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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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

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.

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.

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.

let's patent recipes too!!!

[xutopia]

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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: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: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...

EU patents a bad thing

[prunesqualour]

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