Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Rather than preventing a legislation from passing, why not attack the problem at the source: programmers and their corporations who file software patents?
How do you convince a programmer that software patents are bad, when he stands to gain substantial reward for a patent from the organization he works for, or negative consequences because of refusing to file a patent?
Why are _new_ software patents being filed in the first place?
But anyway, even if you can honnestly say you would never have thought of that, there are thousand of people who will have. Because they face the same problem and basically have the same culture/background/education.
The problem is even more subtle because, yeah, we are against "bad" patents but not against "good" patents (think "non-software"). But this is a bit stupid because any software method can be implemented in hardware. You invented a new lightbuld ? Fine, but if you never really make it, you only did a simulation on your computer as a proof of concept, is your lightbulb software or hardware ?
In fact, the "software" patent case is only the tip of the iceberg. With software patent, it is obvious that something is wrong. And then, we have the wrong conclusion that "software is not patentable".
This is not the case at all. The whole "first-to-get-its-paper-in-the-patent-office-win" process is wrong. All patents made a completely wrong assumption : if you do something as described in a patent, you are infringing this patent. This has nothing to do with software or not software.
And it is very simple to fix : enforce that anyone attacking someone else for patent infrigement should bring the proof that this someone else could not have done what he had done without reading the patent/reverse engineer your product/spy your documents. Just do that and you will discover that software patents are perfectly acceptable. It would means that you would not be able anymore to infringe a patent without even knowing that someone else patented it before. How can EvilCompany attacks you and bring the proof that you copied the ObviousMethod by looking at their product when everybody can think about ObviousMethod. Also, it still leave patent very useful for non-obvious thing (like drug industry, advanced design, ...).
Unfortunatly, I'm observing that companies do not even see what they are doing with patent. They are all trying to patent whatever can be patented. I see with my own eyes that the money spend just to read other patents is huge. Patenting need to be outsourced and cost a lot more money than anything else but is seen as the only way to make money in the future.
Having a good idea : from one day to a few weeks
Implementing a prototype of this idea : from 6 months to 1 year
Patenting the idea : 1 year of non full time work for the inventor but also for 2-3 people and for an outsourcing company
Unfortunatly, patent is also a visible output. Management often cannot understand something else from their R&D department. The department must produce X patents each year.
And because they always lived like that, you cannot even try to tell them you disagree. It's too deep in the culture, like a religion.
Ploum.net.
How is this any different from the software solution that provides a new way to do something that is faster, lighter, or more convenient than the currently known methods? Is it just because the "stuff" is ephemeral bits and not a solid marble column?
Correct. Bits can be copied without cost; public institutions such as libraries will allow you access to the means of copying and storing bits absolutely free. Meanwhile, solid marble columns have a significant physical presence and a very high cost of copying.
Earlier, you referred to bits as having physicality if one looked on a small enough scale; for legal purposes, magnetic fields are not physical entities, and anything that can be translated into a pattern of magnetic fields without losing value is simply not "physical" in nature. Under the law, physical objects are supposed to be things you can see and touch, things that have what the "common man" would readily agree have a physical presence.