Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sept 24 Is World Day Against Software Patents

Posted by samzenpus on from the come-together dept.

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.'"

34 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. What to do by PainMeds · · Score: 3, Informative

    From TFA:

    What to do?

    1. Please sign or comment on our Draft Petition
    2. Write to your Patent Office, Senators and Deputies
    3. ...
    4. Don't Profit!

    1. Re:What to do by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:What to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/petition

    3. Re:What to do by electrictroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  2. Nice job, editors by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  3. Day of this, day of that... by Yetihehe · · Score: 3, Funny

    We should also have official Day of Linux Desktop.

    --
    Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    1. Re:Day of this, day of that... by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      We should also have official Day of Linux Desktop.

      It's okay. Next year we have a whole year planned for that.

    2. Re:Day of this, day of that... by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Interestingly, Sept 25 Is World Day Against World Days. Look it up.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    3. Re:Day of this, day of that... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought it was assumed that {INSERT_CURRENT_YEAR_HERE} was "Year of the Linux Desktop".

      Actually, that depends on your locale settings, particularly LANG and LC_TIME.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Day of this, day of that... by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not at all. It was talk like a pirate on a linux desktop day!

  4. Patents and circles of knowledge by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by IBBoard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    5. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      if no-one else has made that step then it isn't that obvious

      And assuming that the entirety of patents would contain all "steps" that have been made that can be patented, a step that has not yet been patented would be non-obvious, right?

    6. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      My blog
    7. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by Ploum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    8. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by Explodicle · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    9. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by samkass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    10. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by Barsteward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Your sarcasm detector appears to be broken.

      i've got a patent on the sarcasm detector so he'll owe me if he uses it

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    11. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    12. Re:Patents and circles of knowledge by Arterion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The code does nothing but sit.

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

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
  5. Interesting Idea... by blcamp · · Score: 3, Funny

    But I can't see this as any more useful than trying to get everyone to boycott gas stations for a day.

    Still, perhaps I can get a patent on this, before Jeff Bezos or some other bozo starts filling out those forms, yet again...

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
  6. Awesome by JeremyBanks · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's also my birthday! Yay!

  7. Preventing more software patents by kraemate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  8. My support by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am supporting this by not utilizing any patented items today. Well, except for this computer, its software, all the hardware and protocols between my computer and the Slashdot server, software running on the Slashdot server, the action of clicking a virtual button with a mouse to preview a information to be submitted to a server.

    Addendum: the clicking of a "Continue Editing" button to correct information that is to be submitted to a server after first previewing said information.

    Addendum: the clicking of a "Preview" button to preview newly edited information.

    Addendum: the clicking of a "Submit" button to send information to a server.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  9. Please go away. by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:Please go away. by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      Not 8000 years, but patents have been around for 2000. The Romans had patents, and I don't think innovation has really dragged since then.

      Also, while software needs a good look, there are many good reasons for patents as an alternative to trade secrets. For one, it allows innovation by requiring public disclosure of the idea, and for two, it makes the idea pass into the public domain after a limited time. Neither of these apply to trade secrets, which is what we'd get if we abolish patents.

  10. Arggg! by davidwr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just last week we had talk like a software pirate day.

    Oh wait, that was the other kind of pirate.

    Nevermind.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  11. Announcements by iJusten · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why do these announcements always have to be made when the announced day is nearly over? It's 21:50 on 24th at Japan, and 15:40 at Eastern Europe (eg. Finland, where I'm at). My day is nearly over, closing the computer and leaving to home to do chores. I never hear of these "World Days" until I'm leaving work (at soonest, usually only on the following day).

    --
    Chronologically late.
  12. WTF? Are you missing fingers or something? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    What is the deal with all these base-7 solutions?

    When I was a kid, I had a friend who only had 7 fingers, but his hands were deformed. Is that the case with you "14 year limit" guys too?

  13. Or, better known as.... by n122vu · · Score: 4, Funny

    International Talk Like a Software Pirate Day....

  14. Patent abuse goes beyond software by joekrahn · · Score: 2

    Patents in general are a good thing to protect inventions. The big problem is that the definition of "invention" has been expanded to include just about anything. Many software patents cover things that should not be patentable because they are obvious or have plenty of "prior art" examples. Patents are even being used to cover gene sequences that have been around for hundreds of years, are are really discoveries and nothing close to being an invention. The main problem with software is that it is hard to define just what is patentable, especially since the lawyers have no clue about what should qualify as an invention.