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.'"

12 of 155 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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!
  5. 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"
  6. 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.
  7. Or, better known as.... by n122vu · · Score: 4, Funny

    International Talk Like a Software Pirate Day....