures, just like analog pictures, despite the finite number of possible pictures. " What you are really describing here is a discovery." You could make this argument for any technology. The guys who design lasers, and the guys who build microelectronic devices and the guys who build appple sorters all have the same uneasy feeling that a patent might be bad for them, since they might inadvertently infringe or be prevented from designing or building something. However, most of the successsful societies in this world have reached the opoposite conclusion and have set up a patent system. "Furthermore, this state you have discovered is one which is intrinsically linked to a function, i.e. the state describes the function. The two cannot be separated - the machine "reacts" to the state it is in along a set path, which performs whatever database sorting you described." True, but not much different from selecting from bolts and levers and gears to produce a machine. "You cannot create a 'new' device from software" Surely you can. No one has ever created a machine comprising a computer with the starting state defined by your software. "you cannot extend the bounds of computing beyond the limits of the hardware - you have simply discovered a pre-existing state" I think the point is that it was *not* pre-existing. It was a pre-existing
A good point. For example, pharmaceuticals are not patentable in some countries. The argument is that medicine shouldn't be restricted by patents. It's probably worth noting that medical development, however, is mostly occurring in countries where pharmaceutical patents are available, and there's reasonably good evidence that the cost of pharmaceutical R&D would often not be acceptable if they couldn't be recovered during the exclusive atent period. So what, if anything, is it about software that you think is like pharmaceuticals?
I completely agree, but while it's easy to see when a patent restricts someone, it's much harder to see when the missing patent incentive casues us to lose out on a new or better pharmaceutical or software invention.
Again, we are in agreement.
And here we get to the crux. Why do you and others here think this, when it does not seem to be true for all other industries and technologies?
If this was true, I would join you, but I don't think it is true. Patents have served a major part in driving technolgy forward for hundreds of years. Why do you suddenly think it won't work any more?
But if the data sorter is trivial to make, then it's probably already either known (not new) or a simple variation on something that is already known (obvious) so it can't be patented. But let's suppose that a company decides that they could do better if they could come up with a data sorter that was better than anything out there, but it would cost them a few years of work to find out if it was even possible, and even if it was, after developing it, their competitors would immediately copy it. They have no incentive to try to develop it because you have removed that incentive. HOw do you know how many such improvements you have lost? I surely do not knkow either, but I can see historical evidence that providing the incentive for improvement pays off to society in the end.
There never was and is not now any requirement for the patented item to have taken immense amounts of time to have been developed. I'm not convinced that software is any easier or harder to develop than any other invention. In addition to the reduced incentive to develop software by eliminating patents, tehre's another effect. Patents are ther to encourage disclosure of improvements to the world. Suppose our data sorter company decides to build the new and improved data sorter that they really need. Are they going to tell the world about their breakthrough? No. They keep it as a trade secret, since if they tell, they lose their competitive advantage. Professionals in the data sorting field
PS: you really should learn to troll in a much more subtle way, you give yourself away much too easily. And now you can post the obligatory "hurt" post, hoping to get me doubting after all. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
Donate free food here
"I agree, but I can build a hardware version of a computer running software that is entirely hardware with only hardware parts (firmware or hard-coded ones/zeros) instead of the software. You're pointing to a difference that has no substance."
I disagree. It's just the part of the physical object that makes the difference. Otherwise, if you would be consistent in giving the mere fact of creating a pattern to be patentable, then you should be able to patent everything. Just reading a book creates optical input that is translated into electrical signals which create patterns in different area's of the brain. If patterns are patentable, then brainprocesses themselves are patentable, and, ultimately, thoughtprocesses are patentable. The brain, after all, is nothing more then a biological computer, albeit a very complex one.
"However, I can write a patent and get rights in the same invention described in the book."
No, you can not, unless you make the actual object. The first case that showed this was by Ford, when he countered a patent that was given on cars by someone who made a complete car on paper. But he didn't actually made a car, and Ford pointed out that this couldn't be. The courts/patentoffice agreed.
"Let me ask the same question - Do you really think that a computer running software is somehow not "real?" That I can't build an only hardware version?"
Mental processes are real in the sense of constructs, but they do not constitute physical objects. This was (and should have remained) out of the scope of patents, thus.
"Software is simply a set of instructions that controls how the computer operates. A computer operating according to those instructions is as real as an apple sorter and as much of a machine as an apple sorter."
It's not about being 'real' it's about being physical. But of course a computer running software is a machine, and no one is saying that isn't patentable. When the EU-parliament admented the proposol, they said as much: that (when novel, non-obvious, etc.) machines, also when running software, could be patented. But NOT merely on the basis of the software. It's the machine itself that should be novel (etc.) thus, regardless of the software, though not excluding it.
All our discussion on this thread really does not go to the bottom of things, however. As others have pointed out, you do not have a natural 'right' on a patent. A patent is a monopoly for a certain time, granted by the state. Monopolies are never a good thing, and the only reason why it is allowed in this case, is with the idea that it stimulates research and further innovation. With software-patents it becomes increasingly obvious (quite some research on this has been done, lately) that it does not serve this purpose at all, on the contrary. Thus, it logically follows there is no reason to create or give softwarepatents, and in fact, for the stated goal of stimulating progress in the field, they should be outright forbidden.
since you seem a logical person, I'm sure you also can see the logic in this reasoning, whether you personally feel entitled to a softwarepatent or not.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I'm not agreeing that he is troll per sé. Granted, at first I thought so too, but usually trolls don't do that much effort to give understandable responses. It is difficult to see the difference between someone having an oposite view, and believing it and strongly advocating it, and trolling. Being called a troll myself occasionally, I think I have some rights to claim this. :-)
As for slashsoup:
"Society has concluded that the net effect of patents on technology is positive, not just less negative. Why is it that you think the net effect on software is negative? "
Actually, no. Society has not concluded this at all. Governments of the 18th and 19th century thought that it would have a positive effect, and in some fields where the incremental nature is less (such as farmaceuticals) this might be true. It's worth noting, however, that australia in the 80ies examined the influence of patents, and found that, overall, patents did *not* do what they were supposed to do. They recommended abolishing it, but ofcourse, foreign pressure and worldwide inertia because of the common use of patents excluded that.
So, it's not because it's "so good" that it should and is being kept alive; in many fields it would stimulate progress much more if patents weren't there. In the field of software, however, it becomes more obvious (due to the incremental nature of softwarepatents) how outright negative this is. Also, more and more studies about this topic have been done, and almost all (at least the non-corporate sponsored ones) have shown that softwarepatents do more harm then good.
Now, you can lament and say 'then all patents in all fields should be abolished', and maybe many should, indeed, at least those where the benefits do not outweigh the advantages. But the fact is, we do not, as yet, have the same inertia that already is established for patents in other fields, at least in europe. And it seems to me, it's illogical to expect europe to create a bad patentlaw, because others have allowed bad patentlaws.
I'm all for a grand, scientific and independend research into the advantages and disadvantages of softwarepatents (and maybe other fields as well), and if they reach their stated claims/goals...and then base the decision solely on this. But ofcourse, in reality you have politics, money and lobbying, so..fat chance that happening. Thus, we are left with the strong indications that independend research thusfar *has* shown us, and logical reasoning to consider what is best for europe, as a whole (which means in an economical sense; for SME's, because more then 80% of the workforce in Europe is concentrated in those, and not big foreign softwarecompanies).
So you see, though you might feel you have an inate right on a softwarepatent, that is really not the issue. It's what is best for society, and best for europe. In both instances, research and logic dictates it's a *NO* for softwarepatents.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"And here we get to the crux. Why do you and others here think this, when it does not seem to be true for all other industries and technologies? "
Maybe it *is* true for other fields too; but fact is, due to the vast incremental nature of software (much greater then when making a physical object) and the fact it deals with mental processes, it is much more apparent that it is bad. And due to the controversial nature of patenting software (as opposed to the 'used-to-it-inertia' of normal patents) there has been a lot of research lately, about the subject - which indeed indicates it is a bad thing.
So, it's not that all other patents are good, it's that it's more obvious that softwarepatents are bad.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Can you please use spaces between paragraphs? This was virtually unreadable. Thanks.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
woops
-EL
dont forget kopernik(copernicus(u and your crazy english spelling))... if it wasnt for him, the earth would still be the center of the univers. thanx to poland for "the father of modern astronomy" http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Scie nce/Copernicus.htm
-EL
i say i boot u in the balls
-EL
Thanks to the Anonymous Coward who posted these:
h ttp://www.theartofposter.com/RED/113.htmw ww.contemporaryposters.com/solidarity/soli darity_center.shtml
http://members.aol.com/Amerikanski/autry.html
http://
"If this was true, I would join you, but I don't think it is true. Patents have served a major part in driving technolgy forward for hundreds of years. Why do you suddenly think it won't work any more?"
I am not convinced that patents have been a greater contributing factor in driven technology forward than in slowing technology down. Also, I am always a bit surprised when people use community driven websites, built using PHP and mySQL, served by Apache over the internet to make their point. You are using all these open technologies to tell me that closed technologies are good... I find that a bit ironic. Surely, you do not really believe that these technologies would allow you to express yourself so well, or perhaps even better, if software patents had been here earlier?
"They have no incentive to try to develop it because you have removed that incentive. HOw do you know how many such improvements you have lost? I surely do not know either, but I can see historical evidence that providing the incentive for improvement pays off to society in the end."
I can see historical evidence that not everybody needs the same incentives, and I can see historical evidence where monopolies atrophied and killed markets.
"Patents are ther to encourage disclosure of improvements to the world."
The other day I was talking to my cousin. He is a salesperson for a company that supplies building materials. He told me with great pride that they had developed a unique method of creating stiff boards using glue and waste materials; those boards supposedly are much more environmental friendly than all direct competitors. Because development took them a great deal of time, of course they patented the invention. I said: "That's great. The license fees must bring in a fortune!" He replied: "License fees? Are you nuts? We're keeping this baby to ourselves!" I asked: "So, how is this going to help the environment again?"
My cousin changed the subject.
Patents are monopolies, and as monopolies they are competition killers. They are specifically not meant to encourage disclosure of the invention. Only proponents of more or stronger patents use this argument.
In the end, when law makers are facing the choice of introducing the law, they must ask themselves: will this law do more good than harm? If they are not absolutely sure, they must reject the law. In the case of software patents, what little proof there is seems to point to more harm.
(Unfortunately, as tends to happen in discussions about CPT, there is actually very little evidence of anything.)
You are wrong on this. It is not necessary to actually make the object to get it patented. I am 100% certain of this.
A computer running software is a physical object, not a mental process.
Two identical computers running two different programs are different machines. They accept different inputs, process the data differently to produce different outputs. There's really no reason to require the computer part of the invention in the patent. If you look at patents on apple sorters, for example, you will find that they probably don't make any reference to a base or a frame or other supports that the gears and levers are mounted upon, yet all assple sorters will have such a base. Similarly, there is no reason to reference the underlying physical computer when patenting software.
I completely agree, and never intended to argue a natural "right" to a patent. The point of my first post was found in the title - software is more like a machine, than a book. The useful aspects of machines are protected by patents, so it makes more sense to use patents to protect software than it does to try to protect it with copyright, which is used for protecting the particular "expression" of an idea, but not the underlying idea itself.
I disagree with your phrasing, but not your underlying point. Society has concluded that a monopoly granted for a limited time is good if it stimulates R&D, or causes the inventor to disclose that which he would otherewise not disclose.
So we come back to the reasons for my original post.
1)Patents make more sense than copyright for protecting software since computers running software are more like machines than books.
2) The general opinion here seems to be that software patents are bad, so I'd like to know why people think that. Specifically, what do people think is different about software technology from all the other areas of technology covered by patents.
I don't believe in software patent "entitlement" any more than you. I'm not sure I even believe that software patents are good for society. I simply haven't made up my mind, and I'm looking for answers. I have read some of the studies that others here have pointed me to. If anyone reads t
"You are wrong on this. It is not necessary to actually make the object to get it patented. I am 100% certain of this."
;-). A coder runs that in his head, and comes to the same outcome as a computer. Did he break the patent, thus? Wasn't he allowed to run it in his mind? What would the difference be between running it in a biological computer, and a mechanical one? If the program itself is deemed patetable when 'run', then logic would dictate that in both cases, it could be forbidden to run. thus, the coder would be infringing upon the patent as well. In effect, you would forbid or patent thought itself. This is the ultimate outcome, when you argue that patterns and instructions can be patented: if you run that program in your own mind, you would be breaking it too. So, while I can see why you could argue that there is no difference, at the same token, then, running it with our old, slow biological computers should be forbidden too.
Well, clearly not any longer, since patents on software and business-methods are possible (at least in the usa). But seen the case of Ford, at one time, wisdom reigned enough to forbid those silly patents. And I'm quite certain of that, because, apart from Ford, I remember another issue with geostationary satelites, first conceived off by Arthur C. Clarke, and he couldn't get a patent because he couldn't actually put a satelite up there to show his concept worked.
"Two identical computers running two different programs are different machines."
No, the instructions differ and thus the patterns are different, but the machines are the same. We simply disagree on the term 'machines', I guess - and I think many people, for that matter. Which, on itself, should make it clear that software and pure physical objects DO differ to some extend, or there wouldn't be all that controverse around it.
"So we come back to the reasons for my original post.
1)Patents make more sense than copyright for protecting software since computers running software are more like machines than books."
As I said, a 'computer running software' can be deemed patentable, as long as the computer running it is or contains novel components, etc. The problem with your definition can be demonstrated as follows: coders can, albeit mostly only simple progs, 'run' code in their head. Take the hypothetical situation where a certain code gets patented, which says any number multiplied by zero is zero (and that there wasn't prior art
Thus, in answer: Only if a)one is of the opinion that software is more of a machine then a book. (which I do not agree with) and b)if patents do more good then bad (which are the goals of patents), compared to copyright.
"2) The general opinion here seems to be that software patents are bad, so I'd like to know why people think that. Specifically, what do people think is different about software technology from all the other areas of technology covered by patents."
First of all, as I have said before, patents in general could be deemed bad in most cases. I refer you to my post I made to Halo1, but which contained a considerable part directed at you too.
So, it's not 'why are patents deemed good, exept for softwarepatents'? It's more that it can be deemed bad in most instances, but it becomes more obviously so in the case of softwarepatents. Why? Well, a poster in this thread made a link to a vid of R.Stallman, who explained it more eloquently. The main reason was the incremental nature of software, which is much bigger then with physical objects, in comparison. Also, softwarepatents do not have the inertia that regular patents have; look at europe, for instance, where it is (still) not allowed.
So, what you are asking is something akin to 'what is the difference between one bad thing, and all those other bad things?' Well, apart from the level of severity: nothing, perhaps. But let me refrase the question, and ask you : 'why should another bad thing be allowed?'
"I am personally aghast at the p
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---