EU Parliament Demands Fresh Start for Patent Directive

ravenII writes "Members of the European Parliament from countries including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden have asked for the software patent directive to be redone from scratch, according to a report on Monday."

Comments

First Thought

[RAMMS EIN]

My first thought was: the directive was stalled. The parliament got what it wanted: no legalization of software patents. Why reinitiate the debate, when you've already won? Now on to RTFA.

Re:First Thought

[tetromino]

My first thought was: the directive was stalled. The parliament got what it wanted: no legalization of software patents. Why reinitiate the debate, when you've already won?

We (freedom-loving people) didn't win, we merely took the item off the immediate agenda, which will hopefully delay them for a few months. The only way to permanently stop software patents is to rewrite the directive, make it totally toothless, make it go through a thousand committees, and hopefully make sure it gets lost in some eurocrat's desk drawer.

Re:First Thought

[Entrope]

Groklaw's commentary on the request provided some interesting comments. One reason is that if the motion is granted, software patents end up years away rather than months away. Another reason is that it provides the European Council a graceful way out of software patents.

While I am glad that software patents have been thwarted in Europe -- hopefully for good -- I do wonder if that kind of motion will be broadly used to set back other controversial, but less pernicious, kinds of legislation.

Re:First Thought

[Znork]

Not quite. The only way to permanently stop software patents is to rewrite the directive and make it very clearly, in no uncertain terms, state that software is _not patentable_.

Because the patent lobby actually does have one thing right; the current status of the EPO granting dubiously enforcable software patents is not acceptable. The directive needs to put a stake through the heart of that abhorrent practice.

Re:First Thought

[RWerp]

Because the current state of law is unacceptable: it is not clear whether the software is patentable or not.

Re:First Thought

[Fizzl]

My first thought was:
"Damn, we already promised the big business that they'd get their patents. Lets retry."

Re:First Thought

[dajak]

Not quite. The only way to permanently stop software patents is to rewrite the directive and make it very clearly, in no uncertain terms, state that software is _not patentable_.

We have won when the "freedom from software patents" is in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Patent machinery

[Lindsay Lohan]

Members of the European Parliament from countries including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden have asked for the software patent directive to be redone from scratch

The patent directive is ill-advised because it unnecessarily broadens the area that could be governed by patents. It's not even just about software patents. Patents on ideas are wrong, whether in software or in business. You should patent some concrete machinery, not a way of doing things.

Re:Patent machinery

[goldspider]

So, Ms. Lohan, what would you do if you had a GREAT idea for a REVOLUTIONARY gaadget, but didn't have the resources to create a prototype?

Your sentiment, while popular, only makes it EASIER for corporations to dominate the patent arena, since they have the capital to actually create these things.

Re:Patent machinery

[tetromino]

what would you do if you had a GREAT idea for a REVOLUTIONARY gaadget, but didn't have the resources to create a prototype?

I would take a bank loan, ask my family and friends, max out my credit cards, talk to a VC if worst comes to worst... A capitalist economy has many people willing to give money to a GREAT REVOLUTIONARY startup. You just have to find them, and give a convincing presentation.

Re:Patent machinery

[brlewis]

Without that storage, the software is an idea, but once it's on a harddrive|flashdrive|internets, it's more physical, right?

But if you're going to patent software, why not patent literature?

The de jure situation in the U.S.: If someone were to submit a patent application for "Hamlet rendered in ink on paper", the patent could not be rejected only on the grounds of the literature not being statutory material for a patent (test 1). Because the ink and paper are statutory, you have to move on to tests 2 and 3, novelty and non-obviousness. Neither the ink nor the paper is novel. Nor are the ink, paper and literature combined into a whole in a novel way. Novelty in the literature doesn't count because it's not statutory. The patent is invalid based on non-novelty. This is the Diehr test, and software that essentially patents an algorithm for a general-purpose digital computer is invalid under this test.

The de facto situation in the U.S.: The USPTO gets paid according to how many applications they accept, so they are going to read the law in such a way as to be able to accept as many applications as possible. That means software patents generally get granted, and the burden of proof is on the victim to show that the patent should have been rejected.

Re:Patent machinery

[goldspider]

So your idea of patent reform is to impose even more financial barriers on innovators? Wasn't the purpose of patents to allow us little guys to profit from a good idea without having to risk our future on it?

Re:Patent machinery

[ThosLives]

Your comment is starting to get at the heart of the matter: what is it that patents (and copyright) are "supposed" to do?

"Copyrights" should really have been called something like "distribution and performance rights", but back in the day, you enforced this by limiting the ability to copy. Now there are no physical barriers to copying so the word is odd. What "copyrights" are intended to do is this: make sure that the people who originate a work of art are the only ones with the right to obtain compensation for the distribution of that art. I'm not even sure how 'performance' fits in, because there are some folks that maybe wrote a song but couldn't sing, but other folks will go see someone else who sings it better - so are the people paying for the song or the performance of the song? It's not clear what the correct distinction should be.

Patents were slightly different - they were originally around so that the garage inventor would be protected from the giant corporation (at least, I hope that's the original intent!). Think about it: if you're a big corporation, you don't need to be "protected" from people stealing your idea because you can build and market it. If you're a small operation, you have to work hard to get resources to develop. The patent protected that period of time so that a rich entity didn't come along and beat you to market using your idea. Now only big entities can easily get patents, and they don't so much use them to be first to market but to keep others out of the market. The intent of a patent should be "development protection" rather than "market protection" (we all know that artificial barriers in the market are inherently Bad). Giant companies hardly need development protection, and the only reason they want "market protection" is to cover their incompetencies (yes, I know the truth is hard to swallow) at adapting to changing markets.

So, my proposals to revamp the whole system would be to come up with a new system of "distribution rights", "performance rights", and "development protection" with appropriate, thoughtful definitions for each of those (to distinguish what customers want as in the example of the writer and singer that I gave above). What we need to keep in mind is that the people that deserve the "protection" from these laws is not the big businesses (publishers, manufacturers, etc.) but the people that generate the thigns of value - the artists, the engineers, the performers. After all, you will always have artists and engineers independently of the means of getting their ideas out to the masses; the current trend in "intellectual property" seems to miss this.

Re:Patent machinery

[Znork]

If you dont have the resources for a prototype you wont have the resources to file for a patent, and you _definitely_ wont have the resources to enforce it, nor defend yourself against countersuits.

Of course, in the case of software, if you have a GREAT idea for some REVOLUTIONARY program, you'll get sued for violating several hundred different patents, losing the savings and venture capital you'd managed to scrape up, and driven to living on the streets in personal bankrupcy before you've finished your first thousand lines of code.

Personally I'd rather have the legal right to invent without getting sued than the right to sue without inventing.

Re:Patent machinery

[ynohoo]

If you don't have a "proof of concept" working, you don't have anything to patent. There's too much prior-art on hot air!

Re:Patent machinery

[molnarcs]

what would you do if you had a GREAT idea for a REVOLUTIONARY gaadget

If my idea was so complex that it couldn't be immediately realized (in other words, if I only had a theory of something) I would write it down and would copyright it.

Re:Patent machinery

[Qzukk]

Wasn't the purpose of patents to allow us little guys to profit from a good idea without having to risk our future on it?

From where I stand, its not doing that. Not even close. I'm working with a startup, and we thought about patenting our software, and the first thing we did was run into someone else who has patented something similar (the only difference is that their patent calls for two databases to do what we can do with one database and logic). Having spent more than it would have cost to file a patent ourselves on a lawyer, search, and the reactive scramble, we decided it wasn't worth it.

Even as it is, externally our program shows no difference at all to the patented algorithm, since it does essentially the same thing in an internally different way. Eventually we'll probably be sued, and millions of dollars in fees and legal expenses later, finally convince a jury that no, two databases are not the same as one database and a handful of user-supplied rules. And thats if we're not forced to open our codebase to our competitor, after which we'd pretty much be dead. It'd be what, two days? a week? Before they update their software with new rule-based operation that they just "thought of" and we'd never be able to prove they stole.

Re:Patent machinery

[hacksoncode]

Interesting theory, but in fact software isn't literary in nature, it is functional. In fact, it's copyright that more accurately could be said to not apply by this kind of reasoning. In any event, whether or not copyright or patents for software are statutory or not depends on the entire body of statutes, not just the ones you happen to want to read. These other statutes state that it is both (which is odd... functional inventions are supposed to only be patentable).

Re:Patent machinery

[brlewis]

Mathematical algorithms are not literary in nature, but they aren't statutory material either. You're confused when you talk about the existence of a statute that says otherwise. You're probably thinking of one or two lower-court opinions that are reputed to view software that way. I haven't looked as deeply into those opinions yet, just the higher-court decisions.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

So I have shitty credit because I spent the past year working on this great revolutionary gadget and had to max out my credit cards. My family wouldn't trust me with a penny - who can blame them considering my credit; and well the banks would shoot me dead if i walked through their door. VC's are notorious for ripping people off "Sure we will help you, and just like the RIAA/MPAA we will give you 1% profits on all of your inventions."

Sorry, your thought process on this matter is over-simplistic. There is nothing wrong on patenting a process as long as it is a qualified process (i.e. patenting the process to use a fork and knife isn't exactly qualified). Software, while maybe not a physical object also qualifies for patents....sorry if they can patent a paddle, with an elastic band and a ball attached to it - then software definitly qualifies.

Re:Patent machinery

[Macadamizer]

But then if I could get a hold of a copy of your copyrighted work, I could build the invention myself -- your copyright wouldn't stop me from doing that.

Re:Patent machinery

[Macadamizer]

"Patents were slightly different - they were originally around so that the garage inventor would be protected from the giant corporation (at least, I hope that's the original intent!). "

Not quite. The original reason behind patents was to keep innovation from being kept secret, the idea being that if innovations are out in the open, others can build upon those innovations and advance the technology.

The deal made was that if you are willing to share your innovation with the public, then congress would grant you a limited monopoly in order to make some bucks off of your innovation.

Without patents, companies would be much more likely to keep as much as they could secret, forcing others to reinvent the wheel, and making standards harder to agree on.

Not to say that there aren't things that need to be changed, just pointing out that patents aren't there to protect the "little guy" -- they are a contract between the government and the inventor.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

Yes and the world will implode. There is always a way - if your software is that great you can find it.

Now assuming you are correct, and thusly the patent system is flawed - does not mean it should be decimated into nothing. It means that the patent system needs to be revamped. More qualified personnel need to work in the software division of the patent office, etc.

It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.

On a side note, why not prove to the patent office (there has gotta be someone in there who knows a little bit about programming) that your process is different. Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. You are saying your product gives a result that another program gives, only does it differently. Well hell that sounds to me a lot like search engines. Yahoo has one, MSN has one, Goole has one, hell even someones grand mother has one. They all do the same thing - find results to queries - yet each organization patented their actual code - the way it searches. The result (as far as the patent office is concerned) is the same.

Re:Patent machinery

[Epistax]

Who needs a prototype? What he heck are you talking about anyway?

From what 'Ms. Lohan' said, this is the proposal: If you can draw a plan, that's concrete, take a patent on the design. What we don't want to see is someone patenting the idea of squirting water into the air from a fish tank and recovering it to oxygenate the tank. Make a specific device and patent that. What we have in software is currently parallel to patenting the design of a 'car' instead of, say a 'honda civic'. When you write a software car, people should compete with that specific car, not the concept of car! I don't care if you made the first one either.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

When I write software people can compete by writing their own software. I patent a process in my software (maybe i came up with a great 3d rendering engine). Now i didn't patent "3d rendering engines", I patented a process of a specific 3d rendering engine. So if joe schmoe wants to patent his own process of 3d rendering - i cannot sue him for that. I can only sue him if his code was stolen from me.
So the Software Car is your 3d rendering engine, the specific car (your Honda) is the specific 3d rendering engine that I created.

Another example: Software car = First Person Shooter games, while the HOnda = Counter Strike.

Re:Patent machinery

[sjames]

If you have a great and revolutionary product that might infringe on someone elses code - you just need to prove that yours is different OR get sued.

What enforces the OR? Nothing but the high moral character of the potential plaintiff. That is to say nothing at all. You will need to prove that yours is different, but you'll have to do that in court while your capital bleeds away in legal fees. Keep in mind, the plaintiff doesn't have to prove their case to win, they just have to drag the case out until you can't afford to defend yourself anymore.

Your only hope is to make sure that the plaintiff/extortionist can buy you off a lot cheaper than they can plow you into the ground.

Re:Patent machinery

[Kell_pt]

I would like to have the legal right to invent and not have my stuff stolen by same lame ass who is nothing more then a hack and then I can't touch him cause some douchebag decided patents shouldn't apply to software.

Reading this I wonder wether you actually have ever programmed over a couple lines, or even ever invented anything worth patenting. Give another 10.000 people the same problem, and someone is bound to come up with the same idea you had - or better. And if you have a patent on a worse version of their idea, they won't be able to patent it, due to some douchbag w/o the amount of brain required to finish an idea.

As an example, there's one form of Maglev devices which is far better than what we have running, that has never seen production, because the owners of the patent charge too much for it. Even though they never did anything useful with it, noone can build something even similar - by releasing their patent they infact "poluted" the world by locking in an idea.

Re:Patent machinery

[innocent_white_lamb]

Indeed.

A real-life example of this in action is the concept of waterbeds. Robert Heinlein invented the waterbed by describing it in his book Stranger in a Strange Land.

Re:Patent machinery

[innocent_white_lamb]

I can only sue him if his code was stolen from me.

If his code was stolen from you, you could sue him for copyright infringement.

Patents have nothing to do with that situation at all.

Re:Patent machinery

[Znork]

"If you have a great and revolutionary product that might infringe on someone elses code - you just need to prove that yours is different OR get sued."

A single software product can contain hundreds of patented ideas. The fact that you've got one different one that you think is new in your program doesnt change the fact that you're violating those hundred other patents, and any single one of the owners of those patents can take your entire profit, or, if your product makes their product inferior, prevent you from ever being able to produce and market your software.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

So what your saying is that the problems is with the litigation process? Well obviously because our litigation is flawed we should remove other laws.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

Reading this I wonder wether you actually have ever programmed over a couple lines, or even ever invented anything worth patenting. Give another 10.000 people the same problem, and someone is bound to come up with the same idea you had - or better. And if you have a patent on a worse version of their idea, they won't be able to patent it, due to some douchbag w/o the amount of brain required to finish an idea.

I write plenty of code but that has nothing to do with the argument.

Our society subscribes to the "first come first serve"...the first person to patent the process gets the credit (as long as they didn't steal it but that is something out of our scope). So you may have a problem with this process - but many people do not. Why you ask? Well lets see - I patent something and someone comes along, copies my stuff, relabels it and then says "oh look I am going to patent it too." kind of lame no? So I would imagine (hope) that this is not your problem.
So what is your problem - ahh your last statement in your first paragraph - the part about the idiots at the patent office. Well we all know that the solution to this problem is to destroy the law. God forbid we get qualified people working at the patent office, no lets just get rid of a pretty useful law that has been serving us for over a hundred years.

Re:Patent machinery

[ThosLives]

Yes, I know about the limited monopoly in exchange for public disclosure. However, why would this be preferable to trade secrets? Companies like trade secrets because they can have complete control over a technology - if that trade secret is something that cannot be easily reverse-engineered or duplicated. (Companies prefer trade secrets where possible; the danger is trade secrets are not - afaik - legally protected). Having a monopoly in exchange for public disclosure only encourages innovation where people can base things on that disclosed invention without having to be encumbered by the disclosed invention. If you have to pay license fees to make a "derivative work" that actually stifles innovation. This gets tricky in the modern marketplace because of a couple things: First, people are trying to patent results and not mechanisms. Even with pharmaceutacals, what is patented (and rightly so, in my mind) is a particular recipe for a drug. It is not the idea of making a drug to treat condition X. (Hopefully that illustrates my point). One reason why people dislike software and business patents is because they put a lock on "results" rather than on a mechanism. (This should be a new criteria in evaluating claims, as I see it). For instance, "Any mechanism that allows purchase by clicking one button by storing information in a database that can be referenced when clicking that button" is a result, not a mechanism (despite the fact that it has the word "mechanism" in it).

Second, people have extended the meaning of the word "derivative work" a bit too far - some take it to mean that "I patented this bolt. If you use my bolt, whatever you use it in is a derivative work," which is a bit obtuse (I paid for the bolt, you got your compensation already!). Patents were in place to protect a particular means of performing some operation, not the operation itself! This doesn't even being to touch on the realm of even when a patent does address a means and not an end and that means is absurd (like the laser-pointer-feline-activity-inducer).

Standards are a different issue entirely; if you look at most standards today they are "pay to enter the club" type things (look at ANSI, ISO, SAE, etc.) Standards are basically arbitrary agreements on interfaces and shouldn't be protected at all in my book. (Do we have to pay to know what a meter is? A kilogram?) If it's protected, it's not a "standard" - it's an access card and a tool to expand elitism. While you can argue about which "interfaces" should be standards and which aren't, I think we agree that "closed" interfaces are a hindrance rather than a help to innovation.

Forcing others to reinvent the wheel is actually also a good way to promote innovation - assuming you aren't really trying to reinvent the wheel but "find another way to perform operation Q". Sometimes things are natural building blocks - like basic mechanics, mathematics, and the like and reinventing things like calculus or how to make steel or coordinate transforms are better left shared than protected. But the FAT filesystem? Why does that need protection when there are millions of ways to store data on a disk? The only reason to patent something like that is to force people to your method and hinder alternatives - or at least hinder interfacing with your things that use that "interface".

The trouble, I guess, is determining at what point people are "making money off your invention" and when they are merely using your invention as a starting point for something else. For instance, cars use lots of steel, so technically they "make money off steel", but cars are not steel.

I know I'm rambling a bit, but mostly it's because I'm really trying to contribute (albeit in a very limited and uncoordinated fashion) to the intellectual-property-reform movement. (You can also ask me about my recent foray into musings on property rights and property taxes in general).

Re:Patent machinery

[HiThere]

No. A patent was originally a grant from the king to some particular benefit. (I'm not sure just how widely that was interpreted.) The most commonly encountered fossil from that time is the term "a patent of nobility", but I believe that it was also applied to such things as the official royal jam maker. (I remember my feeling of the bizarre when I first encountered a jar of jam with the label on it "Official Jammaker to the Royal Household".)

I'm fairly certain that it was also used to identify those who were given the right to collect taxes in some area. (Could they set the tax rate? I don't know. I don't know how formal the process was. I presume, without knowing, that the king got a cut of any taxes collected.)

Somehow out of this prior meaning "to make patent" meant to make things clear, and a grant of a patent meant an exclusive monopoly guaranteed by the government. Tieing it in so that an inventor could get the exclusive right to an invention for a period of time in return for explaining in sufficient detail how the invention worked appears to have been a US innovation. Unfortunately, this aspect of the patent system has become disregarded, and we are essentially back to a patent being a mark of royal favor. (Just TRY to find the source code on any patented software! You won't find it in the archives of the USPTO.)

Re:Patent machinery

[molnarcs]

But then if I could get a hold of a copy of your copyrighted work, I could build the invention myself -- your copyright wouldn't stop me from doing that.

True. The difference between a world with ideas/software patentable and a patent-free world is only this: in the case of the former, your idea is already stolen before you even come up with it.

To put it differently: you come up with an idea you have no means to implement at the moment. Should you be granted a patent for your idea? Because if you should, than I have lots of ideas, which, if I had the means, I would patent asap. Are these great ideas? Maybe some of them... Do I have to prove that they are? (proof is in the pudding - or rather, the implementation!). I just have to wait until someone builds a gadget that is based on my ideas (more or less) and then... sue! Yes, that would be great.

Actually, as I said, I don't have the money to patent my ideas. But [insert_name_of_random_corporation_here] has. And what these usually do is that they patent ideas as fast as they can. It doesn't matter if these ideas are great or not. If you patent 1000 ideas each year (I use ideas here in a very broad sense) there is a good chance that at least a few of them would be great ideas. And because they are great ideas, it is very likely that someone else would think about it, who instead of using the patent system as a lottery (and spend his/her money in patenting the idea), would build the thing. And because someone, who didn't bother to try to implement it patented it first, this inventor (of not just great ideas) would find himself in the court room.

Of course, this is just an example - a little bit exaggerated (or is it? we have seen these things before) but still it shows quite nicely how easily a patent system could be abused. And it WILL be abused, because there is no way you can filter all the patents that are applied for in the patent office. Also, if you are so brilliant as to think up the idea of The SuperGadget - you will have to work to get it built/implemented. If you come up with an idea of something that there is no way you can implement, than you are not that brilliant.

Re:Patent machinery

[HiThere]

That's quite incorrect. They'll probably let you finish the code first.

Re:Patent machinery

[maxpublic]

Apparently you don't have the first damned clue what SLAPP litigation is all about. To put it simply, it means that someone with deep pockets sues a person or group who annoys them, with the intent of either forcing them into court for the next couple of years to emasculate them, or to bankrupt them. It's been extended over the years to a wide variety of different pursuits, one of which is to stall out a startup long enough for a company to rip off their idea and make it their own. I'm sure a few obvious examples will pop to mind if you think about it for a few seconds....

Max

Re:Patent machinery

[maxpublic]

Well lets see - I patent something and someone comes along, copies my stuff, relabels it and then says "oh look I am going to patent it too." kind of lame no?

Sounds like the Microsoft way of doing business for, oh, the last twenty years. Seems to work just fine in both the U.S. and Europe.

lets just get rid of a pretty useful law that has been serving us for over a hundred years.

In America we already have. This is the sum total of the Constitutional charge concerning copyright:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Article I, Section 8

Current copyright law makes a joke of this charge. Note that the law says nothing about a right to profit, or any such nonsense.

Max

Re:Patent machinery

[Kell_pt]

My problem is with people who do not invent stuff yet get to patent it.

My problem with software patents is non-triviality - and the fact that ideas are usually building blocks, not final structures. If you put monetary barriers in the building blocks, then you are reducing the possibilities of society as a whole to produce new ideas and new technologies.

Re:Patent machinery

[sjames]

So what your saying is that the problems is with the litigation process? Well obviously because our litigation is flawed we should remove other laws.

To an extent, that's what I am saying.

More fully though, what I am saying is that as long as the litigation process makes the cure worse than the disease, we're better off without it. The case of patent protection meets the criterion. We should indeed remove laws whose enforcement is either impossable or creates more problems than it solves.

The problem of litigation is, however, only one of the practicalities that destroys what could be OK in theory. The USPTO's demonstrated and continuing unwillingness to fulfill it's charter by weeding out the frivolous, obvious, and prior art is a huge part of the problem as well. While we're currently discussing the EU not the US, WIPO makes the US's problem the EU's problem as well.

In addition to the above, patent law as implemented fails to scale it's timespan appropriately to the rate of progress in software. It would be exceedingly unwise to just tack software on to the list of patentable things without at LEAST addressing the differing timescales of development and production for software vs. widgets.

Though only peripherially related, it is interesting that recently here in Atlanta, many people in prison awaiting trial for misdemenors were released with charges dropped because they had already been there as long or longer than the maximum sentence. While not quite the same as nullifying the laws, it did demonstrate that sometimes flaws in the court process can require nullifications to avoid worse injustice.

Re:Patent machinery

[back_pages]

If you dont have the resources for a prototype you wont have the resources to file for a patent, and you _definitely_ wont have the resources to enforce it, nor defend yourself against countersuits.

SHARE THE WISDOM, COMRADE!

Re:Patent machinery

[back_pages]

(we all know that artificial barriers in the market are inherently Bad).

..until we sat through a economics 101.

I agree with more of your comments than the average /. post on this topic, but it's really retarded to talk about anything not purely IT related on Slashdot. I'm not trying to single you out, but the amount of stuff that I read that's _just_plain_wrong_ is astonishing.

By the way, a lack of artifical barriers in the market is what makes human trafficking, prostitution, and loan sharking possible. It's what causes speculators to topple entire currency markets. It's part of what led to the stock market crash of 1929 marking the beginning of the Great Depression. We all know that artificial barriers in the market are inherently Bad until we read an Introduction to Economics textbook.

Re:Patent machinery

[back_pages]

The de facto situation in the U.S.: The USPTO gets paid according to how many applications they accept, so they are going to read the law in such a way as to be able to accept as many applications as possible. That means software patents generally get granted, and the burden of proof is on the victim to show that the patent should have been rejected

That this is moderated insightful is unquestionable proof that these types of discussions on Slashdot are completely worthless.

The USPTO does not interpret law. If you recall your 3rd grade social studies textbook, you will know that the judicial branch of government interprets the law. The USPTO is not part of the judicial branch of the government. The USPTO does not interpret law.

The USPTO is subject to the judicial branch's interpretation of the law. The USPTO executes the law according to the judicial branch's interpretation, otherwise the USPTO gets in trouble and people at the Department of Commerce lose their plush jobs.

The USPTO does not "read" the law in such a way as to be able to accept as many as applications as possible. This is fantasy, false, wrong, misleading, and untrue. The USPTO "reads" the law as the USPTO is told to read the law by the judicial branch of the Federal government.

This is a concept that is taught to 3rd grade students but incomprehensible on Slashdot. Therefore, currently Slashdot has nothing to offer a person informed or curious about this topic. I expect Slashdot will soon be covering the latest fashion trends from Milan, a topic that Slashdot's readership is equally qualified to discuss.

Re:Patent machinery

[Qzukk]

why not prove to the patent office that your process is different.

In other words, feed the system more by having someone write the patent and file it and adding yet another patent to the pile?

My preferred solution is to require:

1) software patents that expire within the usual software life cycle (of about 4-8 years)
2) require some form of structured pseudocode that clearly describes the process being claimed
3) Similar to a Design patent, only one process can be claimed per patent, none of this "The system in 1, 3 and 8343 whereby the operator is eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwitch while entering data with his/her left pinky" that plagues the system now.
4) Titles and abstracts will be written by the reviewer to accurately describe what is being patented, NOT the misleading gibberish and shoutoutz that show up in the patents these days.
5) 2+4 require more qualified personnel as you say.
6) In the absense of 3, date each claim individually to prevent submarine patents (real ones, not the "zomg you sued us from nowhere" we hear about often here) where people claim a flagrantly invalid process just to get a starting date, and then bounce the patent against the patent office repeatedly while adding new (sometimes their own, often other peoples') innovations to the claims, resulting in a patent that may expire sooner, but for which all prior art must beat the original filing deadline, even if it had been in use a whole year before the actual claim had been added.
7) Better beats older. If you invent a sort process that sorts in O(n log (n/2)), and patent it, and I read the patent and see that by changing a line in your pseudocode it becomes O(n), I win. People who wish to use my O(n) patent come to me for licensing, even though your patent may have been heavily used. People who only want to use O(n log (n/2)) can go to you for your silly patent, but you have no right to challenge mine for one-upping you.

Of course, eliminating the "business method" patent that software uses now would be the far superior model. Businesses ran fine for over 200 years (Ending in 1998 with the State Street case) here in the US without patenting their "methods", and even longer in Europe.

Re:Patent machinery

[dajak]

No. A patent was originally a grant from the king to some particular benefit. (I'm not sure just how widely that was interpreted.) The most commonly encountered fossil from that time is the term "a patent of nobility", but I believe that it was also applied to such things as the official royal jam maker. (I remember my feeling of the bizarre when I first encountered a jar of jam with the label on it "Official Jammaker to the Royal Household".)

It's a good thing that the 'letter patent' and things like that survived to remind us of what the patent really was: just a feudal privilege.

The patent allowed the king to give something valuable, usually a monopoly, away even though his treasury is empty. Most of his subjects don't notice that they are being screwed indirectly anyway.

A more refined use of the patent is as a protectionist instrument: patent the monopoly on producing, selling, or trading some good within your territory to a local to prevent foreigners from cornering the market.

This is the kind of (supposedly 'modern') patent granted by English king Henry VI in 1449 for stained glass making after some English manufacturer succeeded in copying Italian stained glass. By granting the patent a fledgling industry is protected against any foreign competition.

Eventually the patent disappeared with the absolute monarch, except for the purpose of 'promoting science' because this seemed like a harmless thing.

The patent is a protectionist instrument that should have disappeared long ago. In the 17th century, to be exact, when the English stopped using them against each other (in 1623) and switched to the even blunter protectionist instrument of the Navigation Act of 1651 against the Dutch that sparked of the Anglo-Dutch Wars.

'Protecting garage inventors' bullshit is dishonest: that's not what the system was ever intended for, and garage inventors do not have a right to a monopoly on something just because they invented it. 'Garage inventors' cannot afford patents.

Re:Patent machinery

[Macadamizer]

Okay, I should have said in the U.S. patents were originally blah blah blah. I didn't realize I had to account all the way back to the Norman invasion...

Re:Patent machinery

[Macadamizer]

"Companies prefer trade secrets where possible; the danger is trade secrets are not - afaik - legally protected"

Actually, trade secrets ARE legally protected, and people have gone to jail for misappopriating trade secrets -- but the burden is on the secret-keeper to actually keep it secret and to prove to the court that it is deserving of protection...

"Having a monopoly in exchange for public disclosure only encourages innovation where people can base things on that disclosed invention without having to be encumbered by the disclosed invention."

That's not necessarily true. It's almost always cheaper to purchase a license for something than to do the R&D necessary to build something from scratch, escpecially when you are talking about extremely complex inventions.

If everything was a trade secret, then everyone would have to start from scratch to do something, or do whatever they could to steal the information from someone else.

"First, people are trying to patent results and not mechanisms. Even with pharmaceutacals, what is patented (and rightly so, in my mind) is a particular recipe for a drug. It is not the idea of making a drug to treat condition X. (Hopefully that illustrates my point)."

But if only a certain class of drugs can treat a particular condition, and a patent is issued on that particular class of drugs, aren't the results the same? I think that your argument is a good one, but it's not always a cut-and-dried difference. Sometimes there just isn't another way to effectively dop something, and therefore a patent on the "method" effectively patents the "output."

"The trouble, I guess, is determining at what point people are "making money off your invention" and when they are merely using your invention as a starting point for something else. For instance, cars use lots of steel, so technically they "make money off steel", but cars are not steel. "

That's what the courts to -- they determine when someone else is infringing on your patent, or not.

I'm not saying that the patent office (and IP law in general) doesn't need some reform, but I do think there are arguments on both sides, and the IP system in this country is not inherently evil.

Re:Patent machinery

[rodbod]

The imbalance between individuals with ideas to protect and mega-corporations with ideas to protect is an aspect of the wider problem: corporations have many of the same rights as individuals at the same time as they are free of many of the constraints of individuals

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

While the term Iwas not familiar with, the concept I know of very well (thankfully not personally).

Again, then the fault resides with our litigation process. Just like the patent process has its issues. Well since the patent process has issues, and people want to have it abolished maybe we should do the same for our litigation process since it has problems. You know, god forbid we try and fix whats broken.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

Sounds like the Microsoft way of doing business for, oh, the last twenty years. Seems to work just fine in both the U.S. and Europe.

Are you arguing for or against patent law here? Because this example is a clear showing of why patent law needs to be revamped - to help prevent copying. Though I believe the courts said (at the time) you could not patent a "feel" and MS was able to satisfy that their GUI has a different "feel" then the Apple GUI.

As for the Constitution. It was written so it could be updated and could be changed. God forbid that when the times change the rules are changed to accomodate them. Oh wait, here on /. we don't accept change very well, us computer geeks like to remain with old style thinking.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

Well there are flaws in the court systems, in our laws. But that does not mean we should get rid of them. Otherwise, in your example about the inmates, maybe we shouldn't put them in jail. Hell lets get rid of our criminal system - excuse me while I go rob a bank or two.

While the patent system is flawed that does not mean it should be gotten rid of. It may be a poor cure (arguable if it is worse then the disease), but it is one that enough of society feels it is needed. Instead, it should be fixed. The patent office should be overhauled. Removing it will only make it easier for corporations to monopolize over other people's ideas. "Oh Joe schmoe without two cents to his name made a great invention. Lets take it, sell and make a profit. We don't have to give Joe a damn thing." How fair is this scenario? And this WOULD happen without patent/copyright protections.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

You need to elaborate. Do you mean, for example, Joe Schmoe works for a company in their R&D department. He invents something, they patent it. You have a problem with this?
Or do you have a problem because Jane Schmoe who worked out of her garage, came up with an idea and then patented it. She then decided to sell the patent to some other company for money.

Please fill in any other scenarios. Because the above scenarios are just fine. If someone wants to sell their patents thats up to them. If someone is working for a company - making money to come up with inventions - that is fine also because they agreed to it. I do not understand why a patent MUST remain with the person who actually created it. That person may not have the resources to see the patent ever come to life, and that person may not want anything more then a big cash payout and to be left alone so they want to sell the patent, get paid, and be removed from the picture (i.e. no liability once it is no longer theirs)

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

Your ideas sound plausible. Patent them and then sell them to the patent office? :)

Of course, eliminating the "business method" patent that software uses now would be the far superior model. Businesses ran fine for over 200 years (Ending in 1998 with the State Street case) here in the US without patenting their "methods", and even longer in Europe.

Ok I have a strong problem with this statement - since when does prior acts of certain situations justify its need to remain? For thousands of years we have oppressed women, hundreds of years had blacks as slaves (the white man), for hundreds of years the church reigned supreme over science and knowledge....Does that mean we should keep all these acts because they have been around for a long time? Come on, good grief man, your a computer nerd - you of all people should be up for innovation for change for making things better! Saying "Well it was OK for the past 200 years" just sounds so archaic and it is. Maybe up until six years ago it wasn't a big issue. Maybe, due to the nature of software, we need to patent a process since it is the best way to offer this kind of protection to software. God forbid their inventions get protected. To say "well why haven't they been doing it since the 1950's"...the answer: there may not have been a realized need - especially in the infancy of the computer era; and once there was a need to convince the legal system that this need was real would take time, and money.

Re:Patent machinery

[sjames]

Otherwise, in your example about the inmates, maybe we shouldn't put them in jail.

Please don't overextend my arguments, I provided a reasonable criterion (admitedly, an arguable one, such is law) to define the cutoff.

Note that my example is non-fictional, it DID HAPPEN. Also note that bank robbery is NOT now legal in Gerogia.

While the patent system is flawed that does not mean it should be gotten rid of.

This may be true. If it is to continue, it must be fixed. I only advocate not making matters worse in the interem by extending the coverage of a broken system. Fix the patent system, THEN consider extending it. Perhaps use the proposed extension to software as a carrot to lead patent and litigation reforms.

"Oh Joe schmoe without two cents to his name made a great invention. Lets take it, sell and make a profit. We don't have to give Joe a damn thing." How fair is this scenario? And this WOULD happen without patent/copyright protections.

I agree, that is fundamentally unfair. However, the current system doesn't address that issue at all. If Joe Schmoe doesn't have two cents to his name, there will be no patent protection for him. IF (and it's a BIG if) he scrapes together a few thousand to patent his invention, he will also need a few million to defend himself in court if it really is a great invention. If he can't scrape together a few million, he won't stand a chance of holding on to the fruits of his labor. To add insult to injury, corporations who can file thousands of patents a year will somehow figure a way that he violates one of their patents. Once again, he'll be in court and need a few million to defend himself.

Suppose he manages to dodge those bullets and gets his invention on the market before someone notices and bankrupts him. Now, he will face submarine patent claims and his (now failing) competition will FIND a way to sue him, probably using the patent system.

Poor Joe Schmoe would be better off trying to get his invention on the market by stealth. His one and only advantage is being under the radar. While without patents, knock-offs will appear within months of hitting the market, but at least what he makes in the meanwhile plus his first mover advantage will be his to keep.

With patents, whatever he makes is subject to being carved up between the lawyers, competition with substantial patent portfolieos, and worst of all, submarine patent cheats who never had an original idea in their lives but are more than willing to leech Joe's ideas.

Re:Patent machinery

[Kell_pt]

That is really not the problem, those scenarios are fine. My problem is with scenarios such as these:

- Jane Schmoe is working on her garage, developing a product. She releases it, and sells a bunch of copies for an year. Someone then comes up with a patent that she's infringing, and sues for damages. Even if the patent is invalid, just fighting will be really expensive, so Jane settles.

- Joe Schmoe is working for a small company in their R&D department. He comes up with a pretty neat idea, and they come up with a good product, only to find out that the idea is partially based (say 20%) on someone else's idea which is patented, even though Joe thought it all up by himself.

The problem is that by patenting ideas, is that you're assuming noone else can have them or reach the same conclusion. Although that might be true for some things that involve a lot of research, that is not true for most of the patents out there.

For instance, HP recently came up with LightScribe technology - props for them. It's something that involved some research to develop a coating that could be used for the scribing - that's a fine use for patents.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

1) Jane Schmoe is working on her garage, developing a product. She releases it, and sells a bunch of copies for an year. Someone then comes up with a patent that she's infringing, and sues for damages. Even if the patent is invalid, just fighting will be really expensive, so Jane settles.

2) Joe Schmoe is working for a small company in their R&D department. He comes up with a pretty neat idea, and they come up with a good product, only to find out that the idea is partially based (say 20%) on someone else's idea which is patented, even though Joe thought it all up by himself.

3)The problem is that by patenting ideas, is that you're assuming noone else can have them or reach the same conclusion. Although that might be true for some things that involve a lot of research, that is not true for most of the patents out there.


So in response (I numbered them for ease):
1) Problem with our litigation process that big name company can run the little person into the grave. The only thing that could save this person is a good law firm on pro-bono because this became highly publicized. The solution: fix the litigation system.

2)First come first serve. It sucks, but now Joe needs to change that 20%. Let me put it this way. You come up with a cool patent. A year from now I come around and say "I have this great patent idea" which seems to incorporate your patent. I then say "Oh but i thought about it all by my lonesome, I never heard of this other patent." It could be true, or I could be lying. Which is it? You would be hard pressed to find out.

Patents are there to patent a process not just an idea. Hell I have ideas all the time. Gene Roddenberry had the idea of warp travel. Does that mean nobody can invent a warp engine? No it is just an idea. The conclusion is generally not the problem. Here is a very simplistic example (actually inane): Lets say someone patents the process of: 2 + 2 = 4. The conclusion is 4. Now I come along and find out that 2^2 (squared) is 4. Does that mean I can't patent my process because I also got 4?

A better example. Company nVidia comes out with the first 3D engine...a month later company ATI comes out with their own version of a 3D engine.
The idea: 3D engine
The patent: ATI's & nVidia's SPECIFIC 3D engine
Now ANYONE can come and make their own 3D engine. And it can have all the features such as anti-aliassing, variable AGP speeds, amisotropic filtering, etc...Does that mean they are infringing on ATI & nVidia patent? No, that means they are taking these ideas and making their own process for them. Now if ATI & nVidia find out that this company implemented code that bears a very real resemblance to their code - then THAT is patent infringement.

Re:Patent machinery

[Kell_pt]

Precisely, you have very good points there, and I completly agree.

But the problem is that is how patents should ideally work - but when you patent trivial things, it's hard not to step on them or base work on them. And that's what's currently happening. How can Amazon patent "one click shopping"? How can Apple patent "making windows translucent when they lose relevance" ( this is implemented in game clients like AO for instance ). The fact that they're patenting the idea is what gives me the creeps - they're not patenting a process. Around here, things like "one click shopping" would be called an "usage model", aren't patenteable and they last for 2 years - that's for picking things that already exist and applying them in new contexts - that shouldn't be patentable, as you're not actually creating anything new.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

If the idea is a process - that is how they are doing it. They are not just saying "one click shopping" is an idea. They are showing how one click shopping works.

While I think some things fall through the holes, and should be repaired and hopefully the system changed so it does not happen again- it is human error. The worst thing we can do is be responsible to say what is trivial. How can one-two people say that someones idea is trivial?

Cases like Amazon show that the patent office needs to be fixed - especially since one click shopping has been around for a great while though not called as such.

Until that gets resolved - I would tell other companies - come up with a different method (doesn't have to be radical, only different) of the one click shopping equiv. There is more then one way to skin a cat. On the legal front - fight for an overhaul...but I have serious problems with just abandoning our system without something better in place. It seems many people here on /. are of the mind-set "if it's broke, banadon it," instead of "if it's broke, fix it."

Re:Patent machinery

[Qzukk]

Maybe up until six years ago it wasn't a big issue.

You're right, after all, if it weren't for patents protecting innovation, we'd still be stuck with DOS 98 instead of Windows 98... or something like that.

My point was that the computer world made massive huge leaps and bounds without that protection. One of the largest non-governmental monopolies ever known to mankind was born and rose to power in that environment, and they seem to have gotten there just fine without having to smack down IBM and others with patents.

And now? Now we have SCO. We have companies paying people $200 for inventions that bring in billions of dollars. Venture Capitalists that are more than happy to listen to your idea, then start their own company doing exactly that, now that they know you had a great idea and no money to hire the lawyers to defend it.

Rather than "going back to an archaic system" as you put it, look at it this way: In 1998, we started doing something. Now, when we do this, we complain "Doctor, it hurts when we do this!". What's the obvious answer?

Or if you're a database or JFS fan, consider it rolling back to a known good state ;)

Re:Patent machinery

[Znork]

"The idea: 3D engine
The patent: ATI's & nVidia's SPECIFIC 3D engine"

Except that's not how software patents work.

Compare with physical world patents; 'Thing to unscrew gizmos' would be the idea. 'My thing to unscrew gizmos' would be the patented thing.

But with software, 'my thing to unscrew virtual gizmos' is _already copyrighted_. The extra protection of the patent is to protect the _idea of unscrewing virtual gizmos_ _in any way possible_.

With software, the process is the idea is the process. '3D engine' becomes patented.

Re:Patent machinery

[Znork]

"Until that gets resolved - I would tell other companies - come up with a different method (doesn't have to be radical, only different) of the one click shopping equiv."

You cant. One click shopping is patented, and any equivalent would infringe on the patent.

"There is more then one way to skin a cat."

There is more than one way to skin a cat but there's no way to skin a cat without being technically legally obliged to pay Amazon. They hold the patent on skinning a cat in this case.

Re:Patent machinery

[AviLazar]

Those are kind of loose arguments. For example: You speak to a VC company, you have a patent, they steal your idea as their own (giving you nothing). You can't afford to sue them. At least that is one obstacle that is possible to get around - as opposed to the other option. You have no patent - now even if you can afford to sue them you really can't.

If someone is willing to take $200 for an invention that brings in billions - whose fault is that? How does this blame get put on patent law?
SCO is a retarded company who is making claims without support. If SCO could at least prove their claims then people wouldn't be in such an uproar. Again the patent issue is not at fault here.

So before we put the blame on patents lets make sure we are accurate about it.

Re:Patent machinery

[sploxx]

2) require some form of structured pseudocode that clearly describes the process being claimed

Yes, I would like that, too.
And then, I would put up a project on sf.net which interprets this pseudocode. Preferably under GPL.
So that I can do a

$ exec-patent http://epo.int/some-patent.txt

I hope you see now how ridiculous this whole idea of software patents is!

Re:Patent machinery

[sploxx]

As an example, there's one form of Maglev devices which is far better than what we have running, that has never seen production, because the owners of the patent charge too much for it.

Hmm, could you provide a link that describes that? I'm fairly curious.

No, I'm not trying to be an ass by demanding references for each and everything (read my other posts in this thread).

Re:Patent machinery

[Kell_pt]

Well, I remmember this from a documentary on the History channel. I wrote on the parent that "it has never seen production", but that is not correct. The correct thing to say would be "has not seen production while the patent was valid".

On Magnetic levitation train it reads: The first patent for a magnetic levitation train propelled by linear motors was US patent 3,470,828, issued in October 1969 to James R. Powell and Gordon T. Danby.

Near the beggining it says: There are three primary types of maglev technology: One that relies on superconducting magnets (electrodynamic suspension), one that relies on feedback controlled electromagnets (electromagnetic suspension), and a newer, potentially more economical system that uses permanent magnets (Inductrack).

What said TV documentary said was that the initial patent was granted to one of these systems (electromagnetic suspension if I rememmber right), and the fee was so high that researchers preferred to investigate alternate means. Still from wikipedia, one can see that the first actual running system is more than 15 years past that initial patent.
I can't seem to find any article online that actually draws the same conclusions as that documentary, but the facts seem to support it. I'll dig a bit further - in the meantime if anyone finds it... we're here. :)

Bush will be happy ...

[auburnate]

The article states:

Poland's last-minute intervention has made them popular with supporters of the anti-patent movement.

Bush has his famous "You forgot Poland" comment. Maybe he was on to something.

Re:Bush will be happy ...

[Zocalo]

Poland's last-minute intervention has made them popular with supporters of the anti-patent movement.

Yes, and it's not too late to show your gratitude either by adding your signature and any comments to the "Thank Poland" letter. People on Slashdot so often advise writing letters to bureaucrats in order to complain, it's nice to able able to thank them for getting it right once in a while.

Why reinitiate the debate

[brlewis]

There are still many officials who do not understand software patent risks, and the absence of societal benefits. Reopening the debate offers more chance to solidify opposition to the software patent push that will inevitably reappear.

Re:Why reinitiate the debate

[dnoyeb]

As far as I can tell, when you have won, reentering the game offers only the chance to loose.

Good or Bad News?

[RAMMS EIN]

``Mueller said it is important for the patent directive to be restarted because many MEPs did not take part in the initial discussion on the directive, as they belong to new member states or were voted in during the EP elections in June. "A majority of today's MEPs didn't get to participate in the first reading in 2003, and the governments of the new member states were barely finding their seats in the Council last May," said Mueller.''

While this is a valid reason, and I agree that the directive should be restarted, I wonder if this is good news or bad news for those opposing software patents. Many of the new member states are new to capitalism and have more extreme capitalist views than the old members. This might slant the debate in favor of software patents.

Considering that the EP originally voted largely against software patents, I think a restart will rather increase the chances for US-style software patents in Europe.

Re:Good or Bad News?

[Fire Dragon]

Many of the new member states are new to capitalism and have more extreme capitalist views than the old members.

Poland is one of the new memberstates and it is also new to capitalism. Still it has been one of the countries agaist(to my understanding) software patens.

New eastern memberstates don't have any signifiend software industry at the moment, so they would lose their change to enter the market if patents would be allowed at this moment. Their view might change after IT industry gets bigger in there.

Re:Good or Bad News?

[dglaude]

It is more like a good news.

Indeed, if successfull, it will nullify the current Council political agreement that no one want to break for diplomatic reason.

If the Commission has to rethink the subject, they may take some of the good guy message into the new directive.

If the Parliament is still on the good side, then they will bring us an as good directive as last time.

With more time, the Council will be able to receive and take into account strong opposition like Spain and Poland... Maybe we can get Portugal with us after the election over there.

What US Should do

[superpulpsicle]

Start from scratch! The U.S. patent system is screwed up beyond belief. There is nothing I can say here that hasn't already been said before. Also we need to make it so that no corporations can own patents. Only individuals or groups of individuals should own patents. An entire corporation is too big and too financially strong of an entity to own a patent.

Re:What US Should do

[mOoZik]

Corporations start small, then get big, if they're good at whatever it is they do. To prevent them from owning patents is just insane and goes against everything this country stands for. I believe that those who discover new "things" and file patents should have exclusive access to that "thing," unless they choose to license it. What on Earth would make you want to scrap that is beyond me. However, I will state that patenting business methods can get a bit messy.

Re:What US Should do

[stinerman]

The Supreme Court of the USA decided a long time ago that corporations are people in their own right and are therefore entitled to all other freedoms that regular people enjoy.

We need that to be overturned before anything else.

Re:What US Should do

[ynohoo]

Or changed to include the responsibilities that go with that freedom. Since the behavior of most corporations is sociopathic at best, and frequently psychopathic, they should all be locked up in loony bins until they learn how to behave ;D

Re:What US Should do

[stinerman]

You were modded funny, but I thought you made a good point. Corporate charters, IMHO, should be revoked if corporations commit any felony.

patents vs capitalism

[brlewis]

Many of the new member states are new to capitalism and have more extreme capitalist views than the old members. This might slant the debate in favor of software patents.

What are you talking about? Capitalism is about free markets. Patents are about state-sponsored monopolies. Extreme capitalist views would slant the debate in favor of removing patents altogether, not just software patents.

Re:patents vs capitalism

[RAMMS EIN]

You are right, but most people lump together capitalism and intellectual property and even democrazy. What I should have said is that they have more US-like views than the older EU countries, but I wanted to keep nationalism out of it.

Re:patents vs capitalism

[torokun]

Would you say that government enforcement of other property rights are also anti-capitalistic? That's simply an absurd argument.

Property rights are the foundation of trade, which is the foundation of capitalism. Whether they are in real property or intellectual property... How are innovative processes and products to be valued and traded without some sort of propertization?

You all really need to think about this some more...

Groups of invididuals?

[AtariAmarok]

"need to make it so that no corporations can own patents. Only individuals or groups of individuals should own patents.

See bold text for contradiction.

"An entire corporation is too big and too financially strong of an entity to own a patent."

The overwhelming majority of corporations are very small, and many are weak and failing.

Re:Groups of invididuals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, the "BIG" in "BIG Corporations" is silent. Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:Groups of invididuals?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

But a corporation isn't just a group of individuals; it is a legal entity in itself, with legal rights. I think what GP was trying to say was that it's okay if Joe Schmoe wants to patent something, and it's okay of Joe Schmoe and his brother Jim Schmoe want to patent something, but it's not (or shouldn't be) okay if Schmoe Bros. Inc. wants to patent something -- a proposition with which I tend to agree.

Re:Groups of invididuals?

[maxpublic]

Or more directly: outlaw the corporation itself. I fail to see why an imaginary entity should have the same rights - no, more actually - than a real person. I also fail to see why people who use the corporation to commit criminal acts (corporations aren't self-aware; it's *people* doing the illegal things here) are often protected from going to jail, while if I do the exact same thing I'll almost certainly be rotting in a cell somewhere.

Corporations should never have been given rights. They are not people and do not deserve rights.

Max

Fantastic

[Turn-X Alphonse]

They will get rid of one problem and add another. All we need. Theres no single way to make a patent law which can't be abused by large companies, we live in a world which leans in moneys favour, they have it, we don't.

Good game, we lost see you next round.. erm wait sorry someone patented rounds, we can't use that either.

how important is the patent question to them ?

[Eternally optimistic]

How much of this is a power stuggle between the parliament and the comission? The outcome of that could be just as important as the software patent question.

The lesson I learned..

[SlashDread]

No matter how un-effing-believable un-democratic EU ministers can be, and you MUST research the EU patent story for some disgusting examples, the people -directly elected- in the EU parliament have listened and -do- hold some power. Yay.

Now if only we (as in we, the people) could get more direct say in EU minister appointments, or resignments.. we would not have to go through all this absurdian EU counsil of minister elbow politics.

We should look at the US.. some things clearly work better there, and some things do not. Much local power for example.. good idea. Big Money and politics.. bad idea.

Re:The lesson I learned..

[Znork]

"Now if only we (as in we, the people) could get more direct say in EU minister appointments"

You do. They're the same ministers that you vote into your own countries government.

The same ones who commonly use "the EU" as a scapegoat for what they themselves push through in the council of ministers.

The 'local powers', in this case, are not on the side of the voters.

Re:The lesson I learned..

[Doomdark]

You do. They're the same ministers that you vote into your own countries government.

Huh? I have yet to hear of a country where ministers are directly elected by voters. Usually people vote for the members of parliament, which then decides balance of power between parties those MPs are members of, which is the basis for goverment... but the government is generally composed by the parties (ie. collectively by groups of MPs), and this level of indirection means that ministers are rather more independent of voters' feelings than MPs.

In theory the degree of indirection (one more level of indirection) wouldn't matter: in practice it has a tremendous effect.

Consider this in the context of US politics: are you saying that someone actually voted mr. Ashcroft in?

Re:The lesson I learned..

[Znork]

Well, true, I was overly simplifying it. The point is that there isnt any more or less specific way for the voters to influence, or gain more influence over, the appointment to the council than there already is in the local country, as they are the same. The way we the voters have to influence the council membership is to not vote for the local parties appointing ministers who do not represent our interests.

Re:The lesson I learned..

[Jamie Lokier]

I agree.

To put it a different way, voters cannot know when they vote for individual MPs which ministers will be appointed to the EU Council, nor the policies which will be represented by those ministers.

If voters dislike a bad EU minister, they may be able to vote that minister out of office, but they have no way to prevent another minister with similar policies being given the same appointment - a consequence of the diversity of MPs.

This means that the policies represented by the EU minister at any given time are determined mostly by who has the ear of the people deciding to appoint a minister to the EU council, not by the voting populous.

Naturally, that tends to run the way of corruption, bribery, and a shield of "advisers" with vested interests.

-- Jamie

Re:The lesson I learned..

[SlashDread]

"more direct say"

I need not say more I think. But thanks for reacting.

Re:The lesson I learned..

[SlashDread]

"than there already is in the local country"

Two things:

- The appointment of ministers locally, is ALSO not direct democratic enough, to my taste.

- The bigger distance between EU and its populous versus the local gov. and the local populous is also what enables local ministers, to "suggest" people as candidates (the chairman does the appointing) who are relatively unknown, and fit THEIR agenda, not ours.

Re:The lesson I learned..

[Znork]

Oh, I agree. Either the power of ministers needs to be more curtailed than it is today (at least in my country), or there needs to be a stronger tie between ministers and voters to strengthen the interest in accurate representation.

let's patent recipes too!!!

[xutopia]

Patenting software is like patenting recipes! I say if patents pass we should patent recipes as well!

Re:let's patent recipes too!!!

[wickedhobo]

What a recipe for disaster.

Re:let's patent recipes too!!!

[Gumshoe]

Similiar arguments were made about the copyrighting of software back in the day. The reasoning was something like this: computer programs are conceptually similar to recipies and recipes aren't copyrightable so copyright shouldn't be applicable to computer programs. It didn't work.

Re:I'm not sure...

[why-is-it]

I'm not sure why we should listen to patent advice from someone who copied the name of a teen actress as a /. nick.

What does a nickname have to do with the opinions expressed in a post?

When the idea of patents originally came about there really wasn't much else to patent [besides machinery and other tangible objects].

And these tangible objects were based on what? Oh, that's right, an idea. Please recall the purpose of patents is for the long-term benefit of society and the short-term benefit of inventors. Ford was granted a patent on an implementation of a car, not the idea of a car.

As others have mentioned before, software is just a combination of mathematics and creativity, and neither thing is patentable in and of itself. Patents are for particular implementations of an idea, not the idea itself.

31 signatures from Polish MPs (out of 61)

[Anonymous Coward]

And they are from all parties. There are 54 Members of Europarliament from Poland. Amazing. I'm impressed.

The list of all members is linked here

Re:I'm not sure...

[Lindsay Lohan]

I'm not sure why we should listen to patent advice from someone who copied the name of a teen actress as a /. nick. (Not a flame...

Sure sounded like one.

At any rate, you should know that patents in the modern sense originated from Italy. From Wikipedia:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
- Thomas Jefferson

another good read

[ravenII]

As Entrope pointed out there is another disscussion at Groklaw. Various user comments and the article makes a good read

Re:another good read

[Stephen Samuel]

Heres the link to the GrokLaw story. Very informative reading (as always).

US-like views

[brlewis]

The US is not homogeneous when it comes to support of software patents. The US Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that software for a general-purpose digital computer is not statutory material for a patent. Unfortunately a lot of people are determined to mis-read their opinions, particularly Diehr. Diehr has a section IV specifically about "Don't misread our ruling this way" describing the way their ruling is always misread.

Re:please infect

[tomjen]

Like we are that dump.

Because they still have a job to do

[NigelJohnstone]

"Why reinitiate the debate, when you've already won?"

I think you forgot what this was all originally about. The EU was supposed to put together a directive to harmonise the different patent systems. This was necessary and useful!

It wasn't supposed to be about making software patents legal by changing member states patent law. That was the influence of lobbyists.

Patents are recipes in the chemical industry

[kt0157]

In the chemical industry patents are recipes. Finding a good way to make a reaction slightly more efficient is worth millions. Why shouldn't that count as an invention?

Re:Patents are recipes in the chemical industry

[xutopia]

understand what patents originally were meant for. They were meant as :

1) a way for an individual or company to have time to benefit from the *investment* they put in inventing something

2) limiting this time frame so that innovation could still take place in society.

Today's patents server 2) 99% of the time as most patents are ridiculous and stiffle innovation.

Now take the recipe for a sandwhich, you take two pieces of bread, some spread and a piece of meat and you have yourself a sandwhich. Did it take millions to invent? It certainly didn't. Is it worth a lot to society? It certainly is. Now compare to one-click shopping patents. Did it cost a lot to invent? It certainly didn't. Is it worth a lot to society? No, it stops people from using it.

Patents are bad for society.

Re:Patents are recipes in the chemical industry

[UlfGabe]

Each reaction can be patented individually so that only the holder of that patent can use it. eg. It's not like Vioxx after discovering (it didnt but bear with me) painkillers, patented painkillers. In reality, they patented a process of reactions to make one specific painkiller. Other companies could create painkillers, but not the specific one that 'Vioxx' made. What some of these companies suggest is similar to patenting the (using more chemical references) process of making an alkane into a halide. Who would seriously look at that patent and let it through. Well that is what has happened with patents. Same should go for software, one cannot patent "Operating system", or other such things, because the general field allows alternates to be created.

Re:Patents are recipes in the chemical industry

[kt0157]

Don't confuse the concept of patents with the asinine actions of the USPTO. Patents are required to be non-obvious, contain an inventive step, contain full disclosure and actually work. Most of the "dumb patents" cited here on /. don't meet those requirements. Toss in the US legal system to do the job that the USPTO should have done in the first place (but with a capricious jury involved) and you have a recipe for the mess that is the US patent system today.

Maybe it was revenge for..

[EiZei]

this:
http://aj.zerodistance.org/ms_poland.png

UK conspicuously unmentioned...

[Hortensia Patel]

Which is somewhat embarrassing, but not surprising. As in so many areas, I assume the UK followed the party line laid down by the US.

I wrote to my MEP about the fisheries-meeting shenanigans, but heard nothing back - did any other Brit /.ers have any more luck?

Re:UK conspicuously unmentioned...

[indierockboy]

Yes actually. I wrote to 6 MEPs from the South East of England. And only one of them wrote back to me. He then said his secretary would investigate what I was saying. She got back to me a few days ago saying that there is no risk from these software patents... and that the reporting about them is all "wrong". Quite worrying really.

Re:UK conspicuously unmentioned...

[JPMH]

She got back to me a few days ago saying that there is no risk from these software patents... and that the reporting about them is all "wrong".

Which party ? This would be really important to know.

Re:UK conspicuously unmentioned...

[indierockboy]

It was to Chris Huhne a Liberal Democrat...

The reply from his secretary starts with:

"I refer to your recent email to Chris Huhne MEP. I am his senior advisor and he has asked me to reply on his behalf.

I am sorry this is a very long reply, but I hope you will get through it all. This is necessary for a full understanding because I am afraid that most of the reporting about what this legislation covers is very wrong. It is not quite clear why there is such a belief that it is intended to lead Europe down the US path"

She says...

"To be effective a patent must cover the concept as well as the detail of the invention, so although a computer program listing might be given as an example of how to perform part or all of an invention, the patent claims (the bit that defines, legally, what is covered) would not be so specific and usually relate to the method steps that are implemented in the software."

Quite worrying really...

Not sure what to write back... Its pretty obvious that she just does NOT understand why this is bad. And how it could seriously FUCK UP open source usage and development in Europe...

Re:UK conspicuously unmentioned...

[jimicus]

I got a reply.

It was a very patronising "we don't think it will pass and even if it does, we're happy with the wording". Completely ignored my points.

Now I think of it I've written to politicians on a number of occasions, generally to express a point of view different to the party line, and I've had a similar response to that every time. Kind of makes me wonder what my tax goes on because it's certainly not representation.

Re:UK conspicuously unmentioned...

[JPMH]

Not good at all. The text of Lib Dem party policy is actually supposed to be a position which is very skeptical of software patents.

If you could scan or transcribe the letter, and send it to j.heald (at) ffii.org.uk, it would be really useful to identify exactly whose briefings Chris Huhne's assistant is basing her reply on.

Thank you a lot if you could do this.

Re:UK conspicuously unmentioned...

[JPMH]

I got a reply. It was a very patronising "we don't think it will pass and even if it does, we're happy with the wording". Completely ignored my points.

As per the other post on this thread, it would be good if you could send me the full details, to j.heald (at) ffii.org.uk -- or if you could put them up on a website somewhere. Thanks!

software patents vs. patent system as a whole

[brlewis]

I'm vehemently against software patents, but I'm not really ready to dismantle the patent system as a whole. In some fields the R&D costs are high enough that I can see society benefiting from trading a temporary monopoly for publication of the technology. Software is obviously different. I think software patents have to be taken out of the picture before you can have a good discussion about the system as a whole.

At least

[SirGarlon]

At least some members of the EU Parliament seem to want to see the patent initiative discussed under proper procedures, in the light of day and maybe even subject to public debate. Contrast with us poor bastards in the U.S., where software patents just kind of started happeneing without formal legislative process (thank you, Supreme Court).

Perspective Is Needed

[tilleyrw]

1. The number of tasks that can exist in the world is infinite.

2. The population of minds to solve said tasks is finite.

3. QED, the set of solutions is finite.

Therefore, patents should not exist.

If the set of solutions is finite, it is only a matter of time before elements are repeated.

"There is nothing new under the sun."

Bitlaw twists Diehr

[brlewis]

Bitlaw's summary leads the reader to believe that (1) the Court ruled that the only non-novel part of the claims was the software and (2) the Court ruled the patent valid. In both instances it misleads the reader. The Supreme Court did not examine novelty in the Diehr case, nor did they rule whether the patent should be accepted or rejected. They only advised as to whether the patent could be rejected solely on the basis of being nonstatutory. Fault lies less with the Supreme Court and more with people who twist their opinion.

Re:Bitlaw twists Diehr

[SirGarlon]

So what you seem to be saying is there is not even a clear Supreme Court ruling in favor of software patents. That's even worse than I thought - talk about lack of proper procedure and public debate!

Re:Bitlaw twists Diehr

[brlewis]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We have clear rulings from the Supreme Court against patents on software for general-purpose digital computers. They didn't rule on patents covering software that doesn't preempt the use of algorithms on general-purpose digital computers, and called on the legislature to clarify things, but that never happened.

The dissent in Diehr criticized the majority for not issuing a clear ruling to reiterate Benson and Flook. For my part, having read Diehr, I thought the opinion was clear enough. But widespread misconceptions about Diehr prove me wrong and the dissent right; more clarity would have helped. I try to do my part with Diamond v. Diehr, abridged.

Re:I'm not sure...

[AviLazar]

Ford was granted a patent on an implementation of a car, not the idea of a car.
As others have mentioned before, software is just a combination of mathematics and creativity, and neither thing is patentable in and of itself. Patents are for particular implementations of an idea, not the idea itself.

Just because it is not tangible does not make it invalid for patents. What is the obessesion with patents needing to have a tangible state? That is so short sighted.
Ford patented a car not the idea of a car. Software makers are patenting their software, not the idea of software. To give a more clear example: Valve patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of a first person shooter game or if you want to take it one step further. They patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of Half-life 2.

Patents and Small and Medium Sized Businesses

[TeachingMachines]

Thus patent-related risks, for example, were increasingly having an effect on decisions made by public administrations and private organizations on whether "in view of infrastructures and their possibilities to purchase software and services from small and medium-sized companies."

People are finally getting it: small and medium-sized businesses won't be able to produce software products and services if the patent directive is initiated. IBM holds 40,000 patents, any one of which can be used against a small company, essentially bankrupting them. Microsoft is in a similar position. Amazing that Europeans are seeing the light.

stealing not required

[brlewis]

I can only sue him if his code was stolen from me.

That's not true. You can sue him just because you feel like it. You can win if his lawyer thinks there's some possibility a court might decide that your patent claims cover his software, or if he thinks the legal costs wouldn't be worth it.

You can probably win more damages if you can prove he was aware of your patent, but by no means does he need to steal your code, or even be aware of its existence, for you to sue him.

Re:stealing not required

[AviLazar]

A half-wit judge can also not allow the case to go to trial when he see's the docket "you are trying to sue this guy because he walked by you on a public street?"

Again, the problem then resides with our litigation system.

Yes I realize that people can sue for pretty much anything (a shame really) but short of the absurd (and yes the world is full of them) a person needs to have a substantial reason to sue.

one of the few rare moments....

[MSBob]

when being Polish actually makes me proud.... (http://www.gnu.org/thankpoland.html)

...now if we only could get the fuck out of Iraq.

Re:I'm not sure...

[boule75]

Software makers are patenting their software, not the idea of software.

I fear this is blatantly false. Amazon's "buying in one click" patents an idea, not an implementation.

Eolas intended to patent the way plugins are called (or designed, I do not know), not the way it is done. Isn't it what copyright is made for, protecting implementation if not the ideas ?

Re:I'm not sure...

[why-is-it]

To give a more clear example: Valve patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of a first person shooter game or if you want to take it one step further. They patented Half-Life 2, not the idea of Half-life 2.

To give a more clear example: Amazon patented the *idea* of one-click online shopping, not a particular implementation of one-click shopping. So, if you want to implement something that is covered by Amazon's patent, you need to purchase a license first.

I fail to see how such policy is good for business. Certainly it is very lucrative for individual corporations that hold overly-broad patents, but it is not good for the industry as a whole.

It seems to me the logical outcome of software patents is that it will be impossible to write non-trivial software without having to pay for a bunch of licenses first.

What part of 'NO'?

[BattleTroll]

What part of 'No' don't they understand? The "EU Patent" lobby lost. Go solve some more pressing issues instead of trying to protect big business.

USPTO fees

[brlewis]

What you say may be true about USPTO employees; I can't say. However, the USPTO itself collects fees that don't apply to rejected patents.

Grassroots

[Dachannien]

I realize the article is primarily about the EU. But it's also about software patents, and being a citizen of the US, I'm interested in what I as a mere citizen can do to fight for patent reform (the kind against software patents, of course) in my country. And considering that there's a strong tendency to legislate through treaty these days, especially between the US and UK, and especially in the realms of IP law, a success against software patents in the US is a success for the world in general.

Anyway....

Are there any US Representatives or Senators who have USPTO reform and the elimination of software patents on their agendas? Are there any who support the OSS and/or Free Software movements? Is there a process by which individual US citizens can file prior art claims against patents (either in the application stage or after granting them) without spending a god-awful amount of money on legal representation, and if so, how does that process work? Are there any industry players (other than Linus and others in the Free Software arena) who have come out as supporting the elimination of software patents?

I guess, in total, I'm asking this: is my time/effort/money better spent as an individual citizen on this issue, or should I just give my dollars to the EFF and let them fight on my behalf?

Re:Grassroots

[Holger Blasum]

https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl/
offers a mailing list for US FFII supporters.
Honestly it is not yet very populated or
active, but it's an open door and if you want
to become active and have some medium-term
stamina then that's a start.
Similar lists exist for European country-codes
at-parl,be-parl,cz-parl,... or e.g. in-parl if you
are e.g. from India.

Thank you!

[skrolle2]

A MEP of the party I vote for signed the motion, so I wrote her a nice thank-you letter.

If you find "your" MEP on the list of signatories, please do the same to let them know that a lot of people actually care about this.

Democracy when it works

[northwind]

Much to be said about the early days of EU, but apparently the greather transparency is doing its work.

Re:I'm not sure...

[AviLazar]

Is one click a process? Do they detail how the one click system works? They obviously have code, but ignoring the actual code - is their one click process described?

Thouhg I do disagree with the "buying in one click" because a number of people here did post links showing that Amazon was not the first to utilize the process. As long as there is a process involved, it should be allowed to be patented. Saying "I want to patent warp drives" is cute, but unless you have the actual process showing what you are patenting then no. It is like saying (as in someone elses example) trying to patent "car's" you can't patent "car's" but you can patent a specific car.

Re:I'm not sure...

[AviLazar]

Again, as in previous statements. The Amazon "one-click" patent is a perfect example that the system needs to be fixed. But fixing something does not mean eradicating it.

So does Amazon have a process behind their one-click? Ignoring the fact that there is prior art.

EU patents a bad thing

[prunesqualour]

There's a decent piece in today's Guardian about patents on software. Interest declared: I wrote it.

Re:EU patents a bad thing

[Wolfbone]

Yes, very good indeed - thanks for writing it. It's a shame though that the media still fail to recognise this as an issue that is of great concern to everyone. The Guardian has been immeasurably better than the rest of the UK media but they still relegate it to the geek section, as though we were still in the 1970s and few people had ever even seen a computer.

If only there were some way to give journalists and editors a taste of life under a regime of literature patents and "pen and paper implemented inventions".

the funny thing is that the US ...

[gomel]

could develop itself industrially in the 19th century precisly because it had no patents. The entrepreneurs in the US could 'take' the fine british engineered inventions and produce them oversees.

the revolver was invented by an Englishman. The invention was taken to the US and mass produced there by Mr Colt.

Hollywood, too. Why do you think did all the studios go to California? Because it had no copyright/patent law as opposed to the east coast.

And let the bad guys win by default?

[tepples]

Problem is that in a few months, the pro-patentability lobbyists will reenter the game, and if they reenter the game by themselves, the public loses by default.

Re:What's the point?

[AttilaSz]

I was to Turkey for few weeks last year, and have also spoken to others that were, and know few Turkish citizens as well, and we all agree that Turkey today is a rigorously secular country, committed to rock solid separation of religion and state and to democracy. Why, they're good enough to be a NATO country, and last I heard, NATO is a military organization of countries devoted to protecting democratic regimes... I live in EU and consider myself christian, but I'm not losing sleep over EU negotiations with Turkey. I lose more sleep over software patentability debates, sincerely. As far as I see, for vast majority of Turkish people, Islam is not playing a bigger role in everyday life as Christianity/Judaism is for average EU citizen. That islam will overflow Europe if Turkey joined is as reasonable as to expect as French culture to overflow Hungary now that Hungary joined (hint: not likely). And since they, not us, are eager to join, we're in a fairly good negotiating position. Not so with Norway, who currently have no economic or geopolitical urge whatsover to join EU.

Good move by the parliament

[sytxr]

Now that the software patent proponents have failed rushing, sneaking and cheating software patents into the EU, maybe we can get the existing law, which the european patent office has been ignoring, cemented and enforced: "Computer programs aren't patentable" and neither are math, logic and art that blend to create them. Need still to communicate with our politicians and educate/inform them; why deterministic computer software is different from physical areas of science and technology where actually novel inventions can be made, etc...

The parliament opposed the attempts by the majority of the council and the commission to introduce software patents. And some people from Poland apparently saved us europeans from their ultimate attempt - Thank you, Poland .

If the rest of the world decides against software patents, the US would eventually benefit, too, because it would have to abandon or at least reduce the legal parasitism and extortionism from their software industry to stay competitive.

trying again to do wrong... hmmm..

[3seas]

Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?

Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)

In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.

Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of software the foundation upon which software is created must be supported the same. Free Software development community doesn't want to do this anymore than proprietary software campanies.

For its always about money based upon some mode of elitism. With Free Software its the service oriented products/applications and complexity out of teh reach of most customers, with proprietary software its exclusive use.

But if the arguement that software is not patentable due to its abstract ideas status, that anyone is capable of abstract logical thought and ideas, then that status has to be supported by making software obviously easy enough that the "free software" label will be because software is easy enough to create that its free in the sense that anyone can create it or cause the machine to, regardless of their knowledge resource. (you don't need to know how a calculator works to use it to calculate an equasion you input or hit the key that does some equasion for you - ie pi)

How do I know this? In a email to various participants of Edos, (Of which experience tells me not to expect any support for honesty about abstraction physics. Or any indication they got the email, as avoidance seems to be thought to be proof against something the thing being avoided), I wrote:

RE: press release "Major European research institutions and Open Source software companies today announced the launch of EDOS, a project dealing with complexity management in the field of Open Source software. The participants will collaborate in the development of theoretical and technical solutions to the management of large-scale, modular software projects..."

Abstraction Physics is the foundation of the practical application solutions. Deal with that, establish the mechanics and create the software mechanism and the rest will come easy (or boringly repetitive), where there is plenty to apply "navigational mapping" to and productively exaust the funds on and I believe to accomplish a lot more then thought possible regarding the EDOS goals.

from: - ffii.org - Software Patents
to: Advances in software are advances in abstraction
Then to: Abstraction Physics

Microsofts direction with longhorn.

Google search "web" for: "Timothy Rue" patents a few links from that search are here
and here (-see comment #4 - I'm/VIC USPTO published protected!)

I can wonder why the USPTO edited my comment and removed the near transparent markup but here is the version I sent them (with contact information limited). Also this google finding.

The Virtual Interaction Configurationion project is GPL'd (forkable and all the other things allowed) and would amount to maybe a drop in the bucket, in comparison to the funding and manpower the EDOS project has available, it could be completed and I believe used to surpass the goals of EDOS.

Current state is that of needing some correction and completion in the current python code, integration of the existing IQ and ID commands and the c

USPTO vs judiciary

[brlewis]

The USPTO issues lots of patents that don't stand up under the standards set by Benson, Flook and Diehr rulings. No plush jobs are being lost. I don't care what any third grader tells me; the USPTO is not executing law according to the judicial branch's interpretation.

Re:USPTO vs judiciary

[back_pages]

The USPTO issues lots of patents that don't stand up under the standards set by Benson, Flook and Diehr rulings. No plush jobs are being lost. I don't care what any third grader tells me; the USPTO is not executing law according to the judicial branch's interpretation.

And to think that thousands of people go to law school for YEARS and yet YOU have expertise they lack! Holy cow, you have a career filled with power and fat lobbyist bankrolls waiting for you in IP law.

Alternatively, you're maybe not the IP law equivalent of the Matrix's Neo. I mean seriously, one of these scenarios is a lot more likely than the other, but I seriously can't figure out which is which!

Re:USPTO vs judiciary

[brlewis]

People do not misinterpret Diehr because they lack expertise. They misinterpret Diehr because it's in their interest to do so.

Re:USPTO vs judiciary

[back_pages]

People do not misinterpret Diehr because they lack expertise. They misinterpret Diehr because it's in their interest to do so.

And as every 3rd grader knows, it is the judicial branch of government that interprets law.

You either have a grudge against the federal district court in D.C. or your point is completely incomprehensible.

Hell, even this summary of the Diamond v. Diehr case demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. small words are easy to understand

The summary clearly indicates that a court ruling (i.e. the judicial branch of government interpreting the law) ruled that virtually all computer programs are patentable.

You think you are Neo and the world of IP law is The Matrix. In reality, you are the guy who posts on Slashdot about how cool Windows is because it is easy to use. You are that guy. You are not Neo. While I knew you were full of it from the first, it took me 4 seconds to Google for a summary of your reference which demonstrates that you are wrong.

Re:USPTO vs judiciary

[brlewis]

Small words are easy to misunderstand. Diehr did not contradict earlier opinion that software for a general-purpose digital computer is not statutory material for a patent. The Court never decided about software that does not fall into this category, e.g. compiler techniques, and said it called for legislative clarification. However, all the software patents I've seen discussed on Slashdot (e.g. arithmetic coding for JPEG) are for general-purpose digital computers, and definitely not statutory according to all the rulings. People interpret Diehr as meaning you can re-word your software patent to sound like a process patent and then it's valid. That's not what they said; in fact section IV of the opinion explicitly says they're not saying that. People are determined to misinterpret it.

Re:USPTO vs judiciary

[back_pages]

Small words are easy to misunderstand. Diehr did not contradict earlier opinion that software for a general-purpose digital computer is not statutory material for a patent. The Court never decided about software that does not fall into this category, e.g. compiler techniques, and said it called for legislative clarification. However, all the software patents I've seen discussed on Slashdot (e.g. arithmetic coding for JPEG) are for general-purpose digital computers, and definitely not statutory according to all the rulings. People interpret Diehr as meaning you can re-word your software patent to sound like a process patent and then it's valid. That's not what they said; in fact section IV of the opinion explicitly says they're not saying that. People are determined to misinterpret it.

I don't know why you feel qualified to opine about this publicly.

all the software patents I've seen discussed on Slashdot

were discussed by people who don't have the slightest clue what they were talking about. The think that "obvious" under 35 U.S.C. 103 means the same thing as "obvious" in a dictionary, they think that mathematical algorithms are patentable, and they think that the USPTO interprets law. All three of those examples are false.

What I find most astonishing is that you feel qualified to maintain your ludicrously false argument in light of minor inconveniences such as facts and reality.

for general-purpose digital computers, and definitely not statutory according to all the rulings.

You are clearly unfamiliar with MPEP 2105 and 2106 which set forth in clear language that which is and which is not statutory. Being that MPEP stands for "Manual of Patent Examination Procedure" and it is this tome with which you are unfamiliar, it is truly impressive that you would continue to suggest that you are right in this argument.

MPEP 2106 in particular explains several examples of what is and is not statutory with direct references to the judicial decisions (interpretations of the law made by people who are qualified to interpret law) establishing them as such.

You argument is directly analogous to claiming that Microsoft Windows was the first operating system to use a mouse pointer. It is false, it is clearly false, anyone who makes such a claim demonstrates that they are unqualified share their opinion as expert, and saying it makes you look like a fool.

In summary, if you had the requisite knowledge to debate this topic, you would know that
1) the judicial branch interprets law,
2) Diamond v. Diehr was not the last court decision known to mankind,
3) later decisions have affected what is or is not statutory regarding computer-related inventions,
4) MPEP 2105 and 2106 will explain those decisions in easy to understand words, and
5) patents are examined and issued according to the MPEP.

Your initial statement was utterly false and wrong. As I said earlier, a 4 second Google search would inform you why it was utterly false and wrong. Lastly, the ridiculous notion that you alone can see the light while an entire department of the federal government is staffed by bumbling idiots necessarily implies that the authority of the entire judicial branch of the federal government is systematically flaunted and steam-rolled by bumbling idiots (who had the gall to put such a flagrant abuse of power into a printed manual, eight revisions deep) and nobody but you has figured it out. In fact, this would also imply that the judicial branch is either staffed by bumbling idiots are completely ineffective at drawing and enforcing the boundary around their Constitutionally-granted authority. If the judicial branch is staffed by bumbling idiots who sit idly by while the USPTO usurps their power, then who are we to let bumbling idiots interpret the law? This whole line of reasoning is entirely absurd and defeats itself.

Maybe you're right. The cunning devils at the USPTO have shown that the judicial branch are a bunch of idiots who don

Re:USPTO vs judiciary

[brlewis]

I do know that Diamond v. Diehr was not the last court decision known to mankind. You should know that it was the last Supreme Court decision pertinent to software patents. Later decisions, most notably Alappat, were made by lower courts. I am well aware that the USPTO has used those lower-court decisions in its interpretation of statute and case law, which you've informed me is embodied in something called the MPEP.

And I am not the only one who noticed that Alappat was "illogical, inconsistent with precedent and with sound principles of patent law". Read the dissenting judge's opinion. I cannot say why the Supreme Court has not taken other cases since Diehr to correct problems caused by lower courts. I do know that they only hear about half the cases they are asked to hear, and that their previous opinions called for legislative clarification. I presume most of the judges see the ball as being in the legislature's court at this point, and the Court has moved on to other matters.

Re:USPTO vs judiciary

[back_pages]

I do know that Diamond v. Diehr was not the last court decision known to mankind. You should know that it was the last Supreme Court decision pertinent to software patents. Later decisions, most notably Alappat, were made by lower courts.

Splendid, but I fail to see how this is relevant to your original statement that the USPTO interprets law as it sees fit - particularly to serve its own greedy interests. Of course, a quick survey of the fees schedule would reveal that the USPTO profits more from quickly rejecting a patent than from issuing it and collecting maintenance fees (present in the MPEP but likely out of date since they were updated in the last 2 months), but.. sigh.. it gets really tedious to debate against pedagoguery so, whatever.

And I am not the only one who noticed that Alappat was "illogical, inconsistent with precedent and with sound principles of patent law". Read the dissenting judge's opinion.

Spectacular. This was not, however, the issue to which I took exception. This is not an example of the USPTO interpreting law however it sees fit - this is an example of the USPTO complying with the majority decision in a court case. In many circumstances, I would agree with the dissenting judge's opinion and am not fully satisfied with the current definitions of statutory software methods, but this was not the original topic of discussion.

I do know that they only hear about half the cases they are asked to hear, and that their previous opinions called for legislative clarification. I presume most of the judges see the ball as being in the legislature's court at this point, and the Court has moved on to other matters.

Yes, there are snags in the judicial system, but there have always been snags and it was designed to be a healing system, not a perfect system. I, too, would like to see some further clarification or some more, shall we say "enlightened", case law regarding software patents. That situation in no way infers that the USPTO has been interpreting the law, on their own and without judicial oversight, however they please.