Sept 24 Is World Day Against Software Patents

zoobab writes "Veteran European anti-software patent campaigners have launched the World Day against Software Patents. They say, 'The issue of software patents is a global one, and several governments and patent offices around the world continue to grant software & business method patents on a daily basis; they are pushing for legal codification of the practice, such as currently in New Zealand and India. We declare the 24 September as the World Day Against Software Patents, in commemoration of the European Parliament First Reading in 2003 with amendments stopping the harmful patenting of software, guaranteeing that software programmers and businesses can safely benefit from the fruits of their work under copyright law.'"

Comments

Nice job, editors

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Thanks for the advance heads-up, so we could you know, like ORGANIZE something. Instead of doing something, anything about it, let's just bitch about it on /. the day it happens. Thanks, good job.

Re:What to do

[HungryHobo]

unless you're the owner of a small software company which is having problems because you can sit down and write something useful you thought up yourself, sell it as your product and then get sued for infringing a patent held by some company which does nothing but patent vague ideas and sue people.

Patents and circles of knowledge

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If you are a programmer, you probably come up with a myriad of ideas that are already patented by someone else. This is because your circle of knowledge encompasses programming and there are certain patterns and solutions that seem to emerge in the course of development.

Is it not also true for other circles of knowledge as well? There are only a few gun designs, but there are many types of guns. Same with refrigerators, pens, book bindings, and shopping carts. If you are an expert in any of those circles of knowledge, then any new patented invention will seem obvious and trivial.

So are we to throw out all patents because anyone who is an expert would consider a new invention to be trivial and obvious? Is "non-obvious" really a good measure of patentability?

Re:Patents and circles of knowledge

[IBBoard]

So are we to throw out all patents because anyone who is an expert would consider a new invention to be trivial and obvious? Is "non-obvious" really a good measure of patentability?

Is "being the first to file on anything" a good measure of patentability? That's the other alternative to a measure of "non-obviousness".

As for trivial and obvious, there are things you can patent that aren't trivial or obvious. They may seem like a logical step after the fact, but if no-one else has made that step then it isn't that obvious. If, however, hundreds upon thousands of software developers have had the idea of linking data objects in to a list in multiple directions for easy access then patenting it is patenting the obvious.

Re:Patents and circles of knowledge

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I love your bad analogies.

The difference is, guns, refrigerators, pens, book bindings, and shopping carts were all invented (and the patents ran out) long before corporations bribed their way into writing all the IP legislation so that patents/copyrights last (for all practical purposes) forever. Second, a patent is meant to apply to a device, even something so small as a new piece added to an old, existing device ("adding this flange prevents the breakage that has plagued previous designs"). Since software is, by definition, the expression of an idea, it shouldn't get patent protection. Since Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, does that mean that all other versions of boy-meets-girl, boy-falls-in-love-with-girl, things-end-badly should be precluded from being produced?

Re:Patents and circles of knowledge

[LordLucless]

So are we to throw out all patents because anyone who is an expert would consider a new invention to be trivial and obvious?

Frankly, yes. If an implentation is obvious, why would I be interested in paying for it? (Me being the public in general, and the method of payment being a time-limited monopoly on use of the concept).

Patents should never be awarded for small, iterative improvements in design that are obvious to any person with knowledge of the field. Patents should be awarded for concepts that, if the patent-holder didn't come up with them, would conceivably never have been thought of.

Re:Patents and circles of knowledge

[penix1]

Every now and then I see some piece of code which uses methods which I can honestly say I would never have thought of, really novel ideas. Those should be patentable...

No they shouldn't. Copyright exists on that code and that is more than enough "protection". Why should that code be protected by both patents and copyright? If you are going to issue a patent then you should not receive a copyright on it.

Re:Patents and circles of knowledge

[morgan_greywolf]

Is "non-obvious" really a good measure of patentability?

Yes.

Patents in gun designs or refrigerators or pens or book bindings are typically on novel things -- designs that improve functionality, appearance or both. These also relate to a tangible product. Patent examiners can easily see the novelty involved (are there other guns that do what that gun does or are there other refrigerators that have as polished a finish?). In software patents, it's not so easy.

The problem with software patents is that software is not a tangible thing. It is also not manufactured -- it is crafted by creative individuals. Intangible, creatively-produced art has other laws designed to protect it -- copyright laws. You can't get a patent on a plot or a theme in a novel, right? Then why should you be able to get a patent on a software algorithm?

Re:Patents and circles of knowledge

[Explodicle]

Disclaimer: IAAME (I am a mechanical engineer)

The difference is, guns, refrigerators, pens, book bindings, and shopping carts were all invented (and the patents ran out) long before corporations bribed their way into writing all the IP legislation so that patents/copyrights last (for all practical purposes) forever.

Bullshit. New ideas for those products still come out to this day, and they are just as much squashed by patent law as software ideas. It bothers me to no end when programmers (or any other profession for that matter) think it is OK that my freedom of expression and right to conduct business are restricted, but heaven help us if the same laws are applied to everyone.

Re:Patents and circles of knowledge

[samkass]

Copyrights last virtually forever. Patents last 10 years and can be extended 10 years. They're very different. A Copyright only covers the specific code as written, while patents cover novel and non-obvious ideas.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with software patents, myself. I don't understand why some folks insist on painting such a strong wall between a mechanism implemented in a Turing machine versus one implemented with wood and metal. It's the idea that's novel and non-obvious, and the substrate (be it a Turing machine or "reality") is only incidental.

The real problem with software patents as they stand are the bar being set too low for "non-obvious". In addition, ideas that were implemented in one domain shouldn't get a patent on a new domain if they're substantially unchanged simply for being re-implemented there. That being said, I think a lot of the "problems" we're having now will work themselves out once the land-grab for IP rights for doing things on the still relatively immature internet expires.

Re:Patents and circles of knowledge

[bzipitidoo]

The monopoly part is one of the big problems with patents. The patent holder gets to dictate every use of the patented material. And the default is "no" because that might hypothetically cost the inventors some of the just rewards of their work. You can't just use patented ideas first and compensate later, to do a proper job of it you have to seek out and beg for a "yes" upfront. This does not advance the useful arts and sciences.

Can't contact the patent holders? Can't even find them? Patent holders are too busy to give you the time of day? Or maybe the holders want to be jerks and deny you because you could possibly somehow become a competitor? Or the patent holders want to troll. Even those grim scenarios are too rosy. You won't be needing to contact just 2 or 3 patent holders, you'll have to negotiate with hundreds, and you will still miss dozens that you had no idea you might be infringing. You won't be able to tell whether you will violate some them if you go ahead without permission, so the safe thing to do is get permission just in case it's needed. You'll see many dubious patents, but they won't be safe to ignore. If permission is not obtained in enough of these cases, then you may not be able to go forward. Even if it's possible to get enough permissions, the costs of buying all those may be prohibitive. No one can say how much a patent is really worth, no one can even get close to figuring out a fair price with so much uncertainty. Talk about paralysis by analysis. The patent system is far worse to the economy than "atime" is to hard disk performance.

It should be possible to go ahead and do good work without this paralyzing default. Many go ahead anyway, and hope they won't be hit with too many lawsuits. Many are only vaguely aware that their every twitch violates another few patents and copyrights. They don't know which, and suppose the quantity is far smaller than actual. Trying to be upfront simply doesn't work. Instead, companies fight fire with fire, and build up their own patent portfolios they can use to counter sue anyone who threatens to sue them. That tactic doesn't cover nearly enough situations. The troll has no business that can be threatened by lawsuits. The smalls who have no portfolios to bargain with could get run over. The bigs with the big portfolios still aren't safe. And obtaining a big portfolio is expensive. It's a mess. We should be able to use ideas as we wish without the agony of having to seek permission for every little thing, or always sweating over whether the business will be killed in a heartbeat from some shot from the dark.

We need better ways to compensate inventors than handing them a bunch of monopolies that they can't use well.

Re:Patents and circles of knowledge

[Arterion]

The code does nothing but sit.

The hardware does stuff. No one has ever taken issue with hardware patents, I don't think.

Please go away.

[MRe_nl]

My perspective on patents is simple: stop issuing patents.Patents should not exist.
We're all standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. The current patent systems
smack of arrogance and ignorance. Furthermore, I think that if such a system had exsisted 8000 years ago we'd still all be sitting in caves paying that one family that "invented" fire.

Re:What to do

[electrictroy]

I'm okay patents & copyrights, but there should be a time limit.

7 years or maybe 14 years, but that's it. Plenty of time to make a profit & recoup the costs of the invention. If a company can't make money during 14 years time, then that company doesn't deserve the patent; it should go public domain.