India Quietly Introduces Software Patents

bain_online writes " The Business-Standard of India reports: The Cabinet is expected to clear the promulgation of an Ordinance for the introduction of a product patents regime, which will also cover embedded software and hardware, next Wednesday. There are other news sites reporting the same. Unfortunately, the majority of the Indian people are not the least bit concerned, resulting in very low coverage for this important development."

Comments

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, amazing, patent laws in most countries are completely ignored by the general populace.

Another one bites the dust

[KlomDark]

Another confirmation that all government activity is only for the rich. Sure, it's naive to think otherwise, but it would be nice if they told the truth about it rather than filling us with utopian bullshit about how it's for the "greater good of all".

Re:Another one bites the dust

[SerpentMage]

That is such a pile of BS! Patents do not protect little guys from the big guys. That is a figment of our imagination. Maybe 100 years ago that was the case, but it is definitely not the case today.

To file a patent you need a lawyer, which costs money, then you need more money to defend your patent. A patent in North America costs about 20K USD, and in Europe 40K Euro's. The only "little" people who can do this are lawyers themselves. Notice how many times Slashdot covers the story of a small company with a broad patent? And notice how those small companies are lawyer driven. That is the reality folks!

Patents need to undergo a radical change because the premise of a patent is that a single person comes up with a single unique thought that is not obvious. Well, that is impossible in this day and age!

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Waffle Iron]

The US Patent system, had it worked correctly, would have saved a number of budding software companies from Microsoft.

Yes, if software patents had been widespread from the start, there would be no Microsoft as we know it. In fact, we would just be entering a golden age of computing right now:

The Visicalc spreadsheet patents would have just expired a few years ago, allowing Lotus-123 to get started.

The Xerox GUI patents would have recently expired, so Apple could have introduced the Mac at the turn of the millennium.

The id first-person-shooter patents would be expiring in a few short years from now. The whole gaming industry would be abuzz with anticipation of 3D games from more than one vendor!

We would have only about 8 more years of paying royalties to CERN for browsing the web. In a few years, software vendors would be starting to plan features for a long-awaited successor to the Mosaic browser.

Linux would just now be able to host the kinds of server tasks that were common in the mid 80s, and more capabilities would become legal each year!

Driven by the demands created by the burgeoning patent-protected software market, Intel would be introducing the Pentium I just about now.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Laser Lou]

To file a patent you need a lawyer, which costs money, then you need more money to defend your patent. A patent in North America costs about 20K USD, and in Europe 40K Euro's. The only "little" people who can do this are lawyers themselves.

That's quite wrong! Where did you get those figures from? I had a teacher who filed patents for himself every few years, and made money from them. You can file one yourself; a lawyer or even a patent agent is not required. In the US it costs $75 for a small entity to file for an utility patent with three claims, $250 for the pantent search, $100 for the examination fee, and $700 to issue the patent. See the fee schedule.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[SerpentMage]

You are right in theory. Try defending your "hand written" patent in a court of law! Been there, done that, and got the t-shirt. You need a lawyer, if you have anything worth patenting for larger sums of money.

But I am glad you point this out. The original intent was to allow the little person to profit from patents. However, the legions of lawyers will make mince meat of you if you try to defend your patent. So what do big companies do? Simple, "I will pay you X and you give me the patent". If you try to say no they will bury you in the courts.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[MacDork]

That is such a pile of BS! Patents do not protect little guys from the big guys. That is a figment of our imagination. Maybe 100 years ago that was the case, but it is definitely not the case today.

No. Not now. Not 100 years ago. Not ever.

• They [The Wright Brothers] had hoped that their patent would be respected from the start. When that did not occur, they placed their hopes in defending their patent in court. With the patent defended, they assumed that when other manufacturers at last began turning out aircraft in reasonable quantity, paying a royalty on each one, they could devote themselves to other research, not necessarily in aviation.

What? You thought the German's payed the Wright brothers a royalty for every airplane manufactured in WWI?

Re:Another one bites the dust

[johannesg]

Imagine what could have been done if Linus Torvalds had spent his energy on developing a new paradigm for operating systems instead of just cloning the existing Unices.

He would have been unable to copy _any_ idea that had been created before. Multitasking? Nah, is patented. Commandline? Same. GUI? Same. Memory protection? Virtual devices? Filing system? All patented. Good luck coming up with alternatives to some of these. And don't tell me a poor finnish student could have afforded licensing fees for hundreds of diverse technologies.

Imagine if Bill Gates had used his genius to code more and clone/buy less.

For Bill Gates very little changes. He just needs to spend some money on patents _and_ software.

But if software patents had been in effect since the early 1980s, the market would've had a lot less simple repetition and much more true innovation or actual improvements on existing products.

I strongly disagree. The first guy to realize that he owned a vital piece of the action (just imagine a patent on "interactive IO") would (or at least, *could*) have leveraged it to own the computer world. Simple software would bear pricetags comparable to cars (to pay off all the patent holders).

For any class of application, only one version would exist, unchanging no matter how bad it is for the first twenty years. Computers would never even have entered the home, since noone could afford them and there would no interesting software anyway.

And the same would be true for the tools we use to work with computers. There would be no Java or Perl or C++ (who could afford to develop a language when the compiler-patent is still valid?). In all likelyhood we would be program in assembler, _maybe_ using a terminal, but possibly still using punchcards. Which is no big deal - computers would only be available in specialized environments such as research institutions. I'll leave the knock-on effect to other technologies (cars, planes, telecommunication, etc.) to your imagination, but it will be huge.

In other words, we would be at the same technological level of development that we were in the sixties. Some people would no doubt consider that a good thing, but frankly I like our current level of development. At least now I can engage in stimulating discussion about various subjects with people from other continents (ok, that was a euphemism ;-) ).

There goes

[MemoryDragon]

the outsourcing industry of India...

Probably got other things on their mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Most folks are more worried about the after effects of the tsunami, and aftershocks than patents right now.

Re:Probably got other things on their mind

[savagedome]

Please mod parent up. Please.

How many people remember Michael Jordan's comeback announced on 9/11?

I am happy that nobody is giving a crap about patents right now with the kind of destruction that happened. It would have been sad if patents were given more importance admist all that is happening right now.

Since the vast majority of programming there goes

[human bean]

on with open source software tooling, and everyone borrowing things from each other, one would think that the technical folks there would have a clue.

I suspect this is proposed as a way for the larger corporations who attempt to control the Hindi programmer "market" to shut out the smaller split-offs and startups.

Funny. I guess they didn't suffer enough through the British raj and so now they do it to themselves.

First wave of software patents

[Gopal.V]

Patent office of India has a section in Patent Law (rev 1998), which states

1.3.8 Computer Programs
1. Computer program is not patentable invention as computer program is
a set of instructions for controlling a sequence of operations of a dataprocessing
system. It closely resembles a mathematical method .It
may be expressed in various forms eg. A series of verbal statements, a
flow chart, an algorithm, or other coded form and may be presented in
a format suitable for direct entry into a particular computer, or may
require transcription into a different format (or computer “language”). It
may merely be written on paper or recorded on some machine-readable medium such as magnetic tape or disc or optically scanned
record, or it may be permanently recorded in a control store forming
part of a computer. Thus it is evident that a program may be presented
in terms of either software or firmware.

With such a clear law stating about firmware, how can patents be applicable to embedded systems ?. The normal programmer need not fear yet. But this is just the first wave.

An invention consists of hardware along with software or computer
program in order to perform the function of the hardware ,such
invention may be considered Patentable

Maybe this is the clause they are exploiting ?.

I'm mailing my ministers immediately !!... If you are an Indian, do the same immediately.

Re:First wave of software patents

[Gopal.V]

I'm considering mailing the president himself. He's an OSS supporter who has quite a good idea of what this means for FOSS in this world.

Even if you are not Indian, consider doing that - for the sake of another country with a 3% population of techies.

Why should they care ?!!?

[Adeptus_Luminati]

Having just spent an entire month travelling through India, I am not at all surprised at the low media coverage. The vast majority of the population is extremely poor... the (on average) dozen beggers that approached me daily, don't even ask you for money, they ask you for food my friends! *That's* how you know they are really poor and what's really on their minds.

The vast majority of people don't even know how to turn on a computer, and many haven't even seen one in their lives, so it is not surprising that the media would think their people would not care so much about patents; they have far bigger logistical and core problems than caring about software patents.

The Intellectual Property Law of China

[westlake]

It seems that the only country left who don't want patents is China

For an introduction to the intellectual property law of China: Ministry of Science and Technology: Laws and Regulations Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, etc. Why does it always come as a surprise on Slashdot when an international trader brings it's laws into synch with it's major trading partners?

Mt. Dew for Thought...

[Thunderstruck]

India enacts software patent law... nobody seems to care.

The United States enact ... nobody seems to care.

Poland blocks IP law ... nobody seems to care.

The common thread here is really a lack of concern by the masses about what the law is in this area. Is this really an issue of law being made only for the big corporations, or is it a question of lack of education & information among the rest?

Perhaps the real solution to the problems of IP law, as almost universally recognized on /. even by AC's is that we direct our energy away from our respective governments and toward our friends and neighbors.

That officials enacting IP law will seldom see the /.er as anything more than a wanna-be pirate. Legislators look at those who have the knowledge to tinker but are not corporate engineers being paid to testify with suspiciion. They must surely be self-serving software pirates worthy only of scorn.. at least until the timer needs to be set on the VCR. Geeks are not a voting block.

The solution then, is to explain to Grandpa why software patents are bad. Grandpa is no dummy. If we can survive working tech-support over the telephone, we can explain IP to Grandpa in person when we visit for Christmas.

It will be easier than it sounds. People love to have rights, even if they don't fully understand them. Show a man his rights are being violated and the righteous indignation begins to swell. All Grandpa needs to really understand is that, when IP laws are toughened, when copyrights are extended, that takes away something from HIM... then he will speak up. When granpa speaks, the government listens.

It's not Software that worries me.

[Kream]

The current dispensation in India has come to power with the support of leftist parties, who, along with commentators, non-governmental organisations and members of civil society organisations oppose the promulgation of this ordinance or the enactment of the Patents Amendment Act for a major reason.

Medicines.

With the establishment of this ordinance, which will expire after a time and have to be reintroduced as a bill in Parliament, medicines in India, including lifesaving ones, will cost up to four times to a hundred times more than they do now.

The current government is forced to enact this law under it's obligations under the WTO's TRIPS. However, the draft Bill not only fails to use the flexibility available within the TRIPS Agreement but also goes beyond TRIPS. In other words, the draft Bill proposes patent protection more than what is required under TRIPS.

Civil society organisations believe that draft Bill provisions would give monopoly rights to pharmaceutical companies at the cost of accessibility and availability of drugs under the product patent regime. It's worth noting here that the Right to Health is a Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution.

Here's a link which details the situation. Here's a fact sheet on the issue of Generic Drugs as well as a document called the Myths and Realities of the Pharmaceutical Industry that the European Generic Medicines Association has prepared. The movement against the amendment in the law is being spearheaded by the Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign. Here's a letter to the Prime Minister of India that you can send if you wish to help out as well as one letter to the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission.

What bothers me is that when asked to bend before Intellectual Property Rights, we have begun to crawl. Aniruddha "Karim" Shankar

How naive

[Baki]

What is really sad is that patent lobbyists use times like these to push through their ways quietly, while public attention is looking elsewhere. It is very naive to not give a crap about it, even now.

Re:This may not be that bad...

[AstroDrabb]

I don't understand your logic about software patents. You state:

Like the RSA algorithm (patent now expired). That is a legitimate invention . . .

Then you continue:

However, things like the recent Microsoft "IsNot" patent should not be patentable. That is an attempt at a land grab. Also the patenting file formats in order to try and collect "tax" revenue from the Internet should not be permitted.

The MS IsNot operator patent and other software patents are _all_ bad. They are all just instructions to a computer. So you either have to allow the patenting of _all_ instructions to a computer or _no_ instructions to a computer. You cannot allow some and not the others.

You probably think the RSA algorithm is OK to patent because it is a little complex to you. Well it is not complex to everyone. We cannot allow "complex" software instructions to be patented while not allowing "non-complex" software instructions to be patented. Exactly who gets to pick which set of software instructions are "complex" vs. "non-complex"? As it is now, it is a non-technical patent examiner. To him, _all_ software instructions are complex.

IMO, no software should be patentable. All software are just computer instructions. Can I patent the instructions to cook chicken soup? How about the instructions to brush your teeth? If I were allowed to patent those, I would be a very rich man! I say allow HARDWARE to be patented, but not software. Neither allow a hardware/software combination. Just the hardware please.

[Insert argument about how big companies spend a lot of time and money on writing software instructions here].

Well, I could spend a lot of time and money on writing instructions to brush your teeth, tie your shoes or install your own home security system. Why should I not be allowed to patent those instructions while a software company is allowed to patent their instructions?

SW patents offer no "protection" for "small" devs.

[jbn-o]

he US Patent system, had it worked correctly, would have saved a number of budding software companies from Microsoft.

You are repeating a myth that is easily debunked by examining how cross-licensing works from the perspective of the "budding software compan[y]". Quoting RMS from his talk on the danger with software patents (or listen to the speech):

This phenomenon of cross-licensing refutes a common myth, the myth of the starving genius. The myth that patents "protect" the "small inventor". Those terms are propaganda terms. You shouldn't use them. The scenario is like this: Suppose there is a brilliant designer of whatever. Suppose he has spent years starving in the attic designing a new wonderful kind of whatever and now wants to manufacture it and isn't it a shame the big companies are going to go into competition with him, take away all the business and he'll "starve". I will have to point out that people in high tech fields are not generally working on their own and that ideas don't come in a vacuum, they are based on ideas of others and these people have pretty good chances of getting a job if they need to these days. So this scenario, the idea that a brilliant idea came from this brilliant person working alone is unrealistic and the idea that he is in danger of starving is unrealistic. But it is conceivable that somebody could have an idea and this idea along with 100 or 200 other ideas can be the basis of making some kind of product and that big companies might want to compete with him. So let's see what happens if he tries to use a patent to stop them. He says "Oh No, IBM. You cannot compete with me. I've got this patent." IBM says "let's see. Let's look at your product. Hmmm. I've got this patent and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one, which parts of your product infringe. If you think you can fight against all of them in court, I will just go back and find some more. So, why don't you cross license with me?" And then this brilliant small inventor says "Well, OK, I'll cross license". So he can go back and make these wonderful whatever it is, but so can IBM. IBM gets access to his patent and gets the right to compete with him, which means that this patent didn't "protect" him at all.

Also, note how the difference in the number of patents obtained: IBM has the most patents (so many that they can insulate themselves from the damage the patent system causes). Most "inventors" are not multinational corporations like IBM, HP, Apple, Microsoft, etc. and if they have any patents at all they only have patents that cover the wonderful something they're working on.

Therefore, when IBM gets a license by pressuring a small developer into cross-licensing, IBM gets virtually 100% of the small "inventor"'s patents but gives a license for a very small percentage of its patents. When multinationals cross-license they don't have this imbalance, so they cannot be bullied into cross-licensing all that they have. The imbalance and ill effect for the small "inventor" point out how what you are saying is a myth. Your post is highly overrated.

Re:This may not be that bad...

[AstroDrabb]

So use people (with "ordinary skill in the art") who can more accurately judge what deserves patent protection. There's still no need to throw everything out.

Yeah, that will work until these people with "ordinary skill in the art" get bribes and kickbacks or get pressure from a superior to grant a patent to $BIG_CORP.

The first one probably has prior art, so it's not "novel". The second one is probably "obvious". Even mechanical devices have to be "novel" and "non-obvious" to be patentable.

Are you actually familiar with these issues?

You are quoting how the patent office _should_ be, not how it currently is. Are you familiar with these _current_ issues? Or do you just assume the system is functioning as it should? Are you familiar with the Amazon one-click patent? As a computer programmer with "ordinary skill in the art", I an say that the Amazon one-click is not "novel" and is ceraintly "obvious", yet is was awarded a patent. I am sure the geek /. crowd could barbard you with tons of obvious patents and/or patents with prior art.