German High Court Declares All Software Patentable

FlorianMueller writes "Long gone are the times when Europe was that bastion of resistance against software patents and patents on such things as file systems were ruled invalid. In a decision published today, the Federal Court of Justice of Germany upheld a patent on the automatic generation of structured documents (such as XML/HTML) in a client-server setting. The ruling lays out general principles that go beyond the patent at stake: they tear down all barriers to software patentability in the largest EU member state, even though a European patent treaty has been adopted that was intended to exclude software from the scope of patentable subject matter. EU patent examiners recently warned against a drift toward software patents. Software patent critics in Europe fear this will spark more litigation on their continent and increasingly call for defensive measures."

Comments

Is it possible

[xednieht]

To patent a Wiener Schnitzel?

Re:Is it possible

[jedidiah]

Just you wait...

        A recipe is just another form of algorithm.

Re:Is it possible

[jo42]

I hold the patent on stupidity. You all owe me licensing fees!

Re:Is it possible

[WrongSizeGlass]

To patent a Wiener Schnitzel?

You should ask the German patent attorneys, because they're the only ones who are going to benefit from this. I think I'm going to load this data into the Google Predictionometer and see if there's gonna be a showdown between Germany and the EU over this matter.

Re:Is it possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded "insightful"? "Wiener Schnitzel" is an Austrian dish, not a German on.

Re:Is it possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody would patent recipes.

The reason Coca-Cola hasn't patented their recipe is because they would only get 20 or so years of protection, then everyone could make it and there's nothing they could do about it.

Trade secret laws are much better for them.

Re:Is it possible

[jedidiah]

When has prior art stopped a patent office before? I might expect the Germans to be
a little more sensible about things but they already ran off the rails here already.

They're already in WTF territory...

Re:Is it possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Just you wait...

        A recipe is just another form of algorithm.

American nuclear launch codes are really the coca cola recipe, that's why nobody knows them

Re:Is it possible

[jimboindeutchland]

It probably is, however, it might already be patented in Austria since that's where the Wiener Schnitzel was invented. Also the Wiener sausage.

Wien is the capital of Austria. It's called Vienna in English.

Re:Is it possible

[AHuxley]

Recalling Boris Floricic "Tron" and Karl Koch "hagbard", Germany was more creative when it came to software issues.

Re:Is it possible

[V!NCENT]

Ehm... http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/05/15/0111220/Amiga-Demonstration-Helps-Win-Against-Patent-Troll?from=rss

Re:Is it possible

[Opportunist]

Not quite, but almost. From the Wikipedia article about it:

"In Austria, the term Wiener Schnitzel is protected by law, and any schnitzel called by that name has to be made from veal."

While not a patent per se, there are certain things called by a certain region or town that either have to be made in this town or by some specific process. You cannot really get any Champagne in Europe that wasn't made in the region of Champagne. But this is essentially more due to the PDO regulation rather than a patent itself.

Re:Is it possible

[Theaetetus]

I think I'm going to load this data into the Google Predictionometer and see if there's gonna be a showdown between Germany and the EU over this matter.

Highly unlikely... Contrary to what many Slashdot people will say, the EU does not ban software patents - their law is the same as US law, and now the same as German law, in that software per se is unpatentable, but software tied to a computing device is patentable. The distinction lies in that the former can be done by a person with a pad and pencil or even in their head, and we don't want to make it possible to infringe a patent by thinking, while the latter requires a machine and thus, it's impossible for a person to infringe by merely thinking.

Re:Is it possible

[c 0xFF]

If drug manufacturers can patent the process to make a new drug, why can't a food manufacturer patent the process used to make food?

Not that a recipe would qualify, but I'm sure they can come up with something significant, like a new baking process to reduce fat.

Of course, I'm only an expert on food consumption, not manufacturing ... so maybe this is already being done. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Re:Is it possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Wien is in Austria, you moron.

Re:Is it possible

[KDR_11k]

They can but as pointed out, patents have limited duration while trade secrets go forever. I suppose some of the more difficult additives are patented though.

Re:Is it possible

[Mindcontrolled]

Yep, this is a PDO matter and a such part of trademark law. It would technically be possible to patent a Schnitzel, too, if it was invented now. Food and beverages are not excluded from patent protection.

Re:Is it possible

[Runaway1956]

Hell, I thought it was a dog! Wiener dog, wienerschnitzel, dachshound - a dog is a dog is a dog, right? And, a dog by any other name would still sniff assholes.

Re:Is it possible

[prefec2]

The Austrians would claim prior art, as it is their invention. However, the German Patent Office might not know that and patent it anyway. To be on the save side call it Vienna Schnitzels.

Re:Is it possible

[Elektroschock]

You mean the two "suicided" hacker. Tiananmen 1989 shows China was more creative than Germany. Still the Chinese followed the German solution.

Re:Is it possible

[aix tom]

Well, there is still hope that it is overturned in the end.

I'm German and I have just read the whole shebang just now. Basically:

It was originally thrown out in the lower court because of "That's software, it's not patentable".

But there is a clause in the law that Software is patentable if "It solves a specific technical problem in a specific way". Now they argued that their patent does this.

They seem to propose a system where "normal" scripting languages can switch over to a reduced feature fall-back solution when there are not enough system resources available on a system to run the full scripting environment.

The High Court now ruled that this is a patentable solution to a specific technical problem.

The further check if there is prior art to this, or if there was any "inventive activity" going on (which would also be required for it to be valid) was given back to the lower court.

Still a step in the wrong direction, though.

Re:Is it possible

[FatdogHaiku]

Just you wait...

A recipe is just another form of algorithm.

American nuclear launch codes are really the coca cola recipe, that's why nobody knows them

Are you telling me that G.W. Bush had the power to TOTALLY DESTROY Coca-Cola as we know it?
Oh, wait... Coke already did that once...

Re:Is it possible

[jedidiah]

Clearly you need to be acquainted with folks like Heston Blumenthal and the whole "molecular gastronomy" thing.

Some chefs are already waaay out there...

Re:Is it possible

[Elektroschock]

Yes, and unlike the FRG the Austrian Republic is no part of Germany.*lol* Maybe then the Imperial Crown should be sent to Berlin? Would you say Vienna was no German city?

Re:Is it possible

[Elektroschock]

It is called Geographical Indications. Thanks to ACTA you will soon have it protected in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. too.

Re:Is it possible

[dgatwood]

It's pretty much a given that there's prior art. It's a patent on a server dynamically generating markup. They filed a patent in 2002 for what amounts to a basic template-driven C-based CGI script similar to the ones I and thousands of other people were writing way back in the 1990s.

Now granted, I couldn't find any online way to view the full patent text, so there might be something more to it, but from the way the ruling describes it, I'd be surprised if nobody else had done something similar more than a decade before that patent application.

Heck, if the court's interpretation of what the patent covers is correct, the patent would be violated by Gopher/WAIS. The ANSI standard behind that dates back to the 1970s.

This patent is beyond laughable.

Re:Is it possible

[dgatwood]

They seem to propose a system where "normal" scripting languages can switch over to a reduced feature fall-back solution when there are not enough system resources available on a system to run the full scripting environment.

How did you get that out of this:

(A) the at least one host computer mikrocontrollerbasierten
carried out,
(1.1) is limited in its resources and
(1.2) communicates with a client,
(2) with the following steps:
(2.1) of the client request data is received at the master computer,
(2.2) from the request data, request parameters are extracted,
(2.3) the request parameters are mapped by a control module to a command interface module of a master computer,
(2.3.1) where the interface module's software architecture-specific,
(2.4) the structured document is generated dynamically
(2.4.1) using at least one presentation document contained calls to staff members,,
(2.5) while the employee instructions are extracted by the interface module and mapped to a corresponding instruction set of the interface module,
(2.5.1) where the instruction is limited to a section of employees,
(2.6) the instructions
(2.6.1) are executed with the assistance of the depicted request parameters in a runtime environment of the control module and
(2.6.2) define the content after the execution and / or structure of the structured document
(2.7), the dynamically generated structured document is transmitted to the client.

I read that as being basic CGi with authentication and validation.... Of course, it doesn't help that the actual text of the patent does not appear to be available online anywhere.

Re:Is it possible

[lgw]

To use Coke as an example, the Coke formula isn't much of a secret, and was probably known less than 17 years after it stabilized. The Coke formula is of no real commercial value, as making a product exaclty like Coke, but without the power of the branding, doesn't really get you anywhere.

Patent protection would be valuable to a smaller company trying to build a brand around an interesting new taste, to prevent a hugh competitor from simply copying them and flooding the market. Trade secrets wouldn't really help here - it's too easy these days to "reverse engineer" a drink, or for a secret to leak.

Re:Is it possible

[lgw]

I work with patents at my software company. The US patent office is currently discouraging pure-software patents somewhat. That just means that one patents a "system that does X" instead of a "method for doing X". A patent for a computing device running an algorithm is no different in effect from a patent on the algorithm itself, though I'm sure it makes the purists feel better.

Re:Is it possible

[aix tom]

Basically because it looks exactly like any other CGI process, aside from the "(1.1) is limited in its resources and..."

So I assumed that was the part they try to patent.

Re:Is it possible

[gnupun]

I hold the patent on stupidity.

Software patents are stupid, eh? Let's take a car analogy. Before software was widely used, the http://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Engine_control_unit/Engine Control Unit (ECU) mechanism (algorithm) to control ignition, air and fuel mixture was implemented using patented mechanical and pneumatic sensors and actuators. Nowadays, ECUs are implemented using software and CPUs. Can you tell me why the mechanical ECU should be patentable, but the software ECU not? Calling the software ECU unpatentable is stupid, IMO.

Re:Is it possible

[Theaetetus]

I work with patents at my software company. The US patent office is currently discouraging pure-software patents somewhat. That just means that one patents a "system that does X" instead of a "method for doing X". A patent for a computing device running an algorithm is no different in effect from a patent on the algorithm itself, though I'm sure it makes the purists feel better.

No, there's a difference, and I alluded to it in my post - patenting an algorithm means that it is possible to infringe the algorithm by thinking. Even reading the patent may cause someone to come up with a hypothetical example in their head, and BAM, they infringe. That's not good.
On the other hand, patent a system comprising hardware that's configured to perform the algorithm, and no one can infringe accidentally. Similarly, patent the method of the algorithm, where steps are performed by hardware elements, and again, no one can infringe in their head. That's what the CAFC was saying, and what they repeated in the recent GPS case.
I prosecute software patents and have several allowed or issued method patents. Some have been rejected under Bilski and by either argument or amendment, I've gotten around it. Software is absolutely patentable, provided it's not just the algorithm itself.

Re:Is it possible

[rkit]

It is unknown whether the Wiener Schnitzel was invented in Vienna or originates from a similar dish from northern Italy.

Re:Is it possible

[deck]

Your ECU example is not an example of a software patent but an example of a system patent that employes software. The use of software in a control system is so old that it is probably not patentable on its own. Forty years ago software was used in control systems but it was not practical to implement it for the standard automobile. I would bet that there were test engines run by mini-computers of the time.

There are many examples that show what are bad software patents. The recent Redhat/Novell case which invalidated iPi's patents show some of the absurdity of software patents. HPs recent patent on number order that is a mathematical process that has been done for nearly a century, why is it patentable when done in software and not on a yellow pad of paper? There have even been a case or two of patents for software methods that have been taught for decades.

Re:Is it possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Recipes have long been patentable; going back in the US to the first Patent Act (1793), wherein process were deemed patentable subject matter. The categorization of 'recipe' under 'process' isn't new or shocking to those learned in patent law (as a JD student focusing on patent law, I can attest to this).

The reason recipes aren't commonly patented is the prior art. Even more so, that the examiners at the USPTO are good at finding prior art on recipes. Software, on the other hand, is more recent and is harder for the PTO to search because most examiners lack the degree of personal knowledge that drives them to search for prior art in software (compared to food recipes). Having interned at the USPTO as an examiner, I can say that computer science and software was not considered to be an individual field, but merely and extension of true engineering field (i.e. AutoCAD is mechanical engineering, not software).

Posting AC because any more info would get me in trouble with my future employers.

Re:Is it possible

[Thinboy00]

a product exaclty like Coke

You mean Pepsi? *ducks*

Re:Is it possible

[gnupun]

The use of software in a control system is so old that it is probably not patentable on its own.

You fail to grasp the core abstract argument: the algorithm (mechanism) for engine control using mechanical means is patentable. Then why is engine control using software not patentable since the concepts are the same?

I'm trying to express that all inventions are algorithms at their core. They use a network of components that work step-by-step, like an algorithm, to achieve the desired result.

Think of C, C++, VHDL, Verilog, mechanical components as various programming languages and platforms. You call software inventions algorithms, electronic inventions state machines and mechanical inventions mechanisms. But in essence they are all the same, i.e., subroutines, state machines and mechanical machines are all implementation of mathematical algorithms. The algorithm spec of a car engine is:

engine( input: fuel, air, ignition ) --> (output: crankshaft_rotation, exhaust)

Since the function and behavior of an engine can be represented mathematically, why was the engine granted a patent when it was created, since math is not patentable?

Re:Is it possible

[turgid]

No, but Coca-Cola has the power to totally destroy your teeth as we know them. Never mind, you can replace them with comedy wind-up chattering teeth. With feet. And switch to Pepsi.

Re:Is it possible

[eggnoglatte]

It is most definitely not patented - any patent would have expired a long time ago.

You are confusing patents with geographical trademarks - rules such as "only sparkling wine from the champagne region can be called 'Champagne' ". Also, the concept of geographical trademarks is only is accepted in the EU but not in North America. Here you can call your sparkling wine "Champagne", independent of where it comes from. And you can definitely call your breaded pork or veal steak a Wiener Schnitzel.

Re:Is it possible

[metacell]

Since the function and behavior of an engine can be represented mathematically, why was the engine granted a patent when it was created, since math is not patentable?

Presumably, because it is not the function and behaviour of an engine that's patented, but the specific method to achieve that function and behaviour (what parts are used, what materials they consist of, how they are put together, etc).

IMO, it's not obvious how you use mechanical parts to, say, increase the fuel injection by 3% for every degree below optimum temperature of the motor. There must be a number of non-obvious ways to do it using different mechanical parts and different materials.

But it IS obvious how to do the same thing in software. You can do it with a formula, with a series of if-then statements, with a switch statement, with a table, or some other programming construct, but all these methods are obvious once you've defined the problem. This is an example of why software patents are far too broad - granting a patent on the program would effectively grant a patent on the process of decreasing fuel injection by 3% for every degree below optimum itself - since any programming construct that does this is obvious from the others.

Re:Is it possible

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, patent a system comprising hardware that's configured to perform the algorithm, and no one can infringe accidentally.

Correction: Only programmers can infringe accidentally. Many people on slashdot program not only for money, but for fun. However, while programmers are by law expected to avoid infringing patents, even near-obvious patents that they are quite likely to infringe by accident, practically no programmer reads patents since 1) patents are written in impenetrable legalese, and 2) there are more productive ways to learn new ideas from open source code, industry and academic publications.

Re:Is it possible

[Mindcontrolled]

The court did not decide on novelty and obviousness, only on general patentability of the subject. The decision on novelty/obviousness is still to be made. The case has been send back to the next lower court, the Federal Patent Court, for that decision.

Re:Is it possible

[gnupun]

Since the function and behavior of an engine can be represented mathematically, why was the engine granted a patent when it was created, since math is not patentable?

Presumably, because it is not the function and behaviour of an engine that's patented, but the specific method to achieve that function and behaviour (what parts are used, what materials they consist of, how they are put together, etc).

Wrong, you are describing a copyrighted engine, which is quite easy for a competitor to clone without breaking the law, which is why inventors seek patents. A patented engine is much broader than a copyrighted engine. So, it wouldn't matter what cylinder arrangement you used, what the method of fuel injection is used, what parts you used. If you were to use ANY of the below, you would be infringing:

• fuel and air, ignited by some means
• a cylinder where fuel is ignited to generate energy
• a crank shaft to output energy to the transmission

IMO, it's not obvious how you use mechanical parts to, say, increase the fuel injection by 3% for every degree below optimum temperature of the motor. There must be a number of non-obvious ways to do it using different mechanical parts and different materials.

Yes, but such an invention still depends and infringes on the original engine patent, which must be licensed if not expired.

But it IS obvious how to do the same thing in software. You can do it with a formula, with a series of if-then statements, with a switch statement, with a table, or some other programming construct, but all these methods are obvious once you've defined the problem.

If it were so obvious and easy, software tools and algorithms would have long ago reached a state of perfection/saturation and you would see no more change, except perhaps graphics style in today's products, and programmers would be out of jobs. But that is not case, newer products are usually more innovative than the previous ones. Therefore, your statement that all software is obvious and easy is false.

While individual software statements like if-then and assignment are easy, the large, patentable concepts connecting thousands of such statements together is neither easy, nor obvious.

Re:Is it possible

[metacell]

Wrong, you are describing a copyrighted engine, which is quite easy for a competitor to clone without breaking the law, which is why inventors seek patents. A patented engine is much broader than a copyrighted engine.

You can't copyright an engine. You can only copyright artistic works, like books, movies or paintings.

Yes, but such an invention still depends and infringes on the original engine patent, which must be licensed if not expired.

You mean it is actually possible to patent something like "the method of increasing performance by increasing fuel injection by 3% for every degree below optimum temperature"? I wasn't aware of that. If that is true, I think ordinary patents have already become too broad and general.

Therefore, your statement that all software is obvious and easy is false.

No, all software is not obvious and easy. But very little of it is creative; most programming consists of applying known solutions to new situations. It requires intelligence and hard work, I don't deny that, but it rarely involves coming up with something genuinely new.

Re:Is it possible

[metacell]

(continued) For example, looking at the source code of the competitor's program, usually won't help you much in writing your own. Most of the work lies in formulating your design clearly and implementing it in code, not in coming up with ideas. If an employee runs off with your ideas and starts their own firm, they still have 95% of the work ahead of them before they catch up.

The exception to this is when someone actually comes up with a genuinely new algorithm, like a new sorting algorithm. However, that kind of work is mostly done at universities, by salaried researchers, so patents are not needed as an economic incentive to do research.

Re:Is it possible

[gnupun]

You can't copyright an engine. You can only copyright artistic works, like books, movies or paintings.

Wrong again, any creative work can be copyrighted. Or are you one of those soulless corporate drones who thinks technical work is only performed to satisfy customer needs and earn a paycheck, but not creative?

No, all software is not obvious and easy. But very little of it is creative;

And those little creative bits are mighty important to the success of any product, so as to need patent protection from predatory competitors who want to piggyback profits off someone else's hard work.

Re:Is it possible

[KlaymenDK]

A number of such things are unknown ... what is called a "danish" in English is called a "Wiener bread" in Danish, but "Copenhagen pastry" in German. Confused? Have a wiener!

Re:Is it possible

[metacell]

No, copyright is only applicable to artistic expressions (like books, movies, plays, musical scores, sculptures, architecture, and, oddly enough, computer programs). Inventions, no matter how creative they are, are covered by patents, not copyright.

Re:Is it possible

[metacell]

Btw, where did you get the idea that an inventions (like an engine) can be copyrighted? Are you thinking of pattern protections?

Hello World

[Spazztastic]

Time to go patent "Hello World" and get rich!

Re:Hello World

[mcvos]

I think there's some established prior art there.

As for the automatic generation of structured documents, isn't there also tons of prior art there? How old is that patent? Isn't source code structured? Automatic code generation is quite ancient.

Re:Hello World

[dkleinsc]

Or alternately, one step closer to this scenario.

Re:Hello World

[TheKidWho]

Well, "Hello World" happens to be one of the very first programs ever made and has plenty of prior art.

IMHO one of the biggest problems with the patent system in regards to software and biomedical products is that those two areas of the industry are incredibly new, so many obvious/trivial advancements are patented right away. Give it some time when many of the obvious software patents and biomedical patents have entered the public domain and the system will work much better as it does for mechanical devices.

Re:Hello World

[Anonymous Coward]

Youre too late..... I've had

#include

main()
{
                printf("hallo welt!");
}

copyrighted since i helped a friend discover programming

Re:Hello World

[Bakkster]

Well, "Hello World" happens to be one of the very first programs ever made and has plenty of prior art.

That's never stopped patent offices from awarding a patent anyway.

Re:Hello World

[KDR_11k]

Patents are supposed to cover implementations, not concepts so it wouldn't cover ALL automatic generation of structured documents, just a specific kind.

Re:Hello World

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there's some established prior art there.

Like that's stopped patents before? FFS, you can patent THE WHEEL!

Re:Hello World

[Sique]

In this case it was about a special method to generate code on the fly for a computing limited device. Not the automatic code generation itself was patented, but a method to use scripts inside documents on a device whose processing capabilities didn't allow the installation of a full fledged script interpreter stack.

Re:Hello World

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> Isn't source code structured? Automatic code generation is quite ancient.

Yeh, but this patent is on doing that on a *limited resource* computer.

Code generation might be decades old, but do you really think anyone thought of doing code generation on a computer with less then 2Gb of RAM and less than a 1Ghz processor in the 70s or 80s?

Hat's off to Siemens for this stroke of genius.

Re:Hello World

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad that's invalid C.
I feel sorry for your friend.

Re:Hello World

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Ummm, "Hello World" is not even close to being in the category of one of the very first programs ever made. At least not by straight chronological measure.

Re:Hello World

[russotto]

Ummm, "Hello World" is not even close to being in the category of one of the very first programs ever made. At least not by straight chronological measure.

Murphy's law says the very first program either crashed the machine immediately, or went into a tight infinite loop with no output.

Re:Hello World

[AndrewBC]

Ada Lovelace disagrees.

Re:Hello World

[mcvos]

Yeh, but this patent is on doing that on a *limited resource* computer.

Code generation might be decades old, but do you really think anyone thought of doing code generation on a computer with less then 2Gb of RAM and less than a 1Ghz processor in the 70s or 80s?

Nice way of putting that in perspective.

Re:Hello World

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. So for a small fee of 100,000 dollars worth of lawyers fees, someone can go challenge that Hello World patent to hopefully get it overturned later on!

Re:Hello World

[Therefore I am]

Let Germany do as it likes. The only sure thing in all this is that the weight of lawyers feeding at the trough will drag the whole world-wide patent systems down. It is only a matter of time!

Re:Hello World

[walshy007]

and the implementation is already protected by copyright, so really this is just lawyers being lawyers and looking after their own.

Re:Hello World

[tuomoks]

Hmm - I was scripting in a 1MIPS / 16MB / IBM 158-3 / MVS in mid-70's running 2000+ online users with no problems? Maybe not all systems were equal? And automatic code generation, straight from definitions and from/to source control system? Done all the time by 100+ developers, some online, some in batch? Something else is new? Less than 2Gb RAM, definitely, slower than 1GHz, most definitely but I digress and keep using my 3GB / 2.2Ghz dual laptop alone, probably wouldn't support more users today?

Re:Hello World

[metacell]

I'm pretty sure the parent was being ironic, so please mod him (her?) +1 Funny :)

Noooooooo !

[Yvanhoe]

There goes the possibility for small innovative company to develop in a safe legal framework. Let me phrase my sentiment, on behalf of all my European colleagues, and in the immortal words of Spider Jerusalem : FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

Re:Noooooooo !

[Anonymous Coward]

There goes the possibility for small innovative company to develop in a safe legal framework. Let me phrase my sentiment, on behalf of all my European colleagues, and in the immortal words of Spider Jerusalem : FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

I'm sorry, the repeated use of the word fuck in a series has been Patented.

Re:Noooooooo !

[lorenlal]

I'm sorry, I patented the use of "I'm sorry, I patented [something]."

That meme will now cease to be unless you send me $1 for each invocation. I accept Paypal.

Re:Noooooooo !

[Anonymous Coward]

There goes the possibility for small innovative company to develop in a safe legal framework.

Good. That is exactly the goal. Patents are designed to protect the RnD investment of large wealthy businesses. The "it protects the little guy" notion was just a means of silencing the opposition. Patents only protect little guys in theory. In practice the little guys don't have enough money to litigate in defense of their patents, and wind up losing them anyway.

Re:Noooooooo !

[TheKidWho]

Exactly, when the patent process was started, all the politicians could think about were sucking on the teet of the large corporations.

Re:Noooooooo !

[V!NCENT]

I am sorry, I patented the patent trolling. I owe you nothing. You may now transfer all of your patents as a license fee, or stop engaging in patent trolling activity.

Re:Noooooooo !

[V!NCENT]

"Patents are designed to protect the RnD investment of large wealthy businesses."
And not useless patents with obvious prior art that wasn't the result of RnD investments.

Re:Noooooooo !

[Pinky's Brain]

Small inventors who want to work on stuff they can't bring to market by themselves do benefit, because without patents it's very hard for them to get money together in secrecy to get a lead on the market. That said, the damage it does to small (software) engineering companies by making any little project they do trip over a dozen of patents means it still is not worth it.

As for big companies, they might benefit from being able to throw up barriers to entry ... but slowly but surely it's becoming apparent that "it protects the big guys" was just a way the lawyers used to sell it to the big companies. Being able to throw up patent walls doesn't protect you from being bled dry by patent trolls.

In the end there is only one group who benefits from patents and suffers no negative results ... lawyers.

Re:Noooooooo !

[Theaetetus]

Exactly, when the patent process was started, all the politicians could think about were sucking on the teet of the large corporations.

Are you talking about the patent process in the US, which started in 1790, or the patent process in the world, which started in 500 BC?

Re:Noooooooo !

[Opportunist]

Then fork over my share. I patented patenting.

Re:Noooooooo !

[TheKidWho]

Would it make a difference in regards to my sarcastic remark?

Re:Noooooooo !

[Theaetetus]

Apparently not. :)

Re:Noooooooo !

[gringer]

Small inventors who want to work on stuff they can't bring to market by themselves do benefit, because without patents it's very hard for them to get money together in secrecy to get a lead on the market

And without money, it's very hard for them to defend their patents in court, especially with all these other big companies claiming a patent on the same thing.

Re:Noooooooo !

[zach_the_lizard]

Yeah, darn that competition! How dare they implement the same concept as me! They oughtta be in jail!

Re:Noooooooo !

[TubeSteak]

In the end there is only one group who benefits from patents and suffers no negative results ... lawyers.

Yea, fuck those lawyers!
The days when justice was arbitrary and capricious worked out a lot better for me.
I mean, the Lord took my daughter as his mistress, so I had his favor.

Ahhh, the patent free life of a serf.
Those were the days.

Re:Noooooooo !

[melikamp]

Proprietary software vendors do stand to benefit from software patents if they can make (as they currently hope) things like GNU/Linux illegal to distribute without a license fee. IMHO, this is THE reason why software patents are in such vogue right now, as they are the last hope of a scoundrel who failed in the free market simply because he couldn't produce a product that's anywhere as good as the free software.

Re:Noooooooo !

[gnupun]

The "it protects the little guy" notion was just a means of silencing the opposition. Patents only protect little guys in theory. In practice the little guys don't have enough money to litigate in defense of their patents, and wind up losing them anyway.

Not sure if that's 100% true. Several attorneys will work for free, provided they get a percentage of the settlement if they sue and win against the infringing party. If there's money to be made, no smart attorney will refuse to handle the case.

Re:Noooooooo !

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the existence of large corporations to have teats to suck would make a great difference in how your sarcastic remark is grounded. But it hardly matters as it won't be true enough to be truly sarcastic in either case.

Re:Noooooooo !

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be illegal for a member of a profession to judge over an issue forcing the rest of the society to benefit the said profession. As software patents are clearly such an issue providing significant benefit for the colleagues of the judges and the judges themselves, they should have recused themselves in accordance of common professional ethics. Patentability of software should be a political decision as the act of patenting software is as meaningful as patenting an architecture of a house, a painting, a poem or, ironically, a piece legislation.

Re:Noooooooo !

[Pinky's Brain]

Nah, just the patent lawyers.

Re:Noooooooo !

[Pinky's Brain]

There's always ambulance chasers like Intellectual Ventures ... they will of course take a huge percentage, but that just goes back to lawyers being the only ones coming out purely ahead in this game.

Re:Noooooooo !

[Pinky's Brain]

The patent legal industry does have the habit of pushing it's opinion on patent legislation while pretending to be impartial ... which is either evil or extremely naive.

What is especially grating is that they then turn around and tell engineers they aren't allowed to judge obviousness because they are biased by hindsight (and thus we have to use lawyer written "tests" which just pervert the meaning of the word and turns obviousness into a question of prior art).

Re:Noooooooo !

[Opportunist]

I write about patenting patenting and get modded redundant. I want to mod that mod funny, any way to do that?

Re:Noooooooo !

[melikamp]

You got modded redundant because I already patented patenting patenting, as a part of my patent portfolio which includes, among other things, the patent for

<patent> ::= "patenting" | "patenting " <patent>

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

*this* will make the outcome of In Re Bilski (which apparently isn't actually cited that way) even more interesting...

Show me the software!

[filesiteguy]

This patent idea is so ridiculus.

IMO, something patentable is a thing. I can see a pair of new-design siccors. I can understand a gene or even biotech seed. But software is not a thing. It doesn't exist.

#include<stdio.h>

main()
{
        printf("Hello Kai");
}

That is written. It is not a patenable process. Unless a (patented) processor interprests the code, it is only words.

Is it copyrightable? Yes.

If you make

Re:Show me the software!

[Snarf You]

If you make

I think you

Re:Show me the software!

[cpghost]

Is it copyrightable? Yes.

Isn't such a small "Hello Kai" too small to be copyrightable at all? Try to copyright a simple sentence a la "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." You'll notice that what constitutes a copyrightable work isn't so straightforward as one may naively think (and it varies greatly from legislation to legislation, despite the Bern Convention).

Re:Show me the software!

[V!NCENT]

Did you two both just accidentaly the whole thing?

Re:Show me the software!

[characterZer0]

I do not think length matters. Take David McCord's poem "Epitaph on a Waiter". The poem is shorter than its title.

Re:Show me the software!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the sentence can be trademarked.

Re:Show me the software!

[filesiteguy]

Well, the point wasn't that *my* example "hello world" code could be copyrighted. However, a standard program, with several hundred thousand lines of code, could be copyrighted.

The point was that it is text and that it isn't something tangible other than the media upon which the text is being held. Even if you break it down into machine code, it is still text.

Re:Show me the software!

[Bakkster]

This patent idea is so ridiculus. IMO, something patentable is a thing. I can see a pair of new-design siccors. I can understand a gene or even biotech seed. But software is not a thing. It doesn't exist.

Your definition is, unfortunately, different then from the general term. Processes have almost always been patentable, and aren't, themselves, 'things'.

The only difference then is if the process outputs something tangible (production process, gene patents) or not (algorithms, software).

Personally, I don't think software patents are any more 'broken' than other patents. I just think that when the patent office grants a ridiculous software patent, it's more egregious than a ridiculous device patent. It seems we'd be better fixing the process for awarding patents, rather than throwing away entire classes of patentable ideas just because they are ridiculous when broken.

Re:Show me the software!

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it rather amusing that on slashdot of all places people seem to be too incompetent to write valid C.

main() is invalid. it must be int main().

Re:Show me the software!

[shutdown -p now]

I find it rather amusing that on slashdot of all places people seem to be too incompetent to write valid C.

main() is invalid. it must be int main().

I find it rather amusing that, on Slashdot of all places, a person blaming someone else of being "incompetent to write valid C" is himself incompetent.

ISO C90 (aka ANSI C89) is still "valid C", and still permits implicit int for all variable and function declarations. So "main()", or "auto x" or "const x" are all valid declarations. This was only restricted in C99 (well, and C++, but this isn't particularly relevant).

Re:Show me the software!

[lgw]

You can always patent "a system for saying hello to the world" in which you describe a computer which runs the HelloWorld software. Now a tangible thing has been patented (but nothing important has been gained, in terms of a small company's freedom to operate). BTW, most software patents do this: they patent a computer running the software in addition to (or sometimes instead of) the software itself.

Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

The difference between a software patent and a
hardware patent is the addition of the following
phrase in the patent text: "A hardware appliance
comprising of a CPU and volatile or non-volatile
storage, and..."

Which all patent documents to do with software
will have anyway because it saves them having to
draft the text over for each jurisdiction.

So this whole anti-patent-software picketing is by
people that don't read patents nor understand the
patent system.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[cbiltcliffe]

So that means if I sell software, without any hardware with it, then I'm not infringing on _any_ software patents, right?

The users might be, if they run said software on "a hardware appliance, comprising of a CPU, blahblah", but not the developer.

But then, why do pure software developers get sued, huh?

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

> So that means if I sell software, without any hardware with
> it, then I'm not infringing on _any_ software patents, right?

Yes you are infringing - even if the patent you are infringing
is an outright hardware patent and your software can never be
used on such hardware.

There is no definition of "software" anywhere within the patent
system. What you patent just has to have practical utility in
an "embodiment". For example, it can't be a math formula -
it has to be a math formula with a specific physical application.

The idea of software vs non-software is pure fiction invented
by slashdot readers and the like.

The patent system has different terms in different countries,
but the criteria of "having practical and specific utility"
more-or-less covers them all.

In particular, NO patent criteria mention "software" in any
patent jurisdiction in this solar system.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[Adrian Lopez]

So this whole anti-patent-software picketing is by people that don't read patents nor understand the patent system.

Adding software to a patented hardware device need not mean the software itself becomes patented. Similarly, adding software to an unpatented hardware device need not mean the combo is patentable. If software patents were clearly invalid, any judge worth his or her salt would refuse to grant a patent in either case.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

European Patent Convention Article 52:
"Article 52
Patentable inventions
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application.
(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.
(3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such."
http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/2000/e/ar52.html

Re:Does it make a difference

[sweatyboatman]

on snap!

Re:Does it make a difference

[robot256]

That, sir, is what we call a loophole in the interpretation of the law and it must be closed by changing patent law. Why is math any more patentable when you claim to execute it on a physical computing device than when you present it academically (i.e., executed on a human computing device)? The latter is legally non-patentable, so the former should be as well. This is the philosophical argument against software patents.

The only "process" involved in a software patent is the act of executing non-patentable mathematics on nonhuman computing hardware. However, the hardware itself was designed for the express purpose of executing mathematics, making the process neither novel nor nonobvious and thus non-patentable. This is what I believe to be the legal argument against software patents. IANAL, so please correct me if there is an error in my reasoning.

This legal argument has been ignored by patent offices and court systems alike. Only further clarification of patent law by legislative bodies will remedy the situation.

Re:Does it make a difference

[cbiltcliffe]

I realize what I said was stupid.
That was the point.

Maybe I should have included sarcasm tags.

The parent poster of my reply basically stated that all "software patents" include language stating that it includes "a hardware appliance".

If this was true, then no pure software developer could be sued for violating the patent, because what they sell does not include "a hardware device."

It's only the end user that could be sued, because they're running it on their computer hardware.

Obviously, this is not even remotely true, so the parent poster must be full of it.

That was my point.

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

Exactly my point. You are reading this incorrectly. It merely says
that inventions that are PURELY composed of "schemes, rules..."
are not patentable.

If they have a physical embodiment, then of course they are.

In any case the exclusion of the bold text does not change
anything. It is already covered by "rules and schemes" and
"mathematical mehods".

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

I understood perfectly the first time.

What you can and cannot get sued over is a completely
seperate discussion to what is acceptable for submission
to the EPO and USPTO.

In any case, the court will not exclude a suite a priori just
because there is a component of the invention that you
did not supply as part of the sale. And AGAIN this has
nothing to do with software vs hardware. You could be
selling a mathematical formula that is patented by an
appliance that does X ray tomography. You are still
violating the patent of the X rag machine.

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

Math is patentable the same way that software is patentable:
If there is a demonstrable physical embodiment. Like a device.

It is not about what should.

It is about the fact that it is *inevitable* that you can always spin
a patent as a physical device.

So there is no point in trying to wangle obtuse terminology to
exclude things that will always be patentable by another vehicle.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[cbiltcliffe]

So basically what you're saying is, if somebody patents the automobile, then nobody can sell wheels?

Sorry...that's bullshit, too.

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

Judges don't grant patents.

The USPTO and EPO grant patents based on the criteria
of it having an embodiment and being a useful thing (with
specific utility).

With or without software terminology exclusions, any
software program, math formula, or sequence of steps
can be patented if it has a specific physical utility.

To try "stop" this can only be done by also excluding
the kinds of things you would want inventors to be able to
get patent protection on.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

You don't sound like you have ever had experience trying
to acquire or defend a patent of ANY kind.

Whether you violate a patent or not can only be deduced
by analizing the complex terminology of the patent claim
text.

(You don't sound like you have ever read patent claims.)

If there is patent claim text that overlaps with what you are
doing, and a company that owns that claim perceives
damages then, yes, it is foreseeable that they could try
to sue you EVEN IF it is only one claim item.

Once again, this has nothing to do with whether this is
about software or hardware or both.

In actual fact, software patents do not mention
the word "software" or "computer program". They
explain methods and steps, as though they were
describing a mechanical icecream machine, etc.

So AGAIN the concept of the "software patent" is
purely a straw man, invented by you, so that you
can have something to shout about.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[Peaker]

You realize that even if the patent system makes no distinction between software and hardware patents, it still makes sense to yell about software patents, because giving patents on software is fucking stupid?

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

No, it makes sense to shut up, in order to avoid sounding fucking stupid.

Re:Does it make a difference

[naasking]

It merely says that inventions that are PURELY composed of "schemes, rules..." are not patentable.

Software is purely composed of schemes and rules. I'm sorry, but every comment you've made in this thread implies that you don't understand the mathematical underpinnings of software. Software is mathematics. Period. Full stop. U.S. patents on math and "abstract concepts" are specifically forbidden. A programming language is formal symbolic language in which mathematical theorems are written, which just happen to have a translation to a physical machine which can perform these operations for us. And yes, this description applies to C and C++ too.

If you want to patent a physical invention of which software forms a part, fine, as long as the physical component is sufficiently novel. You cannot patent the software algorithms themselves, and sticking "A hardware appliance comprising of a CPU and volatile or non-volatile storage, and..." does not circumvent that, because that CPU is a general purpose device that can run any specific type of software.

The fact that you have written software such that the CPU does what you want does not suddenly make that configuration patentable, because that hardware is just following a recipe, and abstract formula for achieving results from a set of inputs. In other words, that machine is just doing math for you.

Now you can talk about revising the patent criteria to include certain types of math, and that's a whole separate debate, but at least acknowledge it for what it is. Stop being coy and evasive. I'm speaking to all pro-software patent people here, not you specifically AbbeyRoad.

Re:Does it make a difference

[DamnStupidElf]

The question is whether existing patent law is fair as the number of inventors grows exponentially. I think there must be a fundamental relationship like patent_term * number_of_inventors = some_constant to avoid the situation where multiple simultaneous discoveries of new inventions result in unfair legal decisions against all but one of the inventors. Additionally, the size of current markets and the rapidity of R&D make 25 year patents seem like an anachronism. I'd say 1 to 5 years is appropriate now.

Reducing patent terms is probably about as easy as reducing the length of copyright terms (which is subject to similar arguments), and we've seen how well that worked out. Hence my hatred for patents and copyright in general. I don't care that I won't get sued for using mplayer or FAT32 with long file names; I hate that when I buy software or electronics I have to pay royalties to patent trolls who do absolutely nothing except sue useful companies, or put up with ancient technology because companies are afraid of patents. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" indeed.

Re:Does it make a difference

[robot256]

Unless I am mistaken, you are saying that the premise of the patent is that it will be implemented in hardware, but it would appear that the claims of the patent do not limit it to any particular hardware implementation. If I patent a "multi-level menu system with interactive icons and XML back-end," I can sue anyone using such a feature regardless of the actual algorithms, programming languages, or computing platforms they used to physically implement it. Obviously, not all software patents are this general, but certainly those which include nothing more than your disclaimer fall into this category. To wit, it would appear that one can patent "a device to peel vegetables" and then sue everyone who makes any kind of device that peels vegetables. I hope this analogy seems as absurd to you as it does to me, because it is the same absurdity I see in the majority of software patents.

The reason why people are so upset about the idea of software patents is really very simple. In a free society (where thought-crime is not a punishable offense), the *entire* patent system is incongruous with the freedom to think, invent and prosper. Software patents make this fact painfully obvious by the ease with which ideas can be invented and brought to fruition independently by many different people, used in (and perhaps critical to) a myriad different non-competing applications, and shared between projects and individuals more easily than any physical device. When you are afraid to even think of something and share it for fear of violating one of the many millions of software patents, you can hardly claim to be in the free society that so many of us strive to maintain.

And lastly, we wouldn't be here today if we all accepted what *is* and didn't think about what *should be*--pessimism will get you nowhere, pragmatism will only get you so far, and after that you have to change the world with your own two hands.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Adrian Lopez]

Judges don't grant patents.

I never said they did. What judges do is decide whether patents already granted are valid or invalid. If software patents were all invalid, the act of combining what is distinctly a piece of software with that which is distinctly hardware would not render the software aspect patentable. The notion that one must generally accept software patents so hardware patents remain valid is not supported by fact and assumes the people deciding on a patent's validity are too stupid to know the difference.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Adrian Lopez]

"Full of it" is right. AbbeyRoad is taking two concepts any programmer or engineer would generally recognize as separable -- software vs hardware -- and conflating them. Indeed, the fact that software and hardware are conceptually separable means they could also be legally separable. For AbbeyRoad to pretend otherwise is just his way of pushing a pro-software-patent argument while hoping you don't notice the trick.

Re:Does it make a difference

[lgw]

You
do
not
have
to
press
return
after
each
line
on
the
Internet.

Re:Does it make a difference

[lgw]

Sorry, I undestand that you want it to work that way, but it doesn't work that way.

For example (yay, car analogy!), if you invent a better method for deciding when an automatic transmission will shift into third gear while a car is on a steep hill, it doesn't matter whether the algorithm used is implemented in the purely mechanical bits of the transmission, or in the software controlling the transmission. Either way, you're patenting a recipe for deciding when to change gears, embodied in a gearbox and related parts.

Now, you might be able to argue that you'd be free to create a different embodyment of the software if it is patented as "software running on a computer" - for example, the same algorithim used by a room full of clerks following instructions, but the embodyment would need to pretty clearly be "not on a computer" for you to have good odds of that.

Re:Does it make a difference

[lgw]

What's the distinction between hardware and software in a Babbage engine? In an automatic transmission? In a very complex system that responds in complex ways based on dozens of inputs, but is still electromechanical?

It's only a specific computer architecture that seperates software cleanly from hardware. That architecture is popular because it allows for general-purpose computers that can run a variety of software, but it's certainly not to only way to embody an algorithm. "Hardware" vs "Software" is just a distraction. Patents that included algorithms have been around since the earliest days fo patents, and the algorithm is often the interesting part of the patent. The fact that algorithms can now implemented by a general-purpose device that can also implement other algorithms doesn't really change much.

Re:Does it make a difference

[naasking]

Assuming you want to allow patenting your analogy, then as I said, the debate shifts to classifying what types of mathematics are patentable. There is a clear contradiction in the stated principles of patent law, and I'm afraid there will be no resolution without clarifying precisely the terminology and limits.

As for my personal opinion, you got pretty close in your last paragraph, in that patents are supposed to be for a clear and narrow domain. A general software patent absent a specific application has an unacceptably broad scope, because software is math and necessarily highly abstract.

If it would settle this pointless debate, I would personally allow general software patents if they lasted 2-3 years thus properly reflecting the order of magnitude difference in cost of R&D for abstract ideas as compared to physical goods. But that's just me.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Adrian Lopez]

What's the distinction between hardware and software in a Babbage engine? In an automatic transmission? In a very complex system that responds in complex ways based on dozens of inputs, but is still electromechanical?

I don't deny there are cases where the hardware alone determines a device's behavior. What I'm arguing against is the notion that hardware and software must always be treated as part of an indivisible unit. The fact that we do have general purpose computers is enough to show that software and hardware are conceptually separable, and that's enough for the law to be able to them as separate in that context. Far from being a distraction, software vs hardware is a fundamental distinction in general-purpose computing, and software running on general-purpose computers is what most people have in mind when they argue against software patents. So while Babbage's Difference Engine would itself have been worthy of a patent, programs written for his later Analytical Engine would properly be seen as data to be processed by a patentable device.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it makes sense to shut up, in order to avoid sounding fucking stupid.

Yes, it does.

They explain methods and steps, as though they were describing a mechanical icecream machine, etc.

Which is patentable, however, programs for computers are clearly excluded patentable subject matter according to article 52 of the EPC.

Re:Does it make a difference

[walshy007]

I
keymapped
space
to
carriage
return
you
insensitive
clod.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

calm
down

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

I write C code for a living, and have been doing so for
15 years.

I am not suggesting any changes to the patent system.

I am explaining how patents CURRENTLY works to those who
clearly are vacent of such knowledge. Specifically, that
the patent system CURRENTLY is agnostic to concepts
like "software", and that even the addition of such exclusions
would not practically change what kind of patents can be
registered or defended.

On the other hand, YOU do not sound like you have
ever spent time reading software patents or trying
to register or defend a patent.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

The domain of patents is defined in patent law as something having
specific practical utility.

The PURPOSE of the invention makes it patentable, not HOW the
invention is implemented (i.e. software vs hardware).

The idea that the patent system can ever restrict patents based on
whether they are software/no-software math/not-math is a straw man
that the Free Software community invented.

Even PURE software patents (when you read them, which you clearly
have not) do not mention software. They explain the process as a
sequence of steps.

It is the novel sequence of steps that is patentable. It could be a
robotic bear dispensor or a computer that displays pictures of
bear. Software or hardware does not matter.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

No, please read above.

What is excluded are inventions that are purely software.

All patents currently in the patent system (if you read them) already
assume that a pure software patent is inadmissible and word their
invention as a physical device that proceeds through a sequence of
novel steps.

So the article that excludes software patents is inconcequential
to the defensibility of all past patents, and practically changes nothing
about future patents.

-paul

 

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

Software and hardware are conceptually seperable because it is
convenient, and there is no legal reason to make them conceptually
one.

Should a legal reason come about, I am sure YOU would quite
easily be able to come up with a device where the software
and hardware blur into each other.

Because it is so easy to do this, this is EXACTLY why the patent
system does not distinguish "software" "hardware" etc. It would
be to easy for engineers to work around the legal terminology.

Instead it has terminolgy "utility" "novel" "practical usefulness".

So your words actually proove my argument extremely well.

I.e. that it would be useless for the patent system ever to
distinguish between software and hardware.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

The idea of reducing patent terms is a legitimate one.

Probably one of the only sensible posts not made by me.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[AbbeyRoad]

Give me an example of a software patent that is absurd and we can look it up.

I think what you are saying is: software patents AS I HAPPENED TO HAVE SEEN
THEM EXPLAINED by people trying to spin that the patent system is unfair.

You need to read the ACTUAL patent, not some third-hand summary.

In some countries there is no patent office - you can submit any patent.

However in the EPO and USPTO they check for prior art quite extensively.

So you can't submit ideas that are trivial obvious or that have been done
before.

You can also only patent something that has specific utility. So if you "violate"
a patent, but it is in a completely different market space then this falls outside
of the scope of what is defensible.

So the circumstance you are imagining can't happen in practice.

The REASON why people get upset about the idea of software patents
is because they are swapping terminology, and don't understand how
the patent system works. I.e. straw man scare mongering.

Software patents are actually a MEANS for small inventors to get
protection. You WANT software patents. You have just been given
falacious information.

Very often I will see Free Software distributions say "we are
not going to ship this library because it violates patent XYZ".

Now who went down the road of deciding to ship or not ship
libraries. It was a scare-mongering Free Software biggot who
suddenly woke up one day and decided, for no reason, that
these patents where a threat, in order to have something to
picket about.

-paul

Re:Does it make a difference

[naasking]

The idea that the patent system can ever restrict patents based on whether they are software/no-software math/not-math is a straw man that the Free Software community invented.

No, it's not. It is specifically laid out in precedent set by the courts that abstract ideas and algorithms cannot be patented. Software written to run on general purpose computers falls under that category. I acknowledge that software designed to achieve a very narrow and specific purposes is marginally more palatable, but any algorithm running on a general purpose computer that is not tied specific hardware for a specific purpose is by definition too abstract to patent. This is a fundamental, logical contradiction. Pro-software patent people like to pretend otherwise.

They explain the process as a sequence of steps.

Since you allegedly have been writing C for 15 years, you should be aware that this is the very definition of an abstract algorithm, which is unpatentable.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after me:

Software is a proof, not a system.

Keep repeating that until you get it.

The general purpose computing hardware we all use is capable of doing all of the tasks we assign it to do. The software defining those tasks is nothing more than a mathematical proof that the hardware can do that task with repeatable results. We store it for repeated future use, in a form that requires us to do no further preparatory work (i.e. compiled binary form).

Hardware can be patented. That is what patents are for. Software cannot be patented because it only defines the logical steps that the hardware is already capable of. And that hardware is already patented. Software can't be patented because the hardware it runs on is prior art.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is math any more patentable when you claim to execute it on a physical computing device than when you present it academically (i.e., executed on a human computing device)? The latter is legally non-patentable, so the former should be as well. This is the philosophical argument against software patents.

OK, but then why is something patentable when done with simple automatons or when controlled with hardwired electric or electronic device, but not when controlled by computer system running program which simulates the same control automaton? In 18th and 19th century there were tons of patents that "mechanized" simple tools previously controlled by "human computing device". Your philosophical argument should apply there as well.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Adrian Lopez]

Software and hardware are conceptually seperable because it is convenient, and there is no legal reason to make them conceptually one.

No. Software and hardware are conceptually separable because they're fundamentally different.

So your words actually proove my argument extremely well. I.e. that it would be useless for the patent system ever to
distinguish between software and hardware.

They prove no such thing. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases, the line between software and hardware is clear enough that the law can make the distinction as easily as you and I can.

Re:Does it make a difference

[robot256]

You know, I could sort of see this coming, and wanted to play devil's advocate because I had found the first sane defender of software patents in a while. Propaganda is an interesting topic, and the best way to detect it is to find two sides of an argument that disagree on the facts at hand--which is why I tried to summarize the populist fear-mongering as best I could, and you showed the holes in their assumptions. Thank you for an enjoyable conversation, and I will do as you suggest and research the truth before commenting on the subject again.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Adrian Lopez]

Now who went down the road of deciding to ship or not ship libraries. It was a scare-mongering Free Software biggot who
suddenly woke up one day and decided, for no reason, that these patents where a threat, in order to have something to picket about.

Boy you're full of shit. You're actually suggesting somebody would abandon a useful library just to have "something to picket about"?

Re:Does it make a difference

[lgw]

Anything you can do in "software" I can do in "hardware" and achieve the same result. Also, I can implement your software with a room full of clerks, or a very large Conway's game of life. The distinction is purely convention. Each is a seperate embodyment, of course, but "software X running on a general purpose computer" is an embodyment of an idea, not any different in effect than the same software in ROM on a special-purpose computer, of the same software encoded in the behavior of an electromechanical device.

You seem to be arguing "but we can make the disctinction, so we should because shut up!". Not a very compelling argument.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Adrian Lopez]

Anything you can do in "software" I can do in "hardware" and achieve the same result.

But the way you go about it -- the actual method -- is very different in each case. To say you can do X in either software or hardware is not a valid argument in favor of the claim that software and hardware must be legally equivalent. Indeed, the fact that software can be copyrighted but hardware generally cannot is proof enough that the law already already distinguishes between software and hardware.

It's not simply a matter of convention, as you say, but of real differences between the two approaches to creating functionality.

Re:Does it make a difference

[lgw]

Certainly software running on general purpose hardware is a different embodyment from an electromechanical device. Software patents protect that embodyment, not the algorithm itself. However, the "software" embodyment is of particular commercial value right now, which seems to annyoy Slashdotters to no end. Even so, patenting the "software" embodyment is no more evil than patenting the "electromechanical device" embodyment.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Adrian Lopez]

Even so, patenting the "software" embodyment is no more evil than patenting the "electromechanical device" embodyment. Software patents protect that embodyment, not the algorithm itself.

I don't think it's true that a patent only covers a particular embodiment of an invention, but a "software embodiment" is technically so different from a "hardware embodiment" that patents should never be applied to software. The economics of software production versus hardware production coupled with how easy it is to infringe on software patents purely by accident make the patenting of software a totally different proposition than the patenting of hardware, and the law should be changed to recognize that.

Re:Does it make a difference

[lgw]

invention, but a "software embodiment" is technically so different from a "hardware embodiment" that patents should never be applied to software.

You do realize that's an assertion, not an argument, right? Yes, a software embodiment is different (and a pure hardware embodiment might not even infringe on a software patent). But many sorts of embodiments are patentable, so why do you want to exclude "software runningon a general purpose computer"?

The economics of software production versus hardware production coupled with how easy it is to infringe on software patents purely by accident make the patenting of software a totally different proposition than the patenting of hardware, and the law should be changed to recognize that.

OK, that's at least an argument. I don't agree: it's no easier to accidentally infringe on a design in one embodiment than another. The key diference is that software is new. Commercial software is only about 3 patent-durations old, so plenty of basic ideas are still protected. Do you think it was any different for mechanical devices 100 or so years ago? Do you think it will be any different inthe next big field of innovation, whatever it is?

In 30 years, all the basic stuff will have been patented, and those patents will have expired. Everyone on Slashdot will be whining about how patents shouldn't apply to nanotechnology, because all the new "inventions" are obvious, and anyway a duration of 2-3 years is far more appropriate for nanites, and really you shouldn't be able to patent them at all because they're so small, and the economics of stuff that small is just different.

Re:Does it make a difference

[Adrian Lopez]

Everyone on Slashdot will be whining about how patents shouldn't apply to nanotechnology, because all the new "inventions" are obvious, and anyway a duration of 2-3 years is far more appropriate for nanites, and really you shouldn't be able to patent them at all because they're so small, and the economics of stuff that small is just different

I haven't noticed a single Slashdot poster complain about patents relating to existing advances in nanotechnology. To say they would do this and pretend that it somehow weakens the case against software patents is just plain silly and dishonest.

I don't care to argue the minutiae of why software should or should not be patentable, for that would take a great deal more effort than I'm willing to put into a silly Slashdot debate. I will, however, point you to the following paper which presents a computer professional's argument against software patents: Computational Theory for Lawyers.

Time for another web protest

[denis-The-menace]

Time for a bunch of web sites to close up shop for a day to remind how this will affect things on the web.

Re:Time for another web protest

[Joce640k]

Yep. If the summary is accurate then almost every site in the web would be illegal.

Just because some geriatric judge liked the cut of a particular lawyer's suit.

Re:Time for another web protest

[Anonymous Coward]

And this makes sense because most web scripting languages are a way for a client server application to parse out code... in this case xhtml. PHP and JFC, etc. automatically generate structured documents for a thin client (the browser).

Re:Time for another web protest

[fustakrakich]

Yeah? How well did that work last time?

Re:Time for another web protest

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the problem with programmers and computer professionals not wanting to form a guild or union. The companies work in giant blocks with pooled resources. Even individually a big corporation acts more like a collection of resources than an individual programmer who is outraged at stupid laws and rulings like these. However, individuals who refuse to work together will NEVER be able to influence anything. Why do you think we have the expression, united we stand, divided we fall?

If computer professionals united to form a block, we would have the political force to stop bullshit like this from being perpetrated on us by corporations. However my hopes of this are low since most computer professionals seem to be Asperger victims who use terms like Libertarian and refuse to understand that working together gets more done. Please people, prove me wrong.

Re:Time for another web protest

[Tomun]

Yeah? How well did that work last time?

The last one I remember was this one which was followed by this.
Whether the two events are related is difficult to determine.

Re:Time for another web protest

[Hurricane78]

Yeah, because that worked in the past.

Listen, here in Germany, even petitions that get 100,000 people, and therefore must officially be discussed in parliament, get completely ignored. The only thing that will change something, is to replace those criminals in the government. And then punish them. Hard.

So if you don’t vote Pirate Party now, you really brought this upon yourself, and are not allowed to complain anymore in the future. (If it comes to it, I will enforce this.)

Re:Time for another web protest

[fustakrakich]

Here's something a bit more recent... "Delayed" isn't good enough.. You gotta scare 'em into killing it completely.

there once was a time

[circletimessquare]

when intellectual property law was meant to protect the solitary inventor from the predatory conglomerate. now the predatory conglomerate just preemptively carpet bombs their intellectual property territory and backs it up with a legion of lawyers. the solitary inventor doesn't stand a chance

intellectual property law is defunct. it is philosophically bankrupt and must be replaced wholesale, ignored, or at least radically revamped. this applies to trademark, copyright, and patents: the whole lot of it is rotten to the core and betrays any noble principles it was ever meant to uphold

Re:there once was a time

[melikamp]

While you are right about patents and copyrights, none of our grievances have any relation to the trademark law, which is used to prevent scam. Richard Stallman is right: stop using the words "intellectual property", you have no clear understanding of what they mean, because they are not intended to have a clear meaning.

Re:there once was a time

[Anonymous Coward]

there once was a time when intellectual property law was meant to protect the solitary inventor [Citation Needed]

Sounds like your glasses are a bit rosy. From where I sit, it seems like patents were always intended to protect the RnD investment of wealthy corporations. The reason is simple: solitary inventors cannot affort the litigation expenses of defending their patents against wealthy corporations.

Owning a patent doesn't mean much if you can't afford to defend it, which solitary inventors never could.

Re:there once was a time

[c 0xFF]

Now the solitary inventor has a new strategy: try to sell a patent to the conglomerates for big $$$. Or sell it to a patent troll.

In fact, patent trolls are the direct result of this switch. I dislike them as much as the next guy, but at least they're a force acting against those that are blatantly abusing their patents.

Re:there once was a time

[lymond01]

As long as there is money to be made, there will be attempts to change the rules to make money more easily.

But I have a question: If you remove patents from software, that leaves you with what sort of licensing options? If I can find your source code, can I just rebrand your application and sell it like open source software? Can you apply a license like BSD, Apache, etc to it to prevent me, legally, from doing that even though your software idea isn't patented?

I think patents, as you said, were to defend the solo inventor from losing his invention once he approached a company to market and produce it. As my first sentence stated, people will change the rules to make money. If you shake hands as part of your 50/50 deal, the company will tell you it wasn't in writing. If you signed a contract, their lawyers will find a loophole. If you don't sign a contract, and you shared your idea with them, it's almost a guarantee it will show up on the shelves anyway and it's you against the lawyers again.

Capitalism definitely has its positives, but it definitely favors the greedy and manipulative over the people with more pure intentions. "My new genetic model will allow us to grow crops in the desert! We can feed the world!" "If we can get our hands on this genetic model, we can get the African warlords to pay us to not grow crops in the desert!"

I'm definitely supportive of the communal system we have in terms of certain taxes (public schools, public roads, postal service, etc etc), but a little more of that wealth could probably be put into a few more social programs instead of a few people's pockets.

Re:there once was a time

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree.
Patents were intended to allow small companies and individuals to compete with large established companies...
Now they guarantee that the larger companies have even more leverage to prevent competition.
I actually don't completely agree in the area of copyright... I think the current structure is mostly valid for individuals. I would make one major change: copyrights should not be able to be held by companies (or their rights should be very limited...)

Re:there once was a time

[Peaker]

What's the problem with trademark laws?

Re:there once was a time

[jellomizer]

Problem with Copyrights and Patent are not the fact that they wrong however their punishment for breaking is no longer just.
Back in the old days Copyright Violators were really Corporations because in order to break the copyrights you needed an infrastructure to do this. So the fines for violations should be high, as someone made a lot of money with using someone elses IP without permission.

However today it is too easy to violate Copyrights and Patents we no longer need a huge infrastructure to do such just a PC at a cost of one weeks salary (Or less) and Internet access. And lot of the violaters are not doing this for money they are doing this to get the content in the way they want it. So the fines are way to high for the crime.

For someone caught illegaly downloading MP3s etc... I think it would be fair for the penality would be $1 per song up to 500 songs. then $750 for 500-1000 songs, $1,000 for 1000-5000 songs. $1,500 for 5000-10,000 songs...

So if someone was caught breaking the law they should pay a fine to prevent them from doing it again... However they shouldn't have to go bankrupt for life for some fun that they had in a week.

The same thing with pattents... I think they really need to crunch down on stopping obvious patents and restrict software patents to the advanced stuff... Like data compression during the 80's, or Speach and Visual detection algorithms. But not a lot of this crazy stuff where they show a box that you talk to and it does what it says, there should be some real code and math behind the patent.

Re:there once was a time

[MindStalker]

Though there are plenty of instances of stupidity in trademark laws as well. I almost fear that if software patents fall by the wayside, these same companies will start trademarking the look and feel all their software inventions.

Re:there once was a time

[TheDarkMaster]

Simply ignore patents. And if a lawyer appears trying to force you to accept them, kill the lawyer.

Re:there once was a time

[nickyj]

I think the terms of patents are too long. I think they should only last 5 years at MAX, and that should really depend on startup/manufacturing time. Basically if you didn't start making money from it and making your brand name known in 5 years for your "invention" then you don't deserve the profits of the idea after that time. We don't need to stifle innovation, we need it to grow, so make patents only a temporary place holder, NOT a business model!

Re:there once was a time

[icebraining]

For someone caught illegaly downloading MP3s etc... I think it would be fair for the penality would be $1 per song up to 500 songs. then $750 for 500-1000 songs, $1,000 for 1000-5000 songs. $1,500 for 5000-10,000 songs...

You do realize that $1 per song is what many stores like iTunes charge for each song? So if they caught you, it wouldn't be a punishment, it would be like having to pay for them. In that case, how would that law prevent anyone from download music illegally? They had to options: pay now for each song, or *possibly* pay the exact same amount in the future.

Now, there might be a discussion if we want it to be punishable at all or not, but if we do, $1 per song is not very clever.

Re:there once was a time

[Hurricane78]

WTF? My friend, your mind is seriously twisted by the MAFIAA FUD.

When patents were introduced, there was no such thing as “intellectual property”.
There still is no such thing, since it is a physically impossible thing.

There was once at time, when patents and the author’s right protected creators for a short time, so nobody with big money stole it right from them before they could do anything with it.
Then the copyright came in the USA (it still does not exist in Germany. We only have the author’s right.), and it was solely designed to give companies exclusive “rights” to exploit (works of) creators. Or in other words: To create illegal monopoly, based on abusing a inventor / creative person.
Only in the last <5 years came the insanity of criminals trying to stop that whole Internet and free information thing, because it was their business model.

But you also have to know, that in Germany, a patent still becomes void, if you don’t make it into a business in the next two years. So patent trolling doesn’t work here, like it works in the US.

The WHOLE concept of “owning” information, is completely and totally unrelated to physical reality. You can not own information. Ever. Including all patentable ideas, all creative works, all speech, everything that is not a physical object.
You can control information. By never passing it on. But then good luck proving its existence. You can pass it on, but then you just gave up all control. Forever. Period. No exceptions.

Saying “intellectual property” is like saying “I own philosophy” or “I own timelessness”.
Get the men in the white coats with the straitjacket, cause that’s fucking insane!

Re:there once was a time

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with Trademarks? They discourage imposters. Take the other two out of the picture and imagine Microsoft was selling a copyright and patent free operating system called Microsoft Windows. Now you or I could tweak it and sell a version called CircleTimesSquare Windows or AnonCoward Windows, but if we called it Microsoft Anything then we're basically defrauding customers and hijacking the reputation of another company.

It would be like someone getting a line of credit in your name. Whether they pay their bills on time or not is not the point. You don't want your credit rating in someone else's hands, nor would you want your business' reputation at the mercy of an imposter.

Trademark doesn't even belong with other kinds of intellectual property, it's an identity protection, like a signature.

Re:there once was a time

[JAlexoi]

Yeah, because many of those owners actually have little to do with the word intellect....

Can I be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit Fuck Piss Goddamn Asshats (tm)

Boycott Germany

[H0p313ss]

Start including a disclaimer in all license agreements, something to the effect of "This software may be in violation of German patent law and is therefore not available for use in that country"

Refuse to sell or license any software to anyone in that country who is not willing to sign a disclosure stating that they are fully aware of the implications of German patent law and are responsible for any violations that may occur.

Provide information for how to contact any German political organization that opposes software patents

Re:Boycott Germany

[TheRaven64]

Don't forget the USA and South Korea in that disclaimer. Something like the GPL, which has a clause preventing you from distributing the software if it is in violation of patents, already contains such a disclaimer. Given that any jurisdiction which allows software patents quickly tends towards a situation where any nontrivial piece of software is infringing several patents, it's now likely not to be legal to copy GPL'd software in Germany, either now or soon. Someone should probably mention this to Munich...

Re:Boycott Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

What an idiotic suggestion. Europe and Germany were part of the few fighting software patents and this outcome is unfortunate, but a lot of the rest of the world allows it already, especially the US. Do you want to boycott the US and other countries too?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

Re:Boycott Germany

[Arancaytar]

Unfortunately, we don't elect our idiot judges. :(

Re:Boycott Germany

[Pinky's Brain]

It's always been my opinion that projects like xvid and x264 should have a "may not be distributed in the United States" (and now also Germany) in the license. For something like Linux and GCC you might have a case when you say "well there are patents, but they aren't being litigated so who knows if they are valid" but for MPEG some of the patents are known to be litigated and known to have been declared valid in court.

Any copying being done for American (and now German) recipients for these projects is not authorized by virtue of the GPL ... if you can not can not provide the rights which come with the GPL then the GPL does not grant you the right to distribute. The project owners are really subverting the GPL by pretending that's not true.

Re:Boycott Germany

[mellon]

It really wouldn't help--if anything, it would make things worse. Right now it's forbidden fruit. If it were completely unavailable, people simply wouldn't know about it, and wouldn't know what they were missing. There just aren't enough programmers in any given country for them alone to be a force for preventing this sort of stupidity. You have to get the end-users on board too.

Re:Boycott Germany

[Thomasje]

Someone should probably mention this to Munich

FYI, the German federal government is in Berlin, and the high court (Bundesgerichtshof) is in Karlsruhe.

Re:Boycott Germany

[H0p313ss]

I'm perfectly aware of the idiocy I'm suggesting. I'm also Canadian so my reluctance to boycott the US is somewhat limited.

At some point we have to make a stand against this lunacy. It's now almost impossible to write code without being at the mercy of a patent troll.

Re:Boycott Germany

[TheRaven64]

Munich is the site of one of the largest Linux deployments in the world, so it makes more sense to tell them that they are (about to be) operating illegally than to tell Berlin, which is a much smaller user of GPL'd code.

Re:Boycott Germany

[shutdown -p now]

A better way would be to allow redistribution, but only if the redistributing party allows free use of any patents it owns for the code it is redistributing to anyone receiving that code, with a right to sublicense them further (so that they can in turn comply if they redistribute). But then you just get GPLv3.

Re:Boycott Germany

[Pinky's Brain]

It's not like there aren't other licenses they could pick which try a little harder to be patent compatible.

Re:Boycott Germany

[evilviper]

if you can not can not provide the rights which come with the GPL then the GPL does not grant you the right to distribute.

The GPLv2 has no clause that would prevent distribution just because patents happen to apply. That (and digitally signed binaries ala Tivo) is the very reason why GPLv3 was created.

Re:Boycott Germany

[Rewind]

But how would I live without my Birkenstocks?!?!?

Re:Boycott Germany

[Hurricane78]

What if you live in Germany? (No, I don’t have the choice of moving, since I couldn’t pay for it.)

Don’t run away! FIGHT! Cause it is war!
Vote Pirate Party!

Re:Boycott Germany

[sznupi]

Oh just stop devouring so much (going by sig...) beer, for a while.

Ruling as plaintext, with English translations

[ciaran_o_riordan]

I html-ised it and made links to a few automatic translations:

• http://news.swpat.org/2010/05/german-court-ruling-upholding-siemens-patent-as-text/

It indeed looks like bad news.

Re:Ruling as plaintext, with English translations

[Anonymous Coward]

People should note that depending on the tool you used to 'html-ize' the story, you may have used software that violated the patent in question. If it generated the html or translation, and especially the html translation (if displayed on a web page), then it generated a structured document using client server technology.

Re:Ruling as plaintext, with English translations

[Mindcontrolled]

After a quick skimming of the document, I can only say that the /. headline is as overblown and out of context as always. The ruling is perfectly in line with the prior rulings of the BGH: An invention encompassing a computer program is technical in nature, if the program addresses a technical property or limitation of the computer it is intended to run on, or if the program is depended on or effecting a technical subject external to this computer. The range of patentable software in Germany has not changed significantly by this ruling. I'll have to examine the document closer for more details, but that will probably be tomorrow on company time, as I get paid for that stuff...

Re:Ruling as plaintext, with English translations

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Hi,

To raise the bar for how informed us laypeople are, I've spent a year gathering software patent info in a wiki: http://en.swpat.org/

I've no background in German patent law, or the German courts system, and I don't speak German. If you could add any information, that would be very useful.

Thanks.

(As linked above, starting points include: Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany), German patent courts and appeals, Case law in Germany, DE10232674)

Re:Ruling as plaintext, with English translations

[Mindcontrolled]

I definitely will have a look at your wiki. I generally no friend of software patents myself, but I try to encourage a somewhat more rational discussion of patent matters than often found on /.. I am certainly open to contribute something to further these goals - when I find time. Regarding the last BGH decision: As I said, this was a quick analysis from skimming over it, but I definitely will have a more detailed look into it and discuss it with some people. If it turns out to be a larger change of the status quo than I am thinking at the moment, I'll drop you a line on the wiki. The court references a lot of earlier decisions, which, in my current opinion, are just being clarified by the current ruling. After spending a day with legal matters, however, I am not overly inclined to get those decisions right now and do a more proper review right now ;)

Thanks Germany!

[mrpacmanjel]

First you unleash an insane dictator over most of Europe, encourage David Hasselhoff to keep singing (why?), think bailing out the Euro is a "good thing", produce annoyingly reliable cars and now decide software is patentable.

Thanks for nothing.

Re:Thanks Germany!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Germany was firmly against bailing out Greece, because they correctly expected that they would be the ones to give most money. Sadly, they lost.

Re:Thanks Germany!

[Anonymous Coward]

The system of interlocking alliances must be preserved at all costs...

Re:Thanks Germany!

[jonwil]

I cant think of ONE good thing to come out of Germany.
Scandinavia yes, germany no.

Oh wait, the Germans DO produce some good buses (at least Mercedes-Benz does). So that's one thing. But that's about it :)

Re:Thanks Germany!

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Bite your tongue sir. I'd let her master-race me.

Re:Thanks Germany!

[metacell]

Who cares about the system of interlocking alliances? Think of all the poor bureaucrats in Brussels and their starving families!

Re:Thanks Germany!

[metacell]

Germany produces excellent engineering products (although the user interfaces could be better).

All German PHP users

[bjartur]

pay me licensing fees or stop infringing on my patents.

When will they learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we have to kick Germany's ass again?!?

How to Fight This?

[aaaaaaargh!]

That's pretty shocking news to me as a German, because (naive as I am) I always considered the German High Court is halfway reasonable.

Could we perhaps fight software patents by getting completely ridiculous and untenable patents accepted and afterwards make this public? -- This could have the desired effect but is probably never going to happen, because the whole patenting process is a bit expensive. :(

In my opinion the whole idea that someone could dictate me what computational methods I use and sell is totally ridiculous. A lot of my work involves formal logic and methodology and I can't wait for the day when I'll publish a scientific paper that unbeknown to me infringes on some patent and then get sued for it. If this software patent idiocy continues, it will be impossible to teach any higher mathematics at university in 200 years from now without violating someone's patents, but I'm sure some companies already have licensing plans in the drawer for this scenario. Crazy...

Re:How to Fight This?

[minorDistraction]

High courts do not make the law, they just interpret it and establish boundaries. The German government can change the law if they don't like this outcome.

Re:How to Fight This?

[melikamp]

If this software patent idiocy continues, it will be impossible to teach any higher mathematics at university in 200 years from now without violating someone's patents

That's 20 years. All the signs are pointing that way. I am a professional mathematician, and I've been following the developments, and it does not look good. The maths are clearly next. It only makes sense: if they can patent algorithms, then they can already patent math. As it stands, no one can patent "abstract" ideas. Watch and see them say: "Oh, we just realized, math ideas are not abstract, they are hella concrete, so we will be patenting them now". For lawyers this will be a trivial hurdle to overcome, because the only thing that can make a law a complete non-starter is the internal inconsistency. And we are virtually obligated to start patenting traditional math if we are already patenting algorithms, they are the same bloody thing.

Can anyone tell me why is this silliness even allowed to go on? Is this just the corporate interest? Is it just the corporate money that is buying these laws? I really don't get it. Patents on software that runs on generic computer hardware (a real-life TM implementation) don't make a lick of sense, no matter how you look at it, and every programmer in the world knows it. Who keeps calling for more of this shit?

Re:How to Fight This?

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand the role of the German High Court. Sure it doesn't make the law but as opposed to other courts it has a political role. The German High Court has a decent amount of freedom of choice, basically it is only restricted by previous decisions and the system of law as a whole in its decisions and it has the power to decide whether a certain law or procedure is constitutional or not. In this case, they could have decided against software patents without problems.

Re:How to Fight This?

[mellon]

What have you done to stop it? Do you know your representatives positions and voting histories on this issue?

Re:How to Fight This?

[melikamp]

I am a citizen of Russian Federation. I'll start voting and caring in general when it actually makes a tiny bit of difference.

Re:How to Fight This?

[KDR_11k]

Do they have the freedom to decide that they don't LIKE a law? Something may be constitutional and valid under all the rules and still a terrible idea.

Re:How to Fight This?

[mzs]

I too worry about this. I see so many of the interesting patents in software are simply: The naive approach is exponential. The greedy approach does not work. Let me throw dynamic programing/divide and conquer/linear programming at it, oh look the complexity is now tenable. Let me go and patent that. Any CS student after a good algorithms course could do this. Then there are all the patents that are cordic, fft, dct, numerical approximations, linear algebra, etc, textbook stuff.

Re:How to Fight This?

[Mindcontrolled]

No reason to panic - this is the usual /. patent propaganda machine running hot. The ruling is in line with the ruling practice of the BGH of the last 15 years at least. Nothing will change regarding software patents in Germany - they have always been possible, as long as the software in question deals with a technical matter within or external to the computer the software is running on.

Re:How to Fight This?

[gnupun]

A lot of my work involves formal logic and methodology and I can't wait for the day when I'll publish a scientific paper that unbeknown to me infringes on some patent and then get sued for it. If this software patent idiocy continues, it will be impossible to teach any higher mathematics at university in 200 years from now without violating someone's patents

The problem of accidental infringement (and patent trolls) can be somewhat rectified by making the "non-obvious" component of a software patents more stringent. That is, a glorified swap algorithm written in convoluted legalese should not be granted a patent. If a dozen people accidentally re-invent an algorithm within a short period of time, the patent is obvious and should not have been granted in the first place.

If the problem of obvious patents were to be somehow solved, it would be a win-win for people both for and against software patents, since patents were designed to prevent willful infringement, not accidental use.

Re:How to Fight This?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could we perhaps fight software patents by getting completely ridiculous and untenable patents accepted and afterwards make this public? -- This could have the desired effect

I doubt it would have the desired effect. Someone in Australia patented the wheel to show how flawed the system was. Australia still has patents.

On the upside just because Germany does something it doesn't mean the rest of Europe will.

Re:How to Fight This?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could we perhaps fight software patents by getting completely ridiculous and untenable patents accepted and afterwards make this public? -- This could have the desired effect but is probably never going to happen, because the whole patenting process is a bit expensive. :(

No, it won't happen. Here in the US completely ridiculous and untenable patents are continually granted. The only affect that I've seen from having these made public is that even more obvious ridiculous and untenable patents get granted.It's a cycle that doesn't seem to be ending.

Re:How to Fight This?

[forkazoo]

Could we perhaps fight software patents by getting completely ridiculous and untenable patents accepted and afterwards make this public? -- This could have the desired effect but is probably never going to happen, because the whole patenting process is a bit expensive. :(

In America, we have a patent on a method of swinging on a swing. It hasn't caused reform. Other highlights include a patent on a method for making a sandwich, and a patent on rotating a card in a card game related to Magic: The Gathering. It's possible the German public would be more outraged when absurd patents came to light, but in America it has just sort of become accepted.

Re:How to Fight This?

[martin-boundary]

If the problem of obvious patents were to be somehow solved, it would be a win-win for people both for and against software patents, since patents were designed to prevent willful infringement, not accidental use.

I think you're missing the point. Mathematics advances through non-obvious ideas shared with others, and expanded upon. What you're proposing is no less than killing off mathematical advances, since those non-obvious ideas would be patent encumbered and not expanded by others. That's exactly what happens with the vast majority of patented technologies.

Science is a commons, which will die if it gets parceled up by business majors.

Re:How to Fight This?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately that still applies to all software patents. Just add a single sentence that vaguely specifies something technical. The court has just validated this practice. Pretty much like adding "on the internet" works in the USA.

Re:How to Fight This?

[metacell]

No, they have to come up with an excuse if they want to strike it down :-)

Re:How to Fight This?

[metacell]

Or they might say, "Well yes, math in itself is unpatentable, but the process of using a certain mathematical relationship in an industrial or educational processes can be patented."

As to why the silliness just keeps going - the large corporations are always pushing to extend the scope of their own patents, in order to maximise revenue, block competitors and maintain monopolies. This is done both by convincing courts to interpret patent laws broader and broader, and by lobbying politicians to write new laws.

Thanks, Ciaran

[Anonymous Coward]

in the name of all the lazy folks who should be up in arms by now. ...it seems you never sleep!

Re:Thanks, Ciaran

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Maybe not enough, but I do sleep :-)

Thanks for the encouragement. I think en.swpat.org is making great progress in terms of breadth and depth of information, but it's still not building a community of contributors. Any help with publicising it and with informing people that it's something they can also contribute to, would be very helpful.

What a disaster

[Anonymous Coward]

What a disaster. The stupidity of the US patent system has now spread like the virus it is here.

Re:What a disaster

[couchslug]

"The stupidity of the US patent system has now spread like the virus it is here."

First, they bought the US government, and no one else spoke out because they were not USians.

Now, they bought the government of America's most powerful satellite, and no one there will speak out (/. doesn't count) because
to admit being a US corporate poodle would be uncomfortable.

Re:What a disaster

[gnupun]

The stupidity of the US patent system has now spread like the virus it is here.

As opposed to the stupidity of OSS, where smart-as-hell programmers make $0 for their work while sysadmins and support people and companies like RedHat rake in $$$$$? We don't want a retarded, evil communistic world where programmers and inventors make nothing while sysadmins and support people make money. Sorry but mathematically speaking, this should be structure of money paid for work:

patent > design > programming > testing > support

Difficult, rare and creative work like patents should obviously be worth more than something any programmer can do. Therefore, an inventor should be paid more than rest of the staff.

Re:What a disaster

[ducomputergeek]

Our primary product is GPLv3. We hire developers to write code on the project and do customizations for clients. But when it goes out into production, the environment gets more complex. Often times the problem is in a network configuration error, not the software. And sorry, most of my programmers frankly don't understand systems as a whole.

The role of support is to understand the entire system and quickly resolve any problems customers have or at least be able to identify if it's a hardware problem, a database problem, a network problem, 3rd party vendor problem, or a software problem and get the right person on the line to get it fixed. And if the customer is having a problem, I guarantee you they are losing money. Support is critical. We don't provide it, they will go elsewhere. Plus they have to be good with customer interaction and careful not to talk down to non-techies. It's a rather rare combo to find.

In our business Support > Developers

Re:What a disaster

[metacell]

I resent that. We Europeans are perfectly capable of making stupid patent laws on our own.

More info on swpat.org

[ciaran_o_riordan]

I'm working on documenting this, and the general German situation, here:

• Xa ZB 20/08 (2010, April, Germany) (that's this case)
• German patent courts and appeals
• Case law in Germany

swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

Dark ages, here we come again..

[Seth Kriticos]

shit, I think I have to puke now.

Down the rabbit hole

[sweatyboatman]

by that logic, I could get a patent for my novel by describing its contents and adding "a hardware appliance consisting of a bound book with paper pages printed on with ink". Then I could sue anyone who made a book using the themes of my patented invention. Wow, I'm gonna get rich! I sure hope nobody else has patented this idea already! (Note to self: remember to file a parallel patent describing how my book would be displayed on a eReader)

As cbiltcliffe points out above, software patents are presented and enforced as "process" patents. A software patent is not for the invention of a machine, it's a generic "way of doing" something on a machine.

That some patent lawyers attempt to shoehorn a process patent into a hardware patent by appending a generic description of a computer just shows that they acknowledge that, without such machinations, a software process would not qualify for patent protection.

Computers are designed to run generic code, that's their function and core value. To claim that running your patent-pending software on a machine that's designed to run generic software is somehow an improvement of that machine is ludicrous.

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[AbbeyRoad]

> That some patent lawyers attempt to shoehorn

You are so right that you prove the oposite point:

YOU are basically admitting that there is no point in trying
to classify inventions as software vs non-software because
patent lawyers can always shoehorn the one into the other.

-paul

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[mellon]

It must be very satisfying to make these loud statements of fact, but unfortunately it doesn't affect the ability of patent holders to sue you. If you want to do something about that, make patent reform an issue that affects who you vote for. You do vote, right?

You can't patent your novel because the book was invented millennia ago, and has existed in its current form for a very long time--much longer than the term of any modern patent. You could conceivably have patented the interactive novel under this ruling, except that prior art exists for that too.

It sucks that the parasites^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpatent lawyers have figured out yet another way to suck the life out of our business, but pretending that it hasn't happened is not going to make things better.

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[AbbeyRoad]

The idea of people being sued all the time and having to worry
about being sued is an invention of the Free Software movement.

Have you ever been sued over a patent?

Having to worry about being sued is a ficticious paranoia that
people have who do not understand law. In the extremely unlikely
event that you, who do not make millions on your software, do get
sued, then simply change your software so that it does not infringe
the patent. If that doesn't work, write a representation to the court,
or negotiate with the other party. If that doesn't work, present your
case to the court. You don't even need a lawyer (unless you are a
complete idiot and like to be manipulated).

Finally if you loose, argue that you agree to withdraw your software
from the market, but that you have caused the other party no
damages. Finally if that doesn't work, argue that you have no
money.

The chances of a small enterprise EVER having to unfairly pay out
of its pocket to some multinational corporate for violating a patent
are as close as fart to absolute ZERO.

-paul

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[russotto]

You can't patent your novel because the book was invented millennia ago, and has existed in its current form for a very long time--much longer than the term of any modern patent.

The computer was invented a long time ago too, longer than the term of any modern patent. That doesn't stop people from writing (and enforcing) patent claims essentially "A device, consisting of CPU, memory, and storage, which does X", where X is non-patentable on its own. So why not a claim for "A device, consisting of leafs, ink, and a spine, where the leaves contain the text of my story"?

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[russotto]

The idea of people being sued all the time and having to worry about being sued is an invention of the Free Software movement.

Now you're just trolling.

The chances of a small enterprise EVER having to unfairly pay out
of its pocket to some multinational corporate for violating a patent
are as close as fart to absolute ZERO.

The chances of a small enterprise having to CEASE TO EXIST because it is accused of violating a patent by some multinational corporate entity is rather larger than absolute zero, however. The chance of an open-source software developer having to abandon their work because he/she is accused of violating a patent of some multinational corporate entity is also quite a bit greater than absolute zero.

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[naasking]

Talk about missing the point. Firstly, if patents are supposed to encourage innovation, why introduce them into the software market where innovation is happening at a breakneck pace? Do you really think the legal process you just described will hasten the pace of software development?

Secondly, the economics of software and physical innovations are multiple orders of magnitude different. Suffice it to say that when you can design, construct and ship near infinite units of a physical good that cost you a total of $10,000 in equipment and time, then I'll acknowledge that physical goods and software are even remotely comparable and require the same protections to recoup R&D investments.

Thirdly, software is mathematics which is not patentable anywhere. Your attempted circumventions by tying an algorithm to a general purpose machine is ludicrous, because I can just as easily write my mathematical proof in a theorem prover instead of on paper. The proof can then be checked and executed on a machine, which by your reasoning makes it patentable, thus contradicting the idea that math is not patentable.

I'm sorry, but IMO pro-software patent people are deeply ignorant of the nature of software and mathematics. They want to prevent patenting math but allow patenting software, and they don't even realize these two goals are mutually contradictory. As I said above, if you want to patent software then you have to open a debate about patenting certain types of math. Don't pussyfoot around the issue, because that's dishonest.

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[icebraining]

But losing money is not the only thing you can lose; as you said, you may lose the right to distribute the software.
Maybe you only care about money, but many people care if they can help other people.

By the way, the nineties called: they want their posts with 80 characters per line back. Seriously, your post only covers about 10% of my 12" screen, which isn't especially large, and it's very annoying having to read that way.

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[melikamp]

Oh, don't underestimate them. They do want to patent math, they are just waiting for their balls to swell a bit more. Then they can come out of the woodwork and say that math, for some bullshit reason, does not constitute "abstract thought", and presto, they will have an internally consistent law.

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[AbbeyRoad]

You don't know that what you are saying is true. You are just speculating.
You have never been sued and you don't know anyone personally who has.

So this is called scare-mongering.

The purpose of law is to be fair.

Argue your point in front of a judge and THEN come back and talk about
how unfair he was.

Rather than trying to convince people to change a patent system based
on speculative thought-experiments about law-suites that never happened.

-paul

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[AbbeyRoad]

You need to read my other comments to understand better how the patent
system works.

And also to actually read some software patents.

In practice, the patent system has no concepts of software or hardware.
This straw man was invented by slashdot and the free software movement.

This is scare-mongering.

The patent system can never have the concept of software or hardware
because it would be easy, technically, work around such concepts.

An invention must have a specific practical appication to patentable.
This criteria has always been there.

This means that if it is PURE software that can be generally used for
any purpose, then it can be considered like a mathematical formula,
and is not patentable.

-paul

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[AbbeyRoad]

when it happens even once, then we can start discussing it.

otherwise it is pure speculation

-paul

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[metacell]

YOU are basically admitting that there is no point in trying
to classify inventions as software vs non-software because
patent lawyers can always shoehorn the one into the other.

Well, they sure try, but the courts don't always agree with them.

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[AbbeyRoad]

Why? Because it is has been done before and your patent will be rejected on submission.

paul

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[naasking]

This means that if it is PURE software that can be generally used for any purpose, then it can be considered like a mathematical formula, and is not patentable.

Please explain how the patent mentioned in this Slashdot post falls under patentable subject matter. Please explain how Amazon's one-click patent falls under patentable subject matter. Please explain how the RSA encryption algorithm, which is a pure mathematical transformation tool, falls under patentable subject matter.

All of these patents are pure software, pure mathematics, and as such are overly broad due to their high level of abstraction. I think everyone needs to stop pretending that math isn't being patented.

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Thirdly, software is mathematics which is not patentable anywhere.

All engineering is either mathematics or natural laws, or both; it should make all technical inventions not patentable. However, that would be detrimental to progress, because our process of invention is not systematic and exhaustive research. If we knew how to automatically produce solutions for any given problem and constraints set, we would have reached Singularity. There are so many possible combinations of rules and data we acquired that we need to motivate people to mine the solutions' space. We use patents for that motivation. IMHO, only debatable topics about it are: 1)how to prevent redundancy (better finding of prior art) and 2)how to make optimal balance between rewarding and pushing forward (duration of patent). Both topics are important for achieving and maintaining maximal speed of inventions' rate. Some modeling and simulation is in order. Perhaps with recent advances in rapid and affordable physical prototyping and individual manufacturing the time has come to abolish all (or most) patents?

Re:Down the rabbit hole

[Adrian Lopez]

You don't know that what you are saying is true. You are just speculating. You have never been sued and you don't know anyone personally who has.

Patents you can't sue for are useless, so the very existence of a patent is enough to establish the possibility of being sued for infringing upon that patent. Whether or not it actually happens in a particular case does not change the fact that the threat exists. Preventing others from reproducing your invention without permission is what the patent system is designed to do, and lawsuits are the way such a restriction is enforced.

The Courts

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

People need to understand that in most western countries, the judiciary is a kind of priesthood utterly divorced from reality or common sense. What matters to lawyers and judges are not concepts like "justice", "equity" or "reason". What matters to them is the written rule of the law, and how it is best spun into ways that benefit both the priesthood and its patrons--the wealthy and powerful. The courts have no interest in the effects of their judgements. They have interest only in which lawyers arguments were more pleasing in the eyes of legal dogma.

This is a very, very serious problem which has only gotten worse in recent decades. The fact that most politicians are drawn from this clique has only accelerated the utter divorce of the courts from reality. Decisions like these are symptomatic of a judicial system that has broken down at a basic level. There are more across the legal spectrum: lenient corporate fines, excessive tort compensation, stringent libel fines, patents in general, children being convicted of child sex abuse, the rollback of habeas corpus, excess cost of legal defence, battery, etc, etc. The court system is entirely broken.

We live in an age of the misrule of law. If things get any worse, we'll be better off with no legal system at all.

Re:The Courts

[MadKeithV]

You're only half right. The courts and lawyers have a duty to the law as written, not whatever-bleeding-heart-interpretation-is-most-appropriate-today.
If the law sucks, it should be the legislative branch that gets the stick. But of course, they have VERY short-term responsibility, so nothing serious ever happens.

Re:The Courts

[__aasqbs9791]

What I think many people miss is that legalese is a programming language. It is the way we structure society (which is a sort of massively parallel machine). In any program that receives tweaks from time to time, there comes a point where a complete rewrite is not only helpful, but necessary. We have reached that point in western countries. Long overdue in my opinion. Will it be easy? Hell no! But the alternative is to just watch things get even worse. Could things get worse? Certainly, but at least then we can blame people who are still alive, rather than people ho have been dead for hundreds of years, and do something about it.

Re:The Courts

[KDR_11k]

Germany's current constitution was created in 1949, I'm not sure about the other laws but I think they already got a total rewrite after WW2. This is more comparable to a bug than a design failure.

Re:The Courts

[__aasqbs9791]

I could obviously be completely wrong, but I imagine they inherited something along the lines of what we call "Common law" in the US (or equivalent) when they set that up. Not too different from starting with someone else's code base and forking it. You also get all the cruft up to that point. Though, IANAGL (I Am Not A German Lawyer).

Re:The Courts

[fustakrakich]

The court system is entirely broken.

Yeah well, we broke it, voting for any asshole that makes promises that can't possibly be kept.

Re:The Courts

[DamnStupidElf]

Time to introduce Godel statements into as many legal systems as possible.

X = "The law hereby described as X has no derivation from legal doctrine that proves its legitimacy, nor any derivation from legal doctrine that disproves its legitimacy. Also, patents suck."

Rule on that, suckers.

Re:The Courts

[Kjella]

People need to understand that in most western countries, the judiciary is a kind of priesthood utterly divorced from reality or common sense.

Having read quite a few court cases in my years on slashdot, I would say they tend to be by far the most reasoned voices I've heard from any of the three branches of power. Very often you just get flaming insults with zero reading of the actual verdict.

To take one example, I read a US Appeals court decision that upheld EULAs. I'm sure you can imagine the flame fest, they were retards who shouldn't have made it out of grade school. I read the verdict, and basically their main focus was if the same happened elsewhere, for example like buying a plane ticket over the phone - tons of terms and conditions apply but they're not all read over the phone. They listed many examples but I didn't memorize them, but they found that this was accepted practice many places, the customer had not been mislead, the terms were not unusual for the software and even the name said something like personal edition, the refund possibility was explicitly made clear and basically he just wanted to get out of the contract because if the "personal use" restriction of the EULA didn't apply he could make lots of money. Even I that am against EULAs had to agree he looked like a dirtbag and so the court said you walked into this with open eyes and we're not going to spring you.

By the way, the "terms were not unusual" part was also the cause for another flame fest, the slashdot spin was like "if you expect to get screwed, it's okay to be screwed?!". Uh, yes in pretty much every case the court will look at what people normally get. If it's customary to sell a car with wheels then you'd better put it in the contract if there are no wheels, even though people would still call it a car without them. On the other hand if you still had some belongings in the glove compartment they'd naturally not be there. This is just common sense, and yet it became another reason to bash the courts.

Another good example is the Grokster case. Basically the Appeals court granted summary motion like "No way you can be held guilty of anything". The Supreme court stepped in and said "Eh, if they can prove the defendants sold it like a tool to break the law and encouraged people to break the law, they might" and reversed it for regular trial. As a legal principle it made perfect sense, even if a gun is legal you can't go around selling it like a great murder weapon targeting people in bad divorces making overt suggestions. The question was if Grokster was guilty of anything like that but nothing was ever proven or sentenced because they folded and that was the end of it, but of course the courts got the blame. Even though the opposite would have been complete and utter nonsense.

Your average court is usually fucked two ways, the laws as written and that they have to listen to every absurd legal theory a lawyer can come up with, giving them every possibility to have their day in court - see SCO. Just to take one of your examples, children convicted of child sex abuse, it's a problem that is entirely in law and should be fixed in law. How is it a judiciary problem that Congress didn't exclude self-molestation (lol at the term) from the law? What kind of legal basis would you like them to use, when there's not an ounce of unclarity in the law? You want them to just say "We don't like the rules, so we're changing them"? And in pretty much any story we get one person who think vigilantism from the jury bench should rewrite the law, because that won't lead to injustice because people hate the victim or love the perpetrator.

By far some of the worst are those that would like the courts to invent some new standards of legal certainty or otherwise make it such an impossible process that people can't ever get convicted, as long as it works in favor of the side slashdot is cheering for. Most usually that involves petty copyright infringers who are never guilty even when they're caught

Re:The Courts

[evilviper]

What matters to lawyers and judges are not concepts like "justice", "equity" or "reason". What matters to them is the written rule of the law,

The laws say that's what they are supposed to do. In the US, they are required to follow the law, except in extreme cases, where it is in conflict with the constitution.

What you're spewing isn't an insult of judges, you're condemning the role they fill, which we the people said was necessary.

Frankly, if it were up to judges to decide on justice and equality, you'd be making them emperors rather than judges, with the ability to ignore any laws they don't like, and punish those who have broken no written law.

As to the assertion that they twist the laws "into ways that benefit both the priesthood and its patrons--the wealthy and powerful," you're going to need to cite several cases to make such a claim. It runs DIRECTLY CONTRARY to your previous statement that judges care only about the letter of the law, and lawyers' arguments.

Re:The Courts

[tyrione]

What matters to lawyers and judges are not concepts like "justice", "equity" or "reason". What matters to them is the written rule of the law,

The laws say that's what they are supposed to do. In the US, they are required to follow the law, except in extreme cases, where it is in conflict with the constitution.

What you're spewing isn't an insult of judges, you're condemning the role they fill, which we the people said was necessary.

Frankly, if it were up to judges to decide on justice and equality, you'd be making them emperors rather than judges, with the ability to ignore any laws they don't like, and punish those who have broken no written law.

As to the assertion that they twist the laws "into ways that benefit both the priesthood and its patrons--the wealthy and powerful," you're going to need to cite several cases to make such a claim. It runs DIRECTLY CONTRARY to your previous statement that judges care only about the letter of the law, and lawyers' arguments.

This is Slashdot. The first rule of Slashdot is to be ignorant of the subject matter at hand.

Re:The Courts

[KDR_11k]

Germany doesn't use common law, maybe some previous customs were codified but it at least had to be looked at to go into the new civil law.

Re:The Courts

[metacell]

Thanks for a well thought out post which addresses the other side of the issue.

Re:The Courts

[FeepingCreature]

That's great, but it doesn't make this particular decision any less nonsensical.

From my understanding, the court basically decided that while software itself was not patentable, when it was designed to run and take advantage of a computer, it _was_ patentable after all. Shouldn't by that logic any algorithm be patentable that, for instance, takes advantage of L2 cache size? Certain sorting algorithms come to mind. Believe me, I'd be happy to be told I'd misunderstood.

Re:The Courts

[OneAhead]

Yes indeed, Germany doesn't use common law. Why should they? Common law is only used in a few countries, and hasn't proven superior to civil law. Under common law, a few corrupt judges (not elected by the people) can make something silly into law. Under civil law, politicians (elected) have to vote it into law. (Granted, that might not make things better in a plutocracy such as the USA, but there are democracies in Europe that aren't that much hollowed out yet.(*)) The difference between common law and civil law is very important in this debate. I feel the OP is overreacting - the political fight against European software patents is far from over.

(*)Here's links to the infamous Citigroup plutonomy memos. While extremely cynical, they're mostly right: some countries are ruled by whoever has the money to finance political campaigns and influence the media, and these countries will do anything that is in favor of big companies, not necessarily in the interest of the people. Not all countries are like that.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674229/Citigroup-Mar-5-2006-Plutonomy-Report-Part-2

Re:The Courts

[JAlexoi]

in most western countries

FYI: Most western countries have different legal systems. But generally 2 categories Common legal system(UK, US..) and Civil legal system(France, Germany, Italy...). So a blank statement "most western countries" is dead wrong, when concerning a legal system. (The most populous country with common legal system is India - a country that is definitely not western)
Maybe what you complain about happens in the common legal systems, but in civil legal systems the judges are definitely not as important. Most civil legal systems treat judges as plain state servants.

Re:The Courts

[fustakrakich]

Flamebait

Oh so sorry... Let me restate;

Oh my! those evil corporations have taken over the government! Whatever shall we do? This is their fault! Not ours! We're innocent, I tell ya!

must've been modded by some idiot from democraticunderground that believes that the idea of personal responsibility is some right wing conspiracy.

just in: physicists patent quantum physics

[chichilalescu]

And now they want money from all the people using semiconductors. Seriously now, society advances because people can communicate ideas, not because the greedy get to keep all the money.
Instead of being thankful that communication is almost free...
It really is sad. no sarcasm. it's sad.

High Court in xml

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to implement the High Court procedures and processes in xml and then apply for the patent on the engine that understands and implements them, in whole or part.

Why do people not understand that software is process, and process helps create order, and order and process is what allows courts to exist... not to mention government. Life is process, software is process.

Bad Precedence - Design Patterns In Trouble

[s31523]

Even though TFA states "all software ideas are now potentially patentable as long as they are innovative from a purely formal point of view, meaning they're at least marginally different from how a technical problem was solved before", many standard design patterns used could be in trouble. For example implementing the well-known Observer pattern using non-OO language constructs, in say Ada83, could be a patentable thing. I mean, this is really bad precedence here and something every software engineer, hell, every company should care about.

Re:Bad Precedence - Design Patterns In Trouble

[Theaetetus]

Even though TFA states "all software ideas are now potentially patentable as long as they are innovative from a purely formal point of view, meaning they're at least marginally different from how a technical problem was solved before", many standard design patterns used could be in trouble. For example implementing the well-known Observer pattern using non-OO language constructs, in say Ada83, could be a patentable thing. I mean, this is really bad precedence here and something every software engineer, hell, every company should care about.

Design patents are entirely different - they're on the non-functional aesthetic design of something, like a toy skunk or underwear.

that's it. welcome back to the dark age

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

seriously, we're going all the way downhill back to the dark age.

it's censorship in australia, holding prisoners without charges in US and england, now with software patents, we'll see the resurgence of guilds.

it'll be such a fucked up environment, that only those who are members of a certain guild will be able to make any products in certain field, and if a new entrepeneur tries to enter the market, the established guild will throw all the wheight of the legal system on the new guy.

soon, access to information will be so restricted, that unless you're born in a certain class, you won't have any change of progress or innovating or "changing the world".

when is the first ship to mars leaving ? i'm starting to think that a cold, desert planet with no breathable atmosphere is not such a bad idea after all.

Dear Germany...

[Wovel]

Welcome to the fun....

FAT patent rejection was not on software...

[Theaetetus]

"Long gone are the times when Europe was that bastion of resistance against software patents and patents on such things as file systems were ruled invalid.

The rejection of the FAT patent was not because it was a software method, it was because it lacked an "inventive step". That's Europe's term for obviousness. Thus, it was ruled invalid as being obvious, not because it was not patentable subject matter.

Re:FAT patent rejection was not on software...

[zoobab]

Do you have a copy of the FAT jugement in Germany?

Re:FAT patent rejection was not on software...

[Theaetetus]

Do you have a copy of the FAT jugement in Germany?

There's a link here.

Oh, shit...

[drewhk]

Fucking idiots!

huh?

[circletimessquare]

you have no clear understanding of what they mean, because they are not intended to have a clear meaning

error in meaning process #4512: lack of internal logical coherence in statement detected. statement may be ironic, or speaker may be confused. abort, retry, fail?

Re:huh?

[melikamp]

You are like a poster child for Stallman's rant about the evils of the term "IP". You are attacking the trademark law without realizing that it keeps you safe from Pepsi Cola that was made in your neighbor's bath tub. The only reason you are doing it is because you bought into the "IP" rhetoric. Throw your errors when you see people use the words "IP" to make an argument, not when they point out that "IP" is a useless umbrella term that only serves to confuse.

Re:huh?

[Tacvek]

error in meaning process #4512: lack of internal logical coherence in statement detected. statement may be ironic, or speaker may be confused. abort, retry, fail?

The error is in your thinking. What the GP was saying: The term "Intellectual Property" intentionally has no clear meaning. Therefore it is not possible for there to exist a person with a clear understanding of the term, as to have a clear understanding requires the existence of a clear meaning.

The argument is valid, but the two premises, namely that clear understanding requires a clear meaning, and that "Intellectual Property" intentionally has no clear meaning, may still be up for debate.

Re:huh?

[donaggie03]

But "intellectual property" does have a clear meaning. It means trademark, copyright, and patent. Just because a person has a problem with all three of those types of IP does not mean they were tricked into using the term because they thought it only applied to copyright and they didn't know it also included patents. Maybe another argument could be that copyright is bad but trademark is good, but like I said, that is another argument.

Re:huh?

[Tacvek]

No. Intellectual Property means nonphysical objects/concepts/ideas covered by one or more of the following:

• Patent
• Design Patent (yes that is different)
• Trade secret
• Database Rights
• copyright
• trademark
• Service Mark
• Trade dress
• Industrial design right
• Utility Model
• Protected Geographical Indication
• Author's rights
• Moral rights
• Semiconductor Mask Rights
• Plant breeder's rights
• and others

What do they all have in common?

You might be tempted to say that they involve government granted monopolies over nonphysicals objects/ideas/concepts/etc. You would be wrong. Trade Secrets are not government granted, or at least they need not be; they can be constructed using contract law alone. They are also not necessarily monopolies. Protected Geographical Indications can be used by anybody who meets the requirements, without needing to get a license from some rights-holder, so there is no monopoly.

All they have in common that I know of is that they relate to nonphysical objects/concepts/ideas. So it is very difficult to say anything concretely about "intellectual property" in general, since the laws for each of those are so very different.

Bugger

[Alistair Hutton]

Bugger

Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

>>What matters to lawyers and judges are not concepts like "justice", "equity" or "reason". What matters to them is the written rule of the law,...

That's one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard.

Judges and lawyers are beholden to the law as it is written. If the law is unfair, then it is the fault of the legislators...you know, the people you elected to represent you fairly and reasonably.

In the common law countries (e.g., the heirs of the British system), there are courts -- either separate from the courts of law or, as in the US, now combined -- called Courts of Equity.

You go to a court of law in order to receive money for your wrongs. You go to a court of equity to see "justice" done, such as an injunction, the rescission of a contract, or forcing specific performance of an agreement.

Courts of equity had no basis in the written law. They were, in fact, established as 'the moral conscience of the King'. That's one hell of a piss-poor standard.

So there you have it. A court of law gets you equal treatment for everyone, even if you hate the outcome. A court of equity gets you unequal treatment, but a potential for a 'fair' outcome on a case-by-case basis.

(Note: Here in the US, what's most important to us -- historically, at least; I cringe at the state of things now -- is that everybody gets a fair shake and is treated the same. That's the goal. We don't like seeing people in the same situation treated differently. Our revolution basically came down to the fact that Britain wasn't treating us colonists as British citizens.)

Re:Ignorance

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Judges and lawyers are beholden to the law as it is written. If the law is unfair, then it is the fault of the legislators...you know, the people you elected to represent you fairly and reasonably.

And so, the day the law and legislators say that you are undesirable and must be taken away and gassed, I hope it will comfort you to know that the Judges and Lawyers did their duty and adhered so properly to the written word of the law.

So there you have it. A court of law gets you equal treatment for everyone, even if you hate the outcome. A court of equity gets you unequal treatment, but a potential for a 'fair' outcome on a case-by-case basis.

Then what is the point of either one of them?

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

And so, the day the law and legislators say that you are undesirable and must be taken away and gassed, I hope it will comfort you to know that the Judges and Lawyers did their duty and adhered so properly to the written word of the law.

If that is what the law say, yes. However, that is why, for example, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
Courts are designed as antidemocratic institutions and must unwaveringly follow Constitutional principles when faced with laws that invalid. Among other things, the Constitution is: (1) a set of broad principles that supersede all other law and (2) very hard to change (and thus, not subject to the whim of even a normal majority). In your example, the legislators passed a Bill of Attainder (legislative punishment against an individual). The Constitution very specifically forbids Bills of Attainder and any judge who "does their duty and adhere[s] ... to the written word of law" will nullify the Bill of Attainder. Of course, the law you propose violates any number of other Constitutional principles.

Then what is the point of either one of them?

You completely miss the point. You can be fair or you can be just. You can't be both. Pick one; America's founders picked the former.

European Patent Convention

[zzyzyx]

Article 52, Patentable Inventions, abstract :

"The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: [...]
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;"

Original text : http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/2000/e/ar52.html

But who cares about the actual word of the law ? All you need is a suitable interpretation.

Re:European Patent Convention

[Mindcontrolled]

The European Patent Convention does not apply here. This is a matter of German patent law, which exists in parallel to the European system. German patent law states that software is not patentable "as such" (PatG 1, Abs. 3+4). Now, obviously, the phrase "as such" is not exactly clear - the rulings of the High Court have been focused on the meaning of "as such" for years. The general opinion of the High Court, which, by the way, is not changed by this ruling, is that a patent is not describing a computer program "as such", as long as the program solves a technical problem regarding the computer it is running on or outside of the computer. E.g. overcoming a hardware limitation of a computer makes the subject matter technical, as it is the case with this ruling. Controlling a car's suspension system by software would make that software likely patentable, as another example, as the software solves the technical problem of improving a car's dynamics.

As usual: IANAL, this is not legal advice.

Re:European Patent Convention

[Wolfbone]

"The European Patent Convention does not apply here. This is a matter of German patent law, which exists in parallel to the European system. German patent law states that software is not patentable "as such" (PatG 1, Abs. 3+4)."

Where do you think the "as such" qualification comes from?

"Today, all EPO member states have national patent laws, which, in their basic provisions, specifically in patentability requirements, have been harmonised with the EPC."

http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-inventions/software.html

Re:European Patent Convention

[Mindcontrolled]

Harmonized, yes - this does not mean that they are absolutely identical. There still are considerable differences between the systems, especially with regard to software patents. Especially the mode of analysis of the technical nature of an invention used by the patent examiners is substantially different between the European and the German office.

Re:European Patent Convention

[metacell]

But I think it's more proper to say that the national laws are supersets of the EU laws. The EU laws contain minimum requirements, and each country within the EU is obliged to write national laws that contain at least those minimum requirements.

o rly? (tm)

[circletimessquare]

2 stories before this one:

http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/05/20/1310248

seems pretty abusive, no?

you and stallman fail because you assume trademark is the only weapon we have against the asshole selling bathtub bilge water as pepsi

stallman is entitled to his opinion, but he's not some god you have to obey without thinking the issue out yourself. read his argument again and THINK (tm)

k thx (tm)

Re:o rly? (tm)

[melikamp]

seems pretty abusive, no?

No. May be it's because you forgot to present any kind of argument. Patents and copyrights distort free market by cementing monopolies. They put a tax on all production and dissemination of new ideas, while giving nothing in return to the public. I cannot substantiate the last claim, but neither can anyone prove that patents and copyrights increase innovation or production. Without proof either way, these laws should be considered useless and bad, because they do cost a lot to us, the public, to enforce. The trade mark law prevents scam. It can, and is sometimes used to stifle free expression, but it is trivial to circumvent, if commentary and criticism is all you are after.

you and stallman fail because you assume trademark is the only weapon we have against the asshole selling bathtub bilge water as pepsi

I never claimed it is the only weapon. To my best knowledge, neither did Stallman.

Re:o rly? (tm)

[melikamp]

Well, actually, I did claim just now that they are the only weapon against the bath tub guy, and I think this is true. Care to name a law that prevents me from pouring tub water into a can that says "Pepsi Cola" and taking that to the market?

look at the story 2 below this one

[circletimessquare]

thanks

http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/05/20/1310248

"sometimes used to stifle free expression"

[circletimessquare]

thank you for making my argument for me

"trivial to circumvent"

and i'm glad that you also conclude like me that intellectual property law is defunct

(rolls eyes)

Re:"sometimes used to stifle free expression"

[melikamp]

Meh. At least we agree on what matters.

So...

[DarkKnightRadick]

This means we need to block all dynamic content sites from loading in Germany (and from hosting such content in Germany as well)? I can handle that. (:

A Lawyer's Wet Dream

[NicknamesAreStupid]

If this holds up, it will be the biggest boondoggle in the history of European law. Given all the legal precedents in the US and the multinational corporations that already have millions of US patents, this could easily cause a tidal wave of suits and filings. Every patent lawyer in Germany just secured lucrative work for the rest of their life.

It's called contributory (indirect) infringement

[FlorianMueller]

So that means if I sell software, without any hardware with it, then I'm not infringing on _any_ software patents, right?

The users might be, if they run said software on "a hardware appliance, comprising of a CPU, blahblah", but not the developer.

But then, why do pure software developers get sued, huh?

They can serve you an injunction for contributory (indirect) infringement and claim damages. Doesn't make much of a practical difference.

Be happy

[prefec2]

Every time when you think it cannot get worse, it just happens to do so. However, look on the bright side. It still could be worse. And when we reach finally the bottom. We'll be in the comfortable position that it only can get better.

Denial of reality will only last so long...

[3seas]

Then those who pursued denial will gain Infamy for eternity.

The court is wrong.

The Catholic Church once denied Galileo too and tried to hide sex abuse and pedophilia....

Re:Florian, stop your "defensive measures" spin

[Elektroschock]

But wasn't he against the directive?

To prove your position, please show similar ruling

[FlorianMueller]

After a quick skimming of the document, I can only say that the /. headline is as overblown and out of context as always. The ruling is perfectly in line with the prior rulings of the BGH:

One thing is to cite principles stated in prior decisions. Another is not to apply stricter standards that were used in certain previous rulings, such as the forces-of-nature principle, which the BGH indeed applied on a variety of occasions (and that one is just one example). The prior instance, the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) also applied tests that the BGH had established at some point, and on that basis denied patentability. The key thing is that the BGH now lowered the bar by refusing to insist on prior requirements and reducing it all to the extent that the easiest of all criteria to meet would be sufficient all on its own to justify patentability. If you disagree, please provide prior rulings that you believe set an equally low standard concerning subject matter, meaning that the BGH contented itself entirely with the mere fact that the parameters of a computer were taken into account.

From a programming point of view, if you have an AND expression with two or more components and then reduce it to just the easiest criterion to meet, it lowers the bar even though one can argue, as you did, that the criterion itself is not new.

Correction

[Adrian Lopez]

I never said [judges grant patents].

Rereading my original post, it's pretty obvious I did say that, although it's not what I meant. The basic point is that judges should be smart enough to tell the difference between software and hardware and should therefore be able to decide against software patents masquerading as hardware patents.

Re:Correction

[AbbeyRoad]

A patented novel step can be violated through any means.

You may write software that violates the novel steps
of a hardware patent.

The demarcation is better described in terms of the utility.
If you violate a patent that targets a utility unrelated to the
utility you are targeting, this is a MUCH better way to defend
your right to use someone elses novel steps.

I.e. rather than saying "I have a right to use novel steps because
mine is just software", say instead "I have a right to use someone
elses novel steps because his is a combined harvestor used
for thrashing wheat, and mine is related to sealing rooves
against the rain."

This is how the patent system currently works.

-paul

Re:Correction

[Adrian Lopez]

This is how the patent system currently works.

Then the patent system needs to change.

Re:To prove your position, please show similar rul

[Mindcontrolled]

As I said, for now I just skimmed over it. From that I get that the "controllable forces of nature"-standard is still alive - either by the software overcoming a technical limitation of the computer (which, admittedly, is WIDE open to interpretation), or by the software dealing with a technical problem outside of the computer as such. These standards appear to be upheld in the reasoning of the court. The word "technical" alone implies the "forces of nature"-standard by standing ruling of the BGH in my opinion. Again - I have to spend more time reading it - that's why underlined that I only skimmed over it. One thing is clear, however - this decision does NOT open the door for software patents "as such", as the headline seems to imply to me.

Please provide sample claim on 'software as such'

[FlorianMueller]

From that I get that the "controllable forces of nature"-standard is still alive - either by the software overcoming a technical limitation of the computer (which, admittedly, is WIDE open to interpretation),

As you could read in the decision, they waived the requirement that the new inventive element would have to meet that standard.

One thing is clear, however - this decision does NOT open the door for software patents "as such", as the headline seems to imply to me.

Headlines have a strict length limit here, so there's probably something unclear about every headline, at least about every headline addressing a complicated field. Could you provide an example for a patent claim on what you consider to be "software as such" (but not software patentable under the take-characteristics-of-computer-into account rule)? The sample claim wouldn't have to meet novelty or inventiveness criteria but just be a simple claim that would be a "software as such" claim. It will then become apparent that "software as such" ends up being something on which no one would even want a patent. That's why it's certainly resaonable to claim that all software is patentable if all software ideas are patentable.

One more thing on 'software as such

[FlorianMueller]

One thing is clear, however - this decision does NOT open the door for software patents "as such", as the headline seems to imply to me.

As you may very well know, the question of how to interpret "as such" is what the whole European software patent discussion has been about for a while. The BGH couldn't say in its ruling that "software as such" is herewith declared patentable because then it would act in explicit contravention of an international treaty to which Germany is a party but the BGH can through its interpretation effectively render the exclusion of software patents contained in that treaty meaningless. That's why in my other reply to this, "Please provide sample claim on 'software as such'", I asked you to show a sample claim on "software as such" the way you define it and then we'll see if that makes sense for anyone to patent. If it doesn't make sense to patent that, then the exclusion will, which is what happened in my view, have been reduced to absurdity.

Trump

[Bysshe]

EU law trumps German law

Re:Trump

[lordholm]

EPC is not the EU (this is actually a huge problem, since if it was part of the union the EPC and the EPO would be under scrutiny of the parliament), further, the EPC only define what is patentable on European level, it does not prevent national patent offices from issuing local patents according to their own rules.

There is definitely a need to get rid of the national patent offices and get fully EU-wide patents where the rules are under the scrutiny of the parliament, this would at least get rid of the need to check 27 different patent systems in 26 different languages and make the EU market a bit less "scary" for SMEs and individual developers. It would actually be a far better situation, even if SW patents where granted on EU level (which I really hope will never be the case), since at least you would know what you have to deal with.

Apologies to Robert Frost

[Anonymous Coward]

Fire and Lawyers

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say via lawyers.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction lawyers
Are also great
And would suffice.

I was scripting on a Spectrum 48k.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was scripting on a Spectrum 48k. 3.5Mhz Zilog Z80. You don't get much more limited than that.

Except you no longer have the song.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you no longer have the song. So you've paid for the song and have to repay for the song. This seems an appropriate fine.

NOTE: this is FAR more than any corporation gets in fines. See the DRAM makers, MS monopoly slap and the Sony DRM (and copyright infringement) fiasco.

Oh, and the price fixing of the entire RIAA (where they paid in CDs they couldn't sell!).

Anyway, if you fine the person, it is going to come out of the corporation pockets anyway: they'll not buy any products and the companies will go out of business because they're not able to sell anything, and sales tax will drop horrifically, therefore they'll have to raise taxes on the rich (who have money). So therefore fining people is just going to cost the company execs (who are rich) money.

Re:Please provide sample claim on 'software as suc

[Mindcontrolled]

Where did the decision waive the requirement of a technical nature of the inventive step? Paragraph 27 states that technical means for solving a technical problem are existent, if the workings of a program are "determined by technical conditions outside of the data processing system" or if "the program considers technical conditions within the data processing system" - the latter being the reason for the decision. This is in line with "Seitenpuffer", for example.

As for a claim of a program "as such" - I would offer a process claim dealing with a plain, abstract algorithm. Just imagine a "Process for performing the Sieve of Erathosthenes algorithm." - you can derive a full claim from that yourself, the steps of the algorithm are known. The claim contains no technical attribute, and therefore is not patentable under 1 - compare paragraph 19 of the decision. It is a "program as such".

Now let's extend that to "Process for performing the Sieve of Erathosthenes algorithm on a digital data processing system". Now, the claim contains a technical attribute, of course - the data processing system. This would indeed not be a program as such under the current ruling. However, following the standing decisions, as cited and emphasized in paragraph 22 of the current decision, not only has a technical element to be present, there have to be technical means for solving a technical problem. The workings of this program are neither determined by external nor internal technical factors of the computer, therefore, there are no technical means for solving a technical problem. Therefore this is still not patentable under the standing decisions of the BGH and BPatG.

ouch

[Thraxy]

Ouch Germany! This is because of those Nazi jokes I told, isn't it? They were all said in a friendly, ice-breaking manner. I didn't mean to offend. You don't have to get all pissy about it... :(

You just broke copyright. No patent needed.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just broke copyright. No patent needed.

"If you remove patents from software, that leaves you with what sort of licensing options? If I can find your source code, can I just rebrand your application and sell it like open source software?"

No, you can't if the license doesn't let you do that.

This was true when there were no patents on software at all.

It is true now.

Why the question?

"I think patents, as you said, were to defend the solo inventor from losing his invention once he approached a company to market and produce it."

So many people have this WRONG.

Patents were to stop Trade Secrets causing innovation to have to start over again.

Trade Secret or Patent (open disclosure, the opposite of Trade Secret).

Now with patents, it should be that if you can't keep it a trade secret, you can't have a patent on it either. Else the purpose of the patent (as an alternative to Trade Secret) is no alternative: it wasn't possible to keep it secret, so the patentee is getting something for nothing.

Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm

[FlorianMueller]

Thanks for providing this clarifying example but even the Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm would (if it were new) be patentable under the new document generator ruling if any useful "technical" application were found for it (including in such fields as computer graphics or cryptographics) and if it optimized computing time INCLUSIVE_OR memory usage INCLUSIVE_OR bandwidth usage INCLUSIVE_OR other computer-specific efficiency aspects as compared to the relevant prior art for solving the same "technical" problem. You probably know that there are many European cryptography patents, so the fact that at the heart of it there's just a mathematical concept doesn't make them non-patentable because the approach I just described for making the Sieve of Eratosthenes patentable is used.

Re:Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm

[Mindcontrolled]

Yes, under these conditions it would be patentable. Not as a broad general claim, though, but as claim restricted to the useful technical application, or as a specific implementation that, for example, optimized computing time. I agree with you here, and I am not overly happy with the current state of software patents. However, I still fail to see how this ruling changes things substantially. It would have already been patentable under "Seitenpuffer", if it optimized computing time or other workings of the computer, and it would have been patentable under "Tauchcomputer" and all the following rulings with the same tenor, if it would lead to an external technical effect. As you say, there already are lots of crypto patents - so it obviously has been possible before. I don't want to defend software patents here - I just fail to see how this decision is a major change to the status quo. I guess we will have to see how the examiners and the BPatG reacts to it.

Hey you fucking idiots!

[Hurricane78]

I got prior art by the cubic square mile! Literally tons of code that did exactly that. For a loong time before you.
Now what? Do you wanna sue me for it? Bring it on! I’ll rip your fucking face head off and shit in your throat!
As Leonidas would say: I hope you will never die, with every day of your life being a horror worse than hell!

Improvement on the machine?

[Platinumrat]

In fact I would go so far to say that running much of the patent-pending software on a machine that's design to run generic software is anything but an improvement of that machine.

Re:Improvement on the machine?

[AbbeyRoad]

Please go read some patents

-paul

Germany is not Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Lord slashdot, Germany and Europe are not the same thing...the last guy who tried that one ended up alone in a bunker surrounded by Russians...

Whaaaa?

[freaker_TuC]

What does Godwin have to do with software patents?

Re:It's called contributory (indirect) infringemen

[AbbeyRoad]

FlorianMueller you are exactly correct.

Patent vs Copyright

[Grumbleduke]

Hang on, if software can now be patented, does that make it an "idea" or "invention", rather than an "artistic work"? In that case, does it meant that copyright law no longer applies to software?

Of course not - that might actually be useful to the average person. So now an algorithm can be both patented and copyrighted.... but only if it is a Computer Science one, not a Mathematical one.

I think someone needs to seriously knock in the head of all these "intellectual property" thingamies.

is it just me

[shnull]

Or does it look like lately Germany is acting up again ...? Do we have to pound them into oblivion again ? I hope not