Slashdot Mirror
UK High Court Allows Software Patent Claims
An anonymous reader tips us to a note up on the IPKat blog, written by one of the four law-professor types behind that venture. The British High Court has ruled on appeal that the UK Patent Office must not reject software patent applications out of hand, as it has been doing for some time now. "In a surprising (to this Kat at least) turn of events, the Honourable Mr Justice Kitchin has ruled today that the current UK Patent Office practice of flatly rejecting patent claims to computer program products is wrong... Kitchin J found that the appeals should be allowed. Each application concerned a computer related invention where the examiner had allowed claims to, in effect, a method performed by running a suitably programmed computer and to a computer programmed to carry out the method... The cases were remitted to the [UK Intellectual Property Office] for further consideration in light of the judgment."
Welcome to the party, our British cousins.
Is it tea time yet?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is NOT good news for software innovation in the UK at all.
Anyone claiming that there hasn't been any innovation in software over the last 10 years because of the lack of ability to patent it in the UK is clearly barking mad.
Yes, as someone that has worked on generating IP before I strongly believe that people should be paid for their work if they don't wish to donate it for free, but clearly a lack of patents hasn't prevented this either.
All this will bring eventually is the stifling of the software industry, oh, and more patent trolling, joy.
there goes the U.K. software industry. It's unfortunate that the people we most trust to protect our industry and our livelihoods are the most clueless about the very technology we must have in order to do that. The United States is no better in that regard, that's for damn sure. Too bad ... it looks like we're just going to roll over and leave whatever innovation is left in the software field to the Chinese and the Indians.
Well, all I can say is I'm happy I don't live in the only completely backwards developed country in the world anymore! Welcome to the bottom rung of the ladder UK! I think there's room here next to us lowly US techies.
...who paid for this and how much did it cost?
The High Court is not the highest court in the land; there's potential (at least, I don't see anything ruling it out) for the UK-IPO to appeal to the lawlords for a definitive ruling on what UK patent law actually is. And then if they decide that the law does not allow for software patents to be discarded without consideration - which would surely be something of a surprise to everyone, given that the stated position of just about every authority is that it does and they should - there is always the chance that Parliament will stomp out the loophole again (because ultimately, the judiciary in this country can't override Parliament; it can only clarify).
I was under the assumption that software patents in the EU were not valid. Thus making any pro software patent verdict by the court in the UK invalid?
...old people were best suited to make very important decisions. After all, they had the most learning, the most experience, and the most wisdom.
Now, however, technology moves much faster than the human mind. A person may easily see two or three technological revolutions in his lifetime, each one forcing the rejection of old value systems and the embracing of new perspectives.
Unfortunately, the older a human mind gets, the less able it is to reject old value systems and embrace new perspectives.
So now, the decisions of the old-and-powerful wind up causing great harm to the young-and-visionary.
The thing that REALLY gets me is when young people...people who *should* know better...buy into this we-need-control-to-have-innovation crap.
If I could put smart in the water, I would.
From what I understand after reading the article, he ruled that software patents are to be reviewed for "methods" of doing something. In other words, it's still impossible to patent the double click in the UK, and only patent things like "manufacture something using a computer as the control unit".
Still, I think the UK "wouldn't" be allowed to give out software patents if the European Parliament says not to do so.
And yes, I do believe this judge is horribly wrong, but it's not too bad anyway.
Patent 1: Software 2000 has developed a method of generating bit masks for use with laser printers which results in higher quality images. It is implemented by programming a conventional computer, printer or copier to process images in a particular way. Software 2000 exploits its invention by selling the program to its commerical partners who then incorporate it in their printers and printer drivers and distribute it to the end users in the form of printers, computer discs and web downloads. The end users are located worldwide.
Patent 2: Astron Clinica was founded to commercialise skin imaging techniques developed at the University of Birmingham which enable images of the skin to be processed to identify the distribution and concentration of underlying skin chromophores. The invention described in its application provides a system and process for generating realistic images representing the results of planned cosmetic or surgical interventions which change the actual or apparent distribution of these chromophores. The invention is implemented by programming a computer to process images in a particular way. It is commercialised here and abroad by selling a disc which causes a computer to be configured so as to undertake the required processing.
Patent 3: Inrotis is a spin-off company established by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne to commercialise drug discovery and network analysis techniques. Broadly speaking, the inventions the subject of its two applications in issue concern methods of identifying groups of target protein interactions. The commerical product which Inrotis sells is a computer disc which causes a computer to be configured so as to carry out the necessary processing.
Patent 4: SurfKitchen is a mobile services company and has made an invention which improves the ability of mobile telephones to access services on the internet. It is implemented by pre-storing a program on a mobile telephone memory or by downloading the program from the internet. In either case the program is usually made available by one of SurfKitchen's commerical partners to whom it makes the program available on a computer disc.
Patent 5: Cyan Technology is a semi-conductor company which designs and builds micro-controllers. It has invented a method of generating data for configuring micro-controllers which greatly simplifies chip design and programming. The commerical products that implement the invention are computer discs and Internet downloads worldwide.
"This will spur innovation in unprecedented ways in the coming years in the UK!"
I would be able to say that if, with this change, the patent system would be improved to further function as intended in... Uhh, 1474. Only more efficiently.
The period of protection was back then 10 years to protect the profit from new innovations, so inventors didn't get ripped off immediately, in turn keeping them interested in innovating. A great idea! Really, I think patents are in general a great idea, no sarcasm involved. They were then released after 10 years, fairly early at the time of technological evolution back then, so that it also didn't halt competition and innovations that were based on it. You also needed to have the product out. Because otherwise, there's not much to protect, you know? People back then didn't think mere ideas should be patentable.
Now, two main things seem to have changed. First, patents are now in effect for 20 years. And you can patent stuff before products are out and in use. Actually, you can patent without even planning to innovate anything! This of course has very harmful effects for innovation, and forms the breeding ground for businesses exploiting this as their business model, suing others for infringing on their oh-so-valuable patents.
As for the extended lifetime, it would still work out fairly well if this interesting graph just wasn't in effect. (note: that graph is logarithmic; it's actually an exponential rate) Unfortunately for our patent situation, but fortunately for us living in this interesting day and age, history itself has proven it is. We don't even need to speculate, because it's historical evidence, not about anything that may happen in the future. The facts here are that we know which key events have happened in history (we know if something is a key event or not by looking at what the product of the paradigm shift was) and when they did, and that's pretty much all we need to see patent lifetime extensions are the least we have needed.
So, what I think must be done to restore patents to a working state again would be two main things:
1. Once again, like a long time ago, we should only be able to patent what's released, or possibly (in fear of day 1 patent hijacking after insider leaks) some duration less than e.g. a year in advance, but then the company will immediately have the patent expire if this goal is not fulfilled, along with having a hefty penalty associated with it, possibly a percentage of a company's revenue for some duration X (for an example, how about X being the time in advance the patent was granted?). So the more a company would "guess" and just throw things out without being sure of themselves, the greater risk of real losses they would run. They would now be forced to weigh the risk against the benefit. If they definitely have something worked on and are sure of themselves, sure, they could then submit the application, no special risks involved. Because they would be using the system as intented. I'm not sure if a patent should be allowed to be cancelled with no penalty, because that could be used to stall competition. Maybe that a project might not bear fruit and getting abandoned would have to be a risk a company submitting quite early patents would simply have to take.
2. Second, we need to adjust patent lifetimes to the accelerating rate of paradigm shifts in order to not risk slowing them down. This risk should logically increase the further into the future we get. The doubled patent lifetime since 1474 should probably instead have been halved by now. The adjustment was made in the opposite direction as demaned by society and rate of innovations. The lifetime may also need to be adapted to various business needs. For example, computer software is often considered old in 5 years. Within that timeframe, even Microsoft will have had time to develop Windows Vista, including the project reboot in between PDC 2003 and Beta 1, so that's not saying little.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Before too many hysterical reactions kick in, bear in mind the actual rules have not changed here, and software patents as such are still disallowed in Europe. If you follow the link in TFA you'll get the current definitions (emphasis added):
"(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial applications, which are new and which involve an inventive step.
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
a. discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
b. aesthetic creations;
c. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
d. presentations of information."
In that context, the test is then to decide whether claims such as the following are industrial applications which involve an inventive step, or purely programs for computers. I don't think they're all equal. The SurfKitchen sounds like a computer program to me, while I have some sympathy for the thought of Astron Clinica having invented a new overall way of carrying out surgery and wanting to patent the method, including the part that is carried out on a computer: it is not obvious, nor a business process, or something as basically stupid as the whole "One Click" thing. Also, note that these are mostly not software companies. You might still disagree with judge's conclusion and have further points to make, but please no more mindless nonsense about the imminent death of the UK software industry and a shift to the American system.
1. Software 2000: a method of generating bit masks for use with laser printers which results in higher quality images.
2. Astron Clinica: a system and process for generating realistic images representing the results of planned cosmetic or surgical interventions which change the actual or apparent distribution of underlying skin chomophores.
3. Inrotis: methods of identifying groups of target proteins for drug theray by processing proteome data defining proteins and protein interactions.
4. SurfKitchen: an invention to improve the ability of mobile telephones to access services on the Internet by pre-storing a program on a mobile telephone memory or by downloading the program from the Internet.
5. Cyan Technology: a method of generating data for configuring micro-prodcts which greatly simplifies chip design and programming.
I completely agree! However, unfortunately, you're preaching to the choir. The question now is, what do we have to do to convince those that make the law that this is what needs to be done? I've been thinking lately - I wonder if someone could get them (corrupt congressmen) at their own game. For instance, run for office and have a reasonable chance at becoming a senator or representative, and then create a bill with some catchy acronym like "The 2008 DON'T EAT BABIES Act" that gives money to orphans, and just so happens to also change patent law. If anyone comes out against it, gather a list and send a letter to all the major news outlets saying "Senator So-And-So is against the DON'T EAT BABIES Act!" and invite them to ask him why he is against it. That'd get them to vote for it real quick, if they want to stay in office. But nah, I think that sort of behavior would require me to give up certain virtues, which I won't do. Still, nice to dream.
Hasn't anyone noticed how (us programmers) refer to programming as "writing" software not "inventing" software? Or how we "write" code not "invent" code? Software shouldn't be patented much as books aren't, software builds on each other much as books do.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And only if a complete build environment with nonobfuscated code in a vmware bubble is distributed along with the patent application. After the patent expires the source code enters the public domain. Otherwise, no patent protection and no, copyright should not apply to source code anymore than it does to any other mathematical proof.
Can I get a copyright on 2+2=4? No, that would be rejected out of hand, every mathmatical process is the same, just at difference scales, including source code.
A judge with probably a superficial understanding of software, gets to make a technical decision that contradicts the vast majority of software experts.
It's not a legal decision, its a technical judgment of what really constitutes writing software. Writing software should be treated the same way as writing novels. Certainly imagination is involved, but in the plot, and ideas, and not the process of writing. Think what would happen if the plots of novels could be patented: how soon it would cripple the publishing industry? Publishing houses would prevent other authors from copying their plots. Companies would form just to generate new plots in the hope of suing some successful author whose plot bears a faint resemblance to one of their own.
Actually this scenario bears an uncanny resemblance to the current US software industry, with software patent trolls beginning to grind the industry there to a halt.
So please Judges, don't stray outside your field of competence - just ask some programming experts what they think of software patents!