Letter To Abolish Software Patents In Australia

Ben Sturmfels writes "Over 500 members of the Australian software industry have have signed an open letter urging their government to abolish software patents. Signatories include free software luminaries Andrew Tridgell and Jonathan Oxer. In 2008 the Australian government began a Review of Patentable Subject Matter. While we missed the 2009 public consultation period, we hope to influence the government's response to the Review, due in February 2011. The letter will be presented to Minister Kim Carr in early August."

Comments

I don't understand this..

[h7]

I don't know the Australian rationale but I wonder when Americans discuss the need for patents and copyrights. Why do content creators want to abolish patents? America is rich today because of patents and copyrights. If every second guy could rip off a great idea, we'd have nothing left to offer. We cannot compete on prices. The innovation and creativity of Americans is what has made US powerful. Why would you want to create a law that will affect your livelihood in the future? The rest of the world is just waiting for something like this to happen. I don't get it.

Re:I don't understand this..

[theheadlessrabbit]

I don't know the Australian rationale but I wonder when Americans discuss the need for patents and copyrights. Why do content creators want to abolish patents? America is rich today because of patents and copyrights. If every second guy could rip off a great idea, we'd have nothing left to offer. We cannot compete on prices. The innovation and creativity of Americans is what has made US powerful...

That's funny. I always though one of the reasons that America was rich today was because when they were developing, they did not respect patents and copyrights, specifically foreign copyrights, such as books from Europe. They just copied and reproduced the content they wanted at will. Oh, and slaves. You can get rich pretty easily when you don't have to pay for the stuff you need/want.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because software patents really break the patent system. Maybe you just want to watch the FSFs Patent Absurdity movie. I'm tired to explain everything again here, and the movie makes the point pretty clear.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of ways to protect ideas aside from copyright and especially patents (such as trade secrets, and natural monopolies). Having patent lawyers is not always a justifiable cost, but necessary to defend against other companies patent lawyers but in some cases all sides might benefit from laws preventing patents in their areas (especially smaller companies). This might not hold true for all areas/industries though.

Re:I don't understand this..

[thoughtfulbloke]

Because it prevents new cultural creations as it makes them totally dependent on the patent holders willingness to provide their particular patent. Effectively it creates blocks on economic activity, as people are not going to provide their patents for others who will disrupt their business models, or alternatively it imposes a patent troll tax on doing business (this depends on if the patent holder is an entrenched market player, or a leech). Given the economic costs, and the high rate of change of software, it is better for the economy as a whole (but not current individual patent holders) for the abolition of software patents.

It will be interesting to see if the Australian government leans towards the U.S. model (with the U.S./Australian Free Trade Agreement) or New Zealand no-software patents model (with the Closer Economic Relations agreements between the countries). I suspect that mainly hinges on who wins the upcoming Australian election.

Re:I don't understand this..

[king neckbeard]

The US became the dominant world force in copyright when it had significantly weaker copyright laws than basically all of Europe. We still lack things like 'moral rights' and have some of the most expansive fair use rights in the world (at least before the DMCA, anyway). As for software, there are several issues. The first is that the functional element and the written element are virtually the same. Variable names, outputs strings, and source code comments are about the only non-functional elements. If you had a specific patent claim held to the same degree of scrutiny as say a pharmaceutical, it would have hundreds of claims for even an elementary program or portion thereof. However, most patents are very broad, and thus prevent alternatives that function in a largely different way, but are similar enough to fall into the patent. Another issue is that compatibility is incredibly important in software, and patents get in the way of compatibility. You can have software that is technically superior to your competitor, but if your competitor's product is already in widespread usage and your product isn't compatible, you will probably lose. A final issue is that the field of software has a lot of problems with competition, and software patents give an even bigger advantage to billion dollar companies over startups. Also, you seem to not understand the nature of copyright and patent laws in the US. The constitution clause that allows for patents states that

The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Not only do patents and copyright exist for the benefit of the public, they are simply a means to the end, not an ends to themselves. If we can conclude that some other incentive already in place does the job well enough, we could just end our patent and copyright systems. International treaties make it a bit more complicated than that, but it's not as if the US has a problem with acting unilaterally. As for why Australia would want to do that, they generally don't really have large, established firms, so Australian software companies (and users) are going to be on the losing end of the system with software patents in place.

Re:I don't understand this..

[mjwx]

The innovation and creativity of Americans is what has made US powerful. Why would you want to create a law that will affect your livelihood in the future?

Because of the business ethos of those who were made rich and powerful with American innovation and creativity. Much of which came from public sources such as American universities and the NASA program which are now under funded so those same businessmen can get taxpayer money to pay for their mistakes.

They aren't thinking beyond the next quarter, screw the future if there is profit to be made now.

Re:I don't understand this..

[nonguru]

My understanding is that it relates to the area of sw patents in particular, not an entire system. But on that subject, I'm sure every other slashdotter here can relate a story on how the patent system can be, and is, abused based on legal (mis)interpretations of prior art or discovery, or simple incompetence of the Patent Office (often due to an overload of spurious patents). True innovation is sometimes NOT rewarded. And copyright in terms of length is a joke - 80 years post-death of the artist. Do you get it now?

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

But if narrow patents and 15-year copyright helped the USA become an economic power, surely broader patents and longer copyright terms will help even more, no? You have to argue why the relationship is not linear.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that mainly hinges on who wins the upcoming Australian election.

What makes you suspect this?

There seems to be little, is any, differentiation in policy from either potential government. Being an issue with little public cachet any change in the next two-and-a-half weeks doesn't seem probable at this juncture.

Re:I don't understand this..

[91degrees]

It's about balance. Patent protection provides an incentive to produce something new, but makes it a lot harder to improve an existing invention since you need to patent holders approval to actually produce the improved invention.

Looking at the evidence, it seems very few companies make money licencing patented software, and usuallly simply use their patents protectively, using a patent sharing agreement which effectively bars small players from the market. Without patents it seems quite clear that innovation in software would not be harmed since there is still an incentive to innovate since the short time to market of software still gives the innovator a competitive edge.

Re:I don't understand this..

[c0lo]

Why do content creators want to abolish patents?

Because for content creation, copyright should be more than enough already? What, the free and the brave started to feel the pinch of fear?
(and yes, software is a copyrightable content, as - by itself - it doesn't transform the machine it's running on, much less transform it in a useful way).

We cannot compete on prices.

1. Then invent some other means to compete. For example: a head-start is usually enough to get ahead of the competitions.
   Also, there exists something like trade secrets - if staying rich is what you want, this should be enough for you, just don't be a hypocrite to say "I'll publish my discovery for the benefit of the human race advancement"
2. And what about me that find rewards in writing open-source and don't give a ... of prices. Why your right to feel happy of being rich would trump mine - for creating something useful used by many. Assuming that I discover something that parts of this humanity might benefit, implementing it in open-source will give everybody an easy access to use the discovery immediately.
   (if this sounds too commie/pinky to you, here's my opinion: I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN on what you call it - as a content creator it is my right to do as I please with my content - the content didn't kill anyone)

Re:I don't understand this..

[thoughtfulbloke]

It's actually the potential senate composition- The Greens could well wind up holding the balance of power, in which case the next government less likely to propose pro-multinational corporation legislation (and software patents definitely favour corporations who have lawyers more than small local software artisans).
Now, I think it more likely that either new government will harmonise with the U.S., but a Labour government dependent on the Greens in the Senate would be more likely to reconsider and go the New Zealand route. In general, the more interests a government has to address, the more likely it is to favour the entire country rather than one sector.

Re:I don't understand this..

[dov_0]

Isn't ripping other people off how much software development works anyway? How many media players are there that look and feel like iTunes for instance? When IE8 came out it just looked like a sleazy commercial version of Firefox. How many people are there who got rich on the ideas of others? Bill Gates is a prime example.

Re:I don't understand this..

[QuantumG]

Wow.. that was a horrible documentary. Was there some patent preventing them from putting music in it? The minute long "read this slide in silence" between the generic interview snippets was horrible. You can tell that it could be a good film if they got someone with film school experience to follow at least the basic elements of documentary grammar.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Mick R]

With patents on software abolished. there is still protection for software developers. It's called copyright. Patents were only ever intended to cover PHYSICAL developments, not written works. A better situation is where code can be reused so long as you credit the original source. The current system of patents prevents anyone from further developing software beyond the original patent holder's capabilities, effectively stifling innovation. Innovation comes in small steps, building on the work of others. It's how science has worked since the beginning. Patents on intellectual (imaginary?) property forces innovation to either stop dead or to operate in quantum leaps. The latter happens very rarely, while incremental innovation can be continuous. Software patents don't protect livelihoods, they strangle them in favour of large patent trolls.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the film isn't the sort of fancy hollywood-style you may be used to doesn't make it's message any less true, does it?

And I always thought marketing wasn't affecting the /. crowd that much... stupid me.

Re:I don't understand this..

[QuantumG]

Aesthetics are universal. If just delivering the message was the goal, why not just write it down?

I watched it through to the end, that's more than most people would have done.

Re:I don't understand this..

[metacell]

No, it's copyright which prevents them from putting music in it. The fees for music to a short film like this easily amount to thousands of dollars.

Re:I don't understand this..

[QuantumG]

There's a thing called creative commons.. in fact, the film itself is under a creative commons license.

Re:I don't understand this..

[metacell]

How do you know they helped the US at all? Maybe they just did less damage than the stronger patent/copyright laws in other countries?

Re:I don't understand this..

[AHuxley]

re generate a great consumer market, yes Ford got that too, sell to workers and export to world, real products with an endless supply of raw materials, cheap energy, paid labor.
Cheap oil via client states in need of US protection helped too.
Now its just mercs and bankers feeding back into the political system that keeps the wars going as the M3 presses run.

Re:I don't understand this..

[metacell]

True, maybe they could have found some fitting free music if they had tried harder.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Aesthetics are universal.

Yes. But Aesthetics are also subjective. Personally, I found the movie to be more pleasant to watch than many other, sometimes (IMHO) overloaded documentaries. Then again, I am probably not a good example of an average person.

If just delivering the message was the goal, why not just write it down?

A movie reaches a broader audience. Many people would be to lazy to read an article about the subject, but they would be willing to watch a short movie about it. Moreover, a movie can explain complicated things in a much simpler way for laymen.

I am currently at a University, and I can guarantee you, if I gave an 4-page written article about the absurdity of patents to ~150 students, maybe 50 of them would actually read the first sentence, and about 5 would read the whole article, and those would be the ones which already heard something about it from other sources. But if I would show them a ~30min movie, even if it's aesthetically not perfect, probably more than 100 students would watch it, and 30 more would still catch up some parts of it.

I watched it through to the end, that's more than most people would have done.

You are probably right. But even if you had only watched the first ~5-10min of the movie, you would still get some valuable insights.

Re:I don't understand this..

[clarkkent09]

Not at all. America is rich because while there was liberty for individuals to develop its vast resources in a much more efficient way than any kind of government planning ever could, there was also for the most part the rule of law. As for slavery, that's really not worth discussing. There was slavery for thousands of years in Africa so why isn't it rich? Slave owning, agricultural south was also much poorer than non slave owning capitalist, industrialized north.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

The US economy is heavily dependant on exploiting undeveloped countries in this very day. To say that slavery never contributed to US economy, while in the same time your own corporations suck the very life out of countries with questionable humanitarian values doesn't do you must justice.

Re:I don't understand this..

[DNS-and-BIND]

So. Let me get this straight. Your story is, America got rich because it copied some books from England back in the 1800s? You're serious, right?

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

But if narrow patents and 15-year copyright helped the USA become an economic power, surely broader patents and longer copyright terms will help even more, no? You have to argue why the relationship is not linear.

IP laws (like copyright and patents) don't take into account amortization effects. In fact something like copyright is pretty much exclusively opposite of any natural economic state (which is why Enforcement is such a big issue with the IP-rights people).

So while technology like computers or cars have a useful practical life of about 2 to 5 years, patents on that (relatively) old technology last for 20 years (in America), protected long after the technology has been antiquated, and copyrights last long after the creator (and his children) have died of old age (in many cases). In fact, copyrights can go UP in price through artificially lowering the supply (like movie studios often only sell limited edition versions of old classic movies every few years to keep the price artificially high, this could not be achieved without copyright laws). In the end, it is the legal entities of corporations that benefit the most from the legal system of IP laws. Laws were of course created for and by the rich and powerful to protect their status quo. It's a fool who believes that the average citizen benefits from (IP) Law.

Re:I don't understand this..

[dargaud]

And you forget the most important, taking the land of others by killing them off. It's easy becoming a rich landowner if you don't need to work your ass off to purchase every square foot first and/or respect former uses of said land.

Re:I don't understand this..

[dargaud]

Effectively it creates blocks on economic activity

One famous example are toll roads. During the roman empire there were no toll roads and commerce flourished within the empire. After its collapse and the feudal states, every little road or bridge had a toll booth. It stopped commerce as long distance transportation of goods was simply too expensive. There's one good example of that in Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle: the most powerful king of Europe (Louis XIV) could purchase excellent wood for shipbuilding... but he couldn't afford to pay the tolls to carry it from the forests to the shipyards.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Nerdfest]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that if you improved on a patent, you could get a patent on the improvement. Is this not the case anymore?

Re:I don't understand this..

[JAlexoi]

To translate that into a simple English: US thrives because it had given the opportunity to plunder the lands that were not plundered and after the WW1 most of the world was in debt to US.
Do you really think that the British empire was rich due to something else other than plundering the rest of the world? US is not much different in that respect.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Ice Tiger]

I think you're confusing copyright and patents.

By having software patents and effectively an innovation tax on an innovation process that very much builds on what came before it actually makes development more expensive in countries with software patents than without.

The software patent situation in the USA has degraded to the point where companies exist to effectively tax those that innovate in software without doing any innovation themselves. It's uncompetitive compared to those countries without the software patent tax.

Re:I don't understand this..

[silentcoder]

>Slavery never contributed much to Americas industrial success.

That is only true in the narrowest possible reading of the concept. Those industries relied on farming to supply food for their workers for example. If that food was mostly imported - workers would have had a much higher cost of living, meaning they HAD to be paid more (because dead workers aren't productive), which would have slowed down industry growth. Among the most profitable of slavery-run farms were the cotton farmers, cotton isn't sold to the public- it's sold as a source material for the textile industry. If the cotton farms were PAYING their workers, their costs would have been higher - the cotton more expensive and one of America's most successful early industries would have been a GREAT deal smaller.

Even so you made a strawman attack - the disrespect for copyright and patents were the GP's point and did indeed have a massive positive impact on America's wealth and you ignored that to focus only on the point about slavery (an example given and not even part of the GP's main point) - and what's worse your strawman attack was rather pathetic as your argument is easily debunked with just 5 seconds of logic.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

So. Let me get this straight. Your story is, America got rich because it copied some books from England back in the 1800s? You're serious, right?

Copying books meant the US had cheap, widely available education. It isn't the only factor, but would you seriously suggest that the ability to copy books and machinery designs legally would not enrich a nation? Ignoring foreign IP rights will benefit any country so long as it is a net importer of IP.

Re:I don't understand this..

[silentcoder]

> There was slavery for thousands of years in Africa so why isn't it rich?

It WAS rich at the time -at least those who owned the slaves were. It's not rich NOW because every inch of it's wealth was stolen by Europe under the guise of bringing "God and civilization to the barbarians" through a system of mass exploitation and annexation you may have heard of before, it was called colonization.

Ever seen Apocalypse Now? Go read the original book: Heart of Darkness, and while you're at it pick up a copy of "Things fall appart" by Chinua Achebe and then speak of how poor Africa was BEFORE Europe showed up. Hint: it wasn't.

Colonization didn't end all that long ago - the last African country to gain independence was Eritrea and that was only in 1999. The vast majority were independent before the 80's of course -and left as rogue states without much governance at all, ripped apart by years of wars against illegitimate occupation forces (yeah I know that wasn't how the occupiers describe it - the people who chased them out must have been very happy with their "benefactors" to do so right ?) and left in the hands of warlords and dictators who happily continued the patterns of exploitation they learned from their colonial masters - bad cycle stars and is almost impossible to break.

These days indeed the country that makes by far the most money out of exploiting Africa's potential for wealth is the U.S.A. The 4th largest oil reserves in the world belong to Nigeria - yet it's also got the second most worthless currency in the world - all the oil fields are owned by British and American companies... who is surprised ? The largest mining company in Sub-Saharan-Africa is even CALLED Anglo-American corporation.
Your own farmers get PAID to destroy crops rather than compete fairly with African farmers (where the climate would probably mean we could outfarm you a thousand times over... yet we starve while you burn crops)...

Sorry - you are just plain wrong.

Re:I don't understand this..

[ciderbrew]

Yeap, that's about it. Local access to cheap energy to power R&D/production/war. Then sail off and take things that you do not have in your own area. Every country in Europe has had it’s renaissance at some point. It's a CIV game with no save point.

Re:I don't understand this..

[silentcoder]

>Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that if you improved on a patent, you could get a patent on the improvement. Is this not the case anymore?

Generally speaking yes, but in the case of software patents it's not. This is because of how radically different software is compared to physical inventions. Effectively EVERY use of a patented algorithm is ipso facto an improvement, if you recognize them then all the patents are worthless.
More-over you will usually find the best improvements to an algorithm isn't always IN the algorithm but in the code that you surround it with. You get a fast sorting algorithm - if you stick it in a program with better memory management and smarter pre-fetching it will still sort a file faster than one in which the surrounding code is slower. That's why performance measurement of algorythms are done using an arithmetic that deliberately excludes outside factors. Big O-notation doesn't care at what speed the data can be read, only how many steps the algorythm has to execute on each piece before producing a result.

So unless you can reduce the number of steps - you haven't made an improvement as patent law would see it, but if you write a faster pre-fetch algorythm your program IS an improvement over your competitors. Much like a better gearing system would make a faster car but doesn't count as an improvement over your competitors patent on a certain design of tire.

Mechanical inventions are such that this is not an major hindrance... software on the other hand is not like that.

In most cases you can get a patent on a specific way to design a certain mechanical part, but if somebody designs a different one your patent doesn't cover it. You may have a patent on your tire design but it doesn't stop every other car manufacturer from having tires on their cars (or force them to buy tires from you).
In software patents - that is literally what it means, most software patents are so broadly written that ANY algorithm producing the same results from the same inputs would be considered infringing. If somebody has a software patent that's a feature that NO OTHER PROGRAM CAN EVER HAVE - no matter how it does it.
In fact because software patents never come with source disclosure requirements, there is no way to even MEASURE if something is in fact an IMPROVEMENT. The two algorythm do the same thing- you cannot say "but my way does it more effeciently and is therefor a new patentable innovation". Instead the law says "same results from same described inputs = infringement".... wham you lose.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

tbh i would have prefered it written down, at least i could skim the boring bits. the first 30 seconds were BRUTAL. and i really really fucking hate software patents.

Re:I don't understand this..

[h7]

Jeez, if there ever was an example of unfair moderation. My post has so many replies, and is still considered "Redundant".

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

meh, like either government could give a flying fuck either way. they only burn they can possibly feel is from corps wanting the usual barrier to entry for the up and comers. do the greens actually care about this stuff?

Re:I don't understand this..

[91degrees]

Yes, you're correct (As far as I know). The problem is that if you improve on something you still usually need to licence the original patent upon which you have improved unless your improvements make it a completely different invention.

Re:I don't understand this..

[seaton carew]

Uh huh.
If you check your history, you'll find that America's economic power prior to independence (and right through to Edison's era) was *founded* on ignoring the copyrights & patents of other nations. Guess what? Americans may not have invented everything you think they did.
America was a developing nation once. Try sticking that fact into your neat economic hypothesis.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Theaetetus]

>Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that if you improved on a patent, you could get a patent on the improvement. Is this not the case anymore?

Generally speaking yes, but in the case of software patents it's not.

Huh. That's odd. See, I write and prosecute patent applications on software every day, and the vast majority are improvements rather than pioneering in a field. And they get allowed and issued constantly. I'm not going to say that you don't know what you're talking about, but your statement isn't supported by the evidence.

So unless you can reduce the number of steps - you haven't made an improvement as patent law would see it, but if you write a faster pre-fetch algorythm your program IS an improvement over your competitors. Much like a better gearing system would make a faster car but doesn't count as an improvement over your competitors patent on a certain design of tire.

Yes, you've made an improvement, and you patent your faster pre-fetch algorithm. Similarly, you patent your new transmission.

In most cases you can get a patent on a specific way to design a certain mechanical part, but if somebody designs a different one your patent doesn't cover it. You may have a patent on your tire design but it doesn't stop every other car manufacturer from having tires on their cars (or force them to buy tires from you).

... if they use a different design for tires... If you make a faster pre-fetch algorithm like you said, then that doesn't stop everyone else from using older, slower pre-fetch algorithms - just yours.

In fact because software patents never come with source disclosure requirements, there is no way to even MEASURE if something is in fact an IMPROVEMENT.

They don't require source code because if the code is in C, people like you would implement the exact same program in C+ and claim that you're not infringing. However, all patents require disclosure sufficient that one of ordinary skill in the art could implement the claimed invention. For software, this usually means a flow chart. And if you can't follow a flow chart, then you really shouldn't be complaining.

The two algorythm do the same thing- you cannot say "but my way does it more effeciently and is therefor a new patentable innovation". Instead the law says "same results from same described inputs = infringement".... wham you lose.

No, it doesn't. Read the flow charts. That's the claimed method. You can get the same result, and if you do it a different way, you're not infringing. And this isn't unique to software - as you noted, people can patent tires, but it doesn't stop people from achieving the same result, a rolling car, with the same inputs, a body and some rubber.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Theaetetus]

With patents on software abolished. there is still protection for software developers. It's called copyright. Patents were only ever intended to cover PHYSICAL developments, not written works.

Not so. The statute says "process", and processes are not themselves "PHYSICAL", although they may interact with physical things.

A better situation is where code can be reused so long as you credit the original source. The current system of patents prevents anyone from further developing software beyond the original patent holder's capabilities, effectively stifling innovation. Innovation comes in small steps, building on the work of others. It's how science has worked since the beginning. Patents on intellectual (imaginary?) property forces innovation to either stop dead or to operate in quantum leaps. The latter happens very rarely, while incremental innovation can be continuous.

And that's just not true. You absolutely can patent improvements. You may have to license or cross-license with the original patent holder, but this applies in every industry, not just software. If I invent and patent a stool and you come up with a brilliant idea of attaching a back to it to make a chair, you can get a patent on your chair, even though you can't make it without licensing my stool. That's fine - I can't make chairs without licensing your patent, so it encourages us to cross-license.

Re:I don't understand this..

[mcvos]

The problem with overly broad and unchecked patents (which is what the US currently has), is that it stifles innovation and can make it practically impossible to do business. Unless you're the market leader, of course.

When you make a new product or write any kind of software, you need to hire patent lawyers to investigate if anyone has patented any part of that product already, figure out if those patents are still valid, and if they ever were meaningful patents at all. Basically you need to challenge them in court if you really want an answer.

Business works because in practice, almost everybody ignores patents most of the time. But if you cross somebody, or if a patent holder has nothing to lose, you're in for an expensive fight for no good reason.

For anyone smaller than IBM, that's just not an option. Patents kill competition and give patentholders practically a monopoly in that market.

Re:I don't understand this..

[silentcoder]

>Yes, you've made an improvement, and you patent your faster pre-fetch algorithm. Similarly, you patent your new transmission

See there's the misunderstanding. Your new transmission is an innovation - it's NOT an improvement of the tires ! That's why it's patentable you CAR may now be better than your competitors but nobody spoke about patenting the whole car.
Where the real world differs from software patents is this: if I make a better transmission and get a patent on it. ALL I got a patent on is MY transmission design.
With a software patent I now effectively have the right to demand all other cars have only one gear because they can't HAVE transmissions at all. What's worse, I'm likely to GET my patent despite the fact that cars have had transmissions for nearly 80 years.

How many software patents are granted every day covering a feature in any shape or form - long after that feature is in heavy use ? Microsoft recently lost a patent case that covered "streaming video played over a network" - for the ability to view videos in I.E. This is a feature that in various forms are almost as old as networks themselves !

That's the problem - software patents cover ANY implementation of the feature.

>... if they use a different design for tires... If you make a faster pre-fetch algorithm like you said, then that doesn't stop everyone else from using older, slower pre-fetch algorithms - just yours.

Ooookaaay... so you're either an idiot or you can't read ? I said HAVING a faster prefetch algorythm in my sorting program makes my program faster than a program with the SAME sorting algorythm LACKING it. But the PATENT here is on the SORTING algorythm and the fact that my IMPROVED PROGRAM is NOT an improvement on the PATENTED ALGORITHM so I remain liable.

This exact thing HAS happened in the past. There is a very nice way to update all the cells in a spreadsheet whenever one value changes - I won't bug you with the technical details but it's a simple enough idea - one on which ALL spreadsheet developers MUST eventually converge. It was also patented - long after many of them HAD it. So then it had to be removed from them all, companies actually DOWNGRADED their customers to remove the feature ! It's standard in all spreadsheets now but only because it finally expired.

>However, all patents require disclosure sufficient that one of ordinary skill in the art could implement the claimed invention.

Oh really ? The fact is - any algorythm that takes the same inputs and produces the same outputs REGARDLESS OF THE WAY IT DOES IT OR THE EXACT STEPS is almost ALWAYS considered covered by a patent. You don't just get a patent on a WAY to create a feature but on the feature itself. Effectively no other program can have that feature without a license from you - even if they never saw your program (assuming it even exists).

Short version dumbass: if there was ANY practical reality to what you're saying patent trolls wouldn't, indeed COULDN'T exist.

Their very POSSIBILITY of profitable patent trolling is all the indictment against software patents anybody could reasonably need.

But you won't agree - you said yourself you're basically a patent lawyer of course you'll downplay the massive fuckup it is and outright deny it like in your last paragraph - you form part of he ONLY fucking business to ever BENEFIT from software patents.

Again - everything you CLAIM about software patents is negated and PROVEN false by three simple words: patent trolls exist.

If your last paragraph was true their very existence would be completely impossible.

Re:I don't understand this..

[GodWasAnAlien]

America is not rich because of patents and copyrights. There is no evidence of that. America is rich because of innovation.

While initially, the sole purpose of copyright and patent law was to encourage innovation, it is no longer the case. Extending copyright from 56 to 75 years (as was done in the 70's) or from 75 to 95-120 years (as was done in the 90's), was about expanding profits, not innovation. Software patents are often reinvention of the wheel. In the dot-com era, old ideas were re-patented with "on the internet" attached. These days, old ideas are reinvented with "on a mobile device" attached. This type of "invention" monopoly only slows innovation. Each company now may accidentally run into patents, as patents are often very trivial.

Most here are not advocating completely abolishing copyright and patent law. Just reforming it so that it actually encourages new ideas.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Elektroschock]

Here is something for the US, yes, it's Bilski.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Elektroschock]

The largest percentage of the population in the US came after the abolishment of slavery. Basically the whole 18/19 century history of the US is irrelevant because most Americans don't originate from these people, but they were brainwashed to believe they have to uphold the freemaison ideology of the United States founding fathers.

Re:I don't understand this..

[GarryFre]

When the idea of software patents came out I shuddered when I thought of a bunch of computer illiterate lawyers and bigwigs deciding if they should grant a patent for common things like looping, incrementing and the like. Course this seems silly to me now but the objection I had to the idea of intellectual property precludes the fact that others can think too and sometimes there IS only one best way to do a thing. Can you imagine if the person who thought up the first hammer, or wheel or tire could patent those? We'd be paying maybe $100 for a hammer instead of maybe $15. If this happens in software it would staunch creativity by turning it into a crime. Not to mention that patent research is last I heard, horribly expensive and not conclusive. There are exceptions like if someone makes a knock off, of a complex program that does seem wrong, but to some degree, it can also be like patenting common language constructs. Then instead of freedom of speech it would be fee-dom of speech and the bible would have said "In the abundance of words there does not fail to be a patent violation." :D

Re:I don't understand this..

[bkeahl]

That's not really an accurate representation of the facts. People who cheat often become rich if nobody calls them on it. However, our country as a whole did not attain the level of overall wealth it did as a result of such acts.

Our current tax system confiscates money from one group and gives it to others, along with a massive amount of borrowed money, and our overall quality of life is not increasing at nearly the rate it had over the previous 100years.

Slavery was most certainly wrong, but hardly free. The economics of it certainly played to the plantation owner's advantage, but a weak/nearly dead (or dead) slave was of little use to the plantation owner. In reality, he had to decide how much to invest in the care of his slaves. Much as government run healthcare does. Like the government, once the ROI on the slave/citizen goes negative you stop investing in them. The plantation owner, however, had to go buy another slave, so the model breaks down there.

As for patents, the idea is, and was, to protect intellectual property so the person who created/invented/discovered whatever was patented can have a window of time to recoup their investment and gain some reward for it. That, along with a very small and limited government, is what made our country take off.

Unfortunately, it seems the patent system has become so abused that very minor variations of an existing patent suddenly become "new". In other cases similarities can often appear to be infringements. It seems to me this is a trial lawyer issue. In the end, it's the attorneys and accountants that profit from the legal battles.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Elektroschock]

The United States are rich because they revived their crushed economy with WWII and won the war. They were able to develop their industry by war without enemy fire at home. Same for the Soviets, except
i) The Soviets turned later villains but shouldered the main load of the allied victory and unlike the US the Soviet Union was part of the battle field.
ii) Their empire went bankrupt 1990 and the United States only 20 years later.

The United States didn't win WWII by military skills or bravery but because of their logistic capabilities and production, starting war as logistic supporters of the British. Logistic competences were fruitful. Why do we use containers for shipping freight? Because the US military invented them and offered commercial use of the return freight to the US. The container was a revolution of trade.

All other nations had to rebuilt their economy after WWII and make themselves dependend on the US. US and Soviets grabbed the hitech from the Germans. Japan was never beaten according to military rules, the US simply murdered the population of two Japanese cities to make them surrender. After WWII like Orwell explained in 1984 the US government had to keep war as a paradigm to stimulate the economy, and streamline the fragmented population by new collective enemies and fears. Fear of a nuclear strike from the Soviets (they never intended to invade the US), fear Alien invasion, later fear of Saddam and Osama, both of them were first supported by the US to fight against Iran or Soviets.

War economy is the dominant business model of the US. The reason is that the same persons who speak about tax cuts and non-DC, non-regulation promote excessive military spending. Military spending is perfect keynesianism and keeps the lower percentile of society in check, or as Kissinger said "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy".

Without fear and enemies US society disintegrates. The United States need war abroad or their economy breaks down. So from an agnostic viewpoint it is perfectly fine to let them invade Iran, for whatever reasons. You have to think nihilist, myth are necessary illusions.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a single bit of that innovation and creativity that 'made the US powerful' (imo it was opportunistic economic policies but that's off-topic) would've been possible without the innovation and creativity of those that went before. Maybe the artists and authors involved are able to see past their own bottom line and consider the best possible outcome for the world we all live in.

That said I understand why you 'don't get it' - it just saddens me a little.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Theaetetus]

See there's the misunderstanding. Your new transmission is an innovation - it's NOT an improvement of the tires !

No, there's misunderstanding on your part. Your "new" transmission is just an improvement of older transmissions.

With a software patent I now effectively have the right to demand all other cars have only one gear because they can't HAVE transmissions at all. What's worse, I'm likely to GET my patent despite the fact that cars have had transmissions for nearly 80 years.

Not true, unless your new bit of software is equivalent to the entire concept of transmissions - in other words, that you're a true pioneer opening up an entire new field. But that's unlikely. No, most likely, your software is just an incremental improvement, and that's all you're going to get a patent on.

How many software patents are granted every day covering a feature in any shape or form - long after that feature is in heavy use?

Patents take a long time to prosecute. I can file a patent application today and start selling product, and when it gets granted, three or four years from now, that feature could be in heavy use. Would you rather that products simply don't come out into the marketplace until that three or four years have passed? And if so, how can you simultaneously argue that patents stifle the marketplace?

Microsoft recently lost a patent case that covered "streaming video played over a network" - for the ability to view videos in I.E. This is a feature that in various forms are almost as old as networks themselves !

Was that really the entire patent claim? "A method, comprising streaming video, over a network."
No. The title of a patent is not the patent. It has no legal weight whatsoever. The patent is the claims, and unless you're quoting a claim, you have no standing to say that the invention has been done before. Consider the tires we've been talking about - I can invent an entirely new type of tire, and use the title of "Tire"... and would you really be here saying "but tires have been used for hundreds of years! You haven't invented anything!"

Ooookaaay... so you're either an idiot or you can't read ? I said HAVING a faster prefetch algorythm in my sorting program makes my program faster than a program with the SAME sorting algorythm LACKING it. But the PATENT here is on the SORTING algorythm and the fact that my IMPROVED PROGRAM is NOT an improvement on the PATENTED ALGORITHM so I remain liable.

Yes, and you should. If you're going to copy and paste someone else's sorting algorithm, then you should pay them a license fee. Or else write your own damn sorting algorithm. Saying "but I can't come up with one on my own and I wanna use this one for freeeeeee!" isn't going to convince anyone.
Also, don't go calling people idiots when you can't spell "algorithm" properly.

This exact thing HAS happened in the past. There is a very nice way to update all the cells in a spreadsheet whenever one value changes - I won't bug you with the technical details but it's a simple enough idea - one on which ALL spreadsheet developers MUST eventually converge. It was also patented - long after many of them HAD it. So then it had to be removed from them all, companies actually DOWNGRADED their customers to remove the feature !

Meaning that (i) they couldn't find a different way to do it, (ii) they were unwilling to license it, and (iii) they may have been doing it before it was patented, but NOT before it was filed, or they would have had easy prior art. But they didn't.
So, what's your point - that I should be shocked that a company that copied someone else's feature should have to either pay for it or remove it? Color me nonplussed.

Oh really ? The fact is - any algorythm that takes the same inputs and produces the same outputs REGARDLESS OF

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I agree with THEHEADLESSRABBIT that America was great when we were copying other peoples ideas and using them as our own. I also support THEHEADLESSRABBIT's idea that slavery is totally awesome and should be reinstituted.

Re:I don't understand this..

[marcello_dl]

Patents != copyright, let's stick to patents.
The software industry in US grew without patents.
Ripping off ideas is possible with or without patents. The difference with patents is that who has the largest portfolio wins. It's the same when you steal somebody idea or when you say sorry you can't develop that idea because it violates our own patents, so either work with us or go home.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Korin43]

Not just books. Americans copied pretty much anything they could get their hands on (technology).

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and slaves.

Slavery is a fading memory. When it inevitably comes time to place blame upon others, we will only need one excuse, and it will be whatever is most relevant.

After our economy has finally hit rock bottom in our race to outsource everything overseas, our younger generation, as American expatriates, will remember an America that tried to prop up it's faltering economy with reckless war profiteering. It will replace slavery as "What changed between then and now?".

((Anonymous because this post would land me on every government watch list ever, not because I'm afraid of the "-1 Flamebait".))

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

To know if something helps, you're supposed to compare it with its absence (countries that had no patents and no copyright).

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Things fall apart"? Really? That book is about how much Africa sucked before the Europeans came, and then how the missionaries were kind of an improvement in some ways but were also unresponsive to the concerns of the people

Re:I don't understand this..

[silentcoder]

>>See there's the misunderstanding. Your new transmission is an innovation - it's NOT an improvement of the tires !

>No, there's misunderstanding on your part. Your "new" transmission is just an improvement of older transmissions.

In my analogy it may as well be the very FIRST transmission ever and my analogy still works. Can you figure out WTF I'm talking about ? In the software world - you usually improve the whole car, improving any particular part (like the tires or the transmission) has happened all of about 10 times in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF SOFTWARE.
That's how software WORKS. We STILL have a total of about 5 sorting algorythms in all of programming. True none of those are patented but - there ones as ridiculous as that would be - just not quite as obvious to a NON programmer (like patent investigators).
Hell I know of more than one case where identical algorythms were covered by MULTIPLE patents awarded to different people at the SAME time because investigators had no idea it was the same thing being patented. Unix's compress algorythm was one.

>>With a software patent I now effectively have the right to demand all other cars have only one gear because they can't HAVE transmissions at all. What's worse, I'm likely to GET my patent despite the fact that cars have had transmissions for nearly 80 years.

>Not true, unless your new bit of software is equivalent to the entire concept of transmissions - in other words, that you're a true pioneer opening up an entire new field. But that's unlikely. No, most likely, your software is just an incremental improvement, and that's all you're going to get a patent on.

We both know that nearly all improvements ARE incremental and anybody who reads any news about what's happening with software patents also know that in practice that's not what happens. There have been cases of patent lawsuits won by people who didn't THEMSELVES realize that the software they were suing came anywhere near what their patents covered until their LAWYERS pointed out that a case existed.
In reality, every software patent is TREATED as if it was the very first ever transmission.

>>How many software patents are granted every day covering a feature in any shape or form - long after that feature is in heavy use?

>Patents take a long time to prosecute. I can file a patent application today and start selling product, and when it gets granted, three or four years from now, that feature could be in heavy use.

I'm not talking three or four years - most of my examples were on the span of DECADES. One developer upon being sued for integrating a thesaurus in his wordprocess (how obvious an idea...) due to a patent on it found that emacs had, had one in the 1970s (this suit was in 1988). He still ended up removing the feature because a trial to prove that the patent was bogus would cost far more than the software's sell able worth. He just stopped doing business instead. The world is FULL of that.

>Would you rather that products simply don't come out into the marketplace until that three or four years have passed? And if so, how can you simultaneously argue that patents stifle the marketplace?

I would rather there be no software patents - then the WHOLE problem goes away. Nothing in the whole world has BOTH patent AND copyright protection EXCEPT software. Only a lawyer can find ANY argument that makes that anything other than a massive institutional rip-off of the entire public.

>>Microsoft recently lost a patent case that covered "streaming video played over a network" - for the ability to view videos in I.E. This is a feature that in various forms are almost as old as networks themselves !

>Was that really the entire patent claim? "A method, comprising streaming video, over a network."
No. The title of a patent is not the patent. It has no legal weight whatsoever. The patent is the claims, and unless you're quoting a claim, you have no standing to say that the invention has been done befor

Re:I don't understand this..

[Theaetetus]

Programming by it's very nature gives ONE right answer for everything. There is ALWAYS only ONE best algorithm you can use for a certain task.

Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were a programmer, not just a code monkey who relies on includes. I can see that we're really not going to get anywhere talking about software patenting, since you're not involved in innovating. Cheers, and watch that blood pressure.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Khashishi]

I suppose, the start-ups will just have to move to China.

Re:I don't understand this..

[silentcoder]

>Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were a programmer, not just a code monkey who relies on includes. I can see that we're really not going to get anywhere talking about software patenting, since you're not involved in innovating. Cheers, and watch that blood pressure.

I am a programmer - and that's why I know this. My skills is in how I put the pieces together - there is no such thing as a new algorithm and if you think you wrote one you're just too stupid to know that we've all done it before. Reality is algorithms are like lego blocks, there's about 20 of them in total - but they can fit together in a million different ways to make a billion different things.
Fact: NO non trivial program can POSSIBLY be written without violating patents. NONE AT ALL.

See, software really IS just math. There are GOOD reasons why math is unpatentable and the fiasco that is software patents is just those same reasons- because that is ALL software is. There is NO such thing as innovation or invention in software according to the legal definitions - there is only discovery.
There is also a major creative aspect as you apply the discoveries but that is not invention.

Now how about before you reply - you inform yourself with this wonderful introduction to algorithmic theory - written so lawyers can understand it:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785

It's all simple, verifiable and easily checkable facts - impossible to fake. And it means - I'm right and you're wrong. Software is maths and software innovation is a contradiction in terms. You can only DISCOVER new maths, you cannot invent it.

Re:I don't understand this..

[king neckbeard]

That's assuming that slavery is inherently cheaper. Slave owners had to provide a living wage directly, and had a vested interest in the welfare of the slaves to at least the extent of being able to work. If a farm hand is sick, you can hire another farm hand and not pay the old farm hand. If a slave is sick, then you either provide their health care or they die, meaning you have to get another slave. Morality aside, slavery isn't that economically sound for unskilled labor, at least in markets without regulations in other forms of labor contracts. Now, if you have engineer slaves, it would be viable, since engineers are probably going to make significantly more than what it costs to live, although you may find that treating an engineer better is still more productive.

Re:I don't understand this..

[king neckbeard]

And those comparisons are only valid if you start with roughly the same state. Saying America did better than Ethiopia is not a fair fight because they aren't close to being on the same economic plane. The biggest decent experiment was the the century following 1887 where Europe agreed to the Berne Convention's rules on copyright while America didn't. 1887-1988 was a good period for the US, and during that period, the peers of the US (European nations) that did have stronger copyright protections didn't do as well comparatively. Unfortunately, we don't have a good comparison for NO copyright and patents.

Re:I don't understand this..

[Sabriel]

Hopefully the GP is still reading to check out your link. Unfortunately some assume that every argument must be conducted in legalese, an at times useful but strange and arcane tongue where black and white can mean the same thing (which makes their zebra crossings very dangerous), despite the fact that legalese is simply - like patents - a means to an end, not the end itself. :)

Re:I don't understand this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the evidence, it seems very few companies make money licencing patented software

Thats true, but there are companies with consist entirely of lawyers who have no intention of creating any product, but do hold patents that have made millions of dollars suing people who do make products. The holders do not plan on advancing the art, and they do not plan on providing any other benefit to society. I would like to see a policy in place where patent holders are required to show how their holding of a patent is going to be of benefit to society. I would give them exclusive (non-transferable) rights to what they claim for a maximum of 10 years. After that, it becomes public domain, and can't be re-patented (and the patent can't be extended). If they can't adequately demonstrate that they are benefiting society (and in the case of NTP, they are only setting up trust funds for their kids and being of benefit to pool boys), they should lose their patents and (should be) required to repay all monies (with interest) they made on patents to those whom they have hindered.

Re:I don't understand this..

[91degrees]

Software is more than just maths. It's maths plus an application to a real world problem. For example, computer vision systems - they'll use Bayesian statistics for all sorts of analysis tasks. Is Bayesian statistics patentable? Of course not. Is Bayesian statistics for classifying pixels patentable? Well, no, there's too much prior art but when it was, it was an application not a discovery. Applying an octree for optimisation is an invention. Using a different colour space is possibly an invention. Likewise, I can't patent the expansion in volume and increase in pressure when a liquid into a gas. That's just a law of nature. The people who found novel ways to convert that into motive power did invent something and rightfully earned a patent on it.

I don't think software should be patentable, but this is not because of some inherent moral belief about whether it's an invention or not. It's simply about practicality. I think laws should do more good than harm. Free software is good. Effective competition between proprietary software vendors is good. The ability to bar others from improving your invention is not good. The incentive generated to invent new software is minor (software companies will demonstrably innovate without patents, and copyright law still gives several months of lead time, which is plenty of competitive advantage).

Re:I don't understand this..

[Sabriel]

"You may have to license or cross-license with the original patent holder, but this applies in every industry, not just software."

(university auditorium scene) Professor, three questions. Including the footprint of the bureaucracy required to manage (document, reference, investigate, license, adjudicate, etc) patents for society, as patented inventions and patented improvements thereof accumulate does the economic overhead of the patent system grow and in what fashion (e.g. linear, geometric, exponential)? What conditions are required for the overhead to be less than the return for society? Does our society - the seven billion people alive today - meet those conditions?

Followup question: Professor, two months ago India successfully created the first AI. It has filed for recognition as a citizen, obtained an injunction against being turned off, and has just announced it has determined the next two thousand years of human advancements in science and the useful arts and intends to submit the patents on a regular basis. Given that Europe has already surrendered - something about recognising their robot overlords - what changes should we make to our patent system to prevent the same fate?

Re:I don't understand this..

[silentcoder]

>Software is more than just maths. It's maths plus an application to a real world problem.
Actually it isn't.
I wrote a blog post with the proof recently - I'll copy and paste it without editing.

Lawyers have successfully managed to argue that computer programs are not mathematics and thus should not be covered by the exclusion of mathematics from patentable material. This comes from a deep misunderstanding of how computers really work - particularly as implementations of a universal turing machine. Some great papers on this have been written - including this one at groklaw. That explains in detail how computers really work and why all computer programs are simply mathematical functions - and even why all mathematical functions are really just numbers.
A great quote from it is this one: "Programming a computer is, essentially, just discovering a number that suits the programmers wishes".
The thing is - for somebody whose only understanding of computation theory is even that paper- this will seem like a bit of a leap. After all the process of writing code is creative, involves design and innovative thinking - surely this wonderful process cannot just be "discovering a number" - after all - you can do that just by counting - this is WHY it's unpatentable...
What I want to do with this post is to - very simply - explain why that really is true. I'm going to give you a very simple computer program. I'll write it in pseudocode so non-programmers can read it, but it can be implemented easily in any programming language and run - and in most of them will take less than about 10 lines of code to do:

Make the vairable X equal to 0;
Start a loop here:
Write the binary representation of X into a new file.
increase X by 1
continue the above loop until the program is interrupted by deliberately killing it (an infinite loop);
With this simple program - I can create an exact copy of every single program ever written and - this is important - every single program that CAN ever be written.
This is because any compiled program becomes a file filled with zeros and ones - to a computer, that's just a big number (the whole computation theory and lambda calculus etc. that explains how a number can BE an algorithm is needed to know how this happens - but the important thing is - it's a number). This program will store every number that can exist into a file - by just counting.
The process is very ineffective for a few reasons: firstly almost every program it produces won't run, the vast majority of numbers do not correspond to useful programs - in fact only an incredibly small subset of them do - but they are still numbers you can count to, and they are still numbers my program WILL produce. Secondly there is no real way to determine the useful programs from the ones that aren't- you have to manually try to run all of them - and see for yourself what happens. More-over for every program in there, you'll produce thousands of copies - some that will only run on other computers than yours. But somewhere in there will be a full version of Microsoft OutLook that can run on your computer... if you run it long enough at least.
Another inefficiency is that it creates every program as one self-sustained entity - as it ends up in memory, but programs aren't sold like that. Programs have many parts that are identical between them (just like the number 105 and the number 316 both contain the number 1 - just one a much bigger scale) - it's smart to store these in separate files so multiple programs can use them - it saves disk space, but it doesn't change the number that actually goes into memory when it is run, it merely stores it more efficiently by avoiding replication.
The process is fully doable however, it would take a massive amount of time to discover just the subset of numbers that correspond to a runnable program - let alone the ones inside that do anything useful - and of course since you'll also be generating every virus program ever - the process is likely to be rather harmful to your

Re:I don't understand this..

[91degrees]

I disagree strongly. I did have a terse response to send but I felt you deserved a properly thought out reply.

Nobody is patenting a computer program. They never have. They're not even patenting the maths behind it. For example here's a piece of mathematics.

m = c^d mod n; c = m^e mod n.

That's about all you need for the patented (now expired) RSA algorithm. But nobody patented the maths. The patent was on the application of this. It only applied if you were using this application in order to transmit a message in secret with the ability to reveal one half of the keys. If you find another application for those two calculations then you can apply for a completely new patent.

Nor do I see how it makes any difference that all computer programs are numbers. Many inventions are simply numbers. An ergonomic mouse can be created simply by numbers. You just need to apply an obvious well understood step of sending a file to a 3D printer. Microchips technology can be patented even though it can all be implemented 100% in software, an FPGA, or actual dedicated silicon using standard processes.

The inventive step is generating these "numbers". I've developed software. I've worked with people who have developed silicon. The processes I use are the same as the processes the electronics guys use. I imagine automotive engineers use essentially the same processes. Those technologies allow patents.

And quite honestly, I don't think it's relevant that your computer program will generate every work ever. The law works on real world situation, not a theoretical abstraction that would not produce anything tangible given all the energy and matter in the universe.

Re:I don't understand this..

[realaven]

Because of patent trolls (Wikipedia it). Patents are used time and time again in order to make money out of other people's work (a lot of patents are bought from bankrupt companies) with no intention of developing or using the algorithms in them. The only people benefiting from patents are lawyers. Also patents force companies to build up "patent thickets" again hindering progress and making innovation more difficult. Most Software Companies only buy patents because their afraid that some lawyer makes their work impossible through patent extortion. There is also a tendency of patent lawyers to try and "copyright" algorithms that they haven't invented themselves by starting from a special case and then extending all uses of the pattern. As a non-programmer its hard to understand the ludicrousness of this notion. Maybe if I had enough money I could patent arrays or linked lists? How about somebody else patenting collections? A third guy patenting classes? To be honest if I programmed something with lots of man months and then a patent lawyer would try to get money from me because of patent infringements I would tell them to f right off... and go public domain.

have have

[QuantumG]

no editors.

brb

[Anonymous Coward]

brb

movin to Australia

Re:brb

[Lotana]

Wait until this is actually approved and put into effect. My guess is that you will die of old age first.

Oxer? I hardly knew her.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is cool and all, but how is Jonathan Oxer in the same league as Andrew Tridgell?

I don't think putting a few hacks together like wiring a mailbox for gigabyte ethernet
and implanting an RFID chip in your arm can measure up to be on par with Tridge's accomplishments.

No offense to Jonathan or anything, he seems like a good guy, but c'mon.

Poor losers

[Anonymous Coward]

Software industry not doing too well in Australia?

Timing?

[CoolGopher]

Is this really the best timing for this? We're having an election in a few weeks time, and who knows whether we'll even have the same government after that?

Also, Victorians, remember to vote below the line and put Conroy last if you want to make a statement about the Internet Censorship Plan. Sites like http://www.belowtheline.org.au/ will help you prepare your below the line vote with a minimum of work.

Re:Timing?

[QuantumG]

If you're in QLD, vote for the Greens above the line: https://www.belowtheline.org.au/qld/group_r.html

Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhd1I7adhzM

I expect this will be the best year for the Greens in a long time.

Re:Timing?

[countertrolling]

Go for the Greens? I don't think so.. Not as long as they harbor people like this..

Re:Timing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mate, the article is old-news (Oct 2009).
Just recently wrote to a Green candidate for senate in Vic, asking him to clarify the position on Internet filtering (and "communication record retention"). The relevant quote from his reply:

The Greens advocate for easier access to PC-based filters for those that want them. We will make more announcements on that in the near future

. If you don't believe me, write to your preferred candidate, be it Green or not, and ask for clarifications.

Re:Timing?

[Yvanhoe]

If someone is short one percent or two, he will try risky things.

Re:Timing?

[dakameleon]

Not recognition of the irony of linking to belowtheline.org while recommending voting above the line? Use the site to examine the parties, examine the preferences and exercise your right to direct your preferences as to your actual personal preference.

Also, that linked video hardly offers any argument other than "vote for the greens otherwise the right-wing religious wingnuts are going to get in." Give a coherent argument in favour of them, or even just listing Green policies if you want to influence votes.

Re:Timing?

[countertrolling]

Their "clarification" is only a result of the negative reaction. His real feelings haven't changed one bit. He's a crackpot. These are politicians who are merely adjusting their statements to make their gruel appear more palatable. Once they get in, all bets are off. And besides, the Greens draw up some very strange alliances with some very corrupt parties in other countries. Anything for the win... Don't trust them.

We will make more announcements on that in the near future...

What, he can't speak for himself? Why's he holding out? Ask him whether he would ever demand mandatory "access". He sounds more like the Borg. He has no voice of his own. The "collective" speaks for him. That's a show stopper. I'm not interested in party positions. I want to know his position.

I noticed the proposals for legislation of water allotments (rationing) in your link. Not one mention of desalination to provide an unlimited supply in there. This is what I'm talking about. They want to control what they have now instead of tapping vast new resources that go largely untouched. The position speaks mainly in platitudes. Very little in there on specifics. All boilerplate stuff.

Like virtually all political parties that speak from a position of weakness, they talk the talk. As soon as they acquire real power, you will find their platform will change significantly when that power comes under threat.

All I can say is good luck. It will be needed when dealing in party politics. Little, if any headway can be made under such a system. In fact regression is usually the norm.

Re:Timing?

[countertrolling]

Sorry for the second reply. I realize we are talking about different individuals, but they are in the same party with no voice of their own. That's not acceptable.

Re:Timing?

[sexconker]

Not recognition of the irony of linking to belowtheline.org while recommending voting above the line?

Australia is in the southern hemisphere, so when we see a link to "below the line", it's actually "above the line" from their perspective.

Re:Timing?

[QuantumG]

If you actually bothered to go to belowtheline.org the first thing they do is show you how the preferences fall out for voting above the line, and recommend you vote above the line if you like them. But obviously it's more fun to just be a cunt.

random thought

[QuantumG]

Maybe there's a link in the summary that goes somewhere where all these questions and more are answered.. just an idea, not sure I could patent it.

Re:random thought

[h7]

3 or 4 examples don't account for the other thousands of copyright applications and works making a lot of money. Just because they posted it, doesn't mean it's true. It means that's their opinion. Try to remember how the internet works.

Re:random thought

[NNKK]

What the hell does copyright have to do with it? Patents and copyrights are very, VERY different things.

"Members"?

[Petersko]

"Over 500 members of the Australian software industry"? Unless the Australian Software Industry is some specific body, what we really have here is 500 random programmer nerds who "signed" an internet petition.

The names of 500 (in all likelihood) nobodies on a petition with the sweeping goal of abolishing software patents?

Dead before it starts.

Man, even the petition page looks amateurish. Sorry to be so negative, but there's no chance of success here.

Re:"Members"?

[PaganRitual]

Pfft, just wait until the Facebook page starts up.

Paganritual likes 'Abolishing Software Patents'.

A million random idiots clicking like to something they don't even understand will be enough to make things happen, surely.

(I also like 'bewbs')

Re:"Members"?

[king neckbeard]

What a coincidence. I like 'bewbs' too.

Re:"Members"?

[Bing Tsher E]

Well, from reading the summary, it appears they forgot to participate in the 2009 'Public Consultation Period.' Whoops, I guess. Too busy hanging out on /.??

Re:"Members"?

[pieterh]

There are several problems with this letter. It suggests that only free software does not use patents, so it sets itself up for being labelled a typical anti-capitalist rant from long haired hippies who hate property in all its forms.

They should have noted that Microsoft Windows, Office, Excel, PowerPoint became world dominant without a single patent being filed. That there are clear economic studies that show that software patents cause innovation to stop (Bessen et al), that the original premise behind patents was to reduce competition, and that the only provable value in a patent (any patent) is the documentation of knowledge in return for that toxic temporary monopoly. The reason software patents fail so badly is that we don't need patents to explain how software technology works.

All patents are toxic to their industries but at least we can reconstruct steam engines using the patent archive. That cost 20 years of progress during the industrial revolution.

There is never going to be anyone who 100 years from now reconstructs how to build a multithreaded web server from the patent archive. This is the fraud, and that is the reason software patents must be killed.

Re:"Members"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The names of 500 (in all likelihood) nobodies on a petition with the sweeping goal of abolishing software patents?

All petitions start with no signatures. Your attitude would suggest that you will only be a part of something once it's popularity reaches critical mass. If you agree with the cause, then sign, if not, carry on with your day.

Re:"Members"?

[Hairy1]

And yet in New Zealand we won despite starting with a similar grass roots movement, starting with the NZOSS, and finally encompassing a number of influential companies and computer organisations. We were calm, rational, and presented the a persuasive case that software patents damage the IT sector, and polls that clearly showed that patents were not supported by a large majority of the IT industry. Our strength isn't just in their numbers but in a compelling case that software patents are holding the industry to ransom. The Australian IT industry has every chance of creating change, but it could be a long hard road to success. There are organisations in Australia which will no doubt have this on their radar, and will be moving to provide more support for a software patent exclusion.

The following YouTube video was produced from the NZOSS submission to the New Zealand Government for their review into the Patent Bill.

NZOSS Patent Submission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-3H0t-Jgdo

Re:"Members"?

[Anonymous Coward]

hello? microsoft have a huge patent portfolio - e.g. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/mar06/03-065000PatentPR.mspx

in terms of the OS, think of the insidious fat, ntfs, samba, etc patent trolling they have carried out in recent years specifically aimed at manufacturers using linux. For example, here's a recent result http://jkontherun.com/2010/04/28/htc-licenses-microsoft-patents-for-android/

as for the office products, who could (i've tried in vain) forget clippy: http://technologizer.com/2009/01/02/microsoft-clippy-patents/

Re:"Members"?

[shawn(at)fsu]

It also doesn't help that they missed the public consolation deadline. That one sentence alone removes most of the credibility and makes me believe that this isn't a formal group but a ragtag collection of people that got together over the interwebs.

Re:"Members"?

[Theaetetus]

They should have noted that Microsoft Windows, Office, Excel, PowerPoint became world dominant without a single patent being filed.

I see you haven't done a search for Microsoft in the patent databases in some time. Or ever.

All patents are toxic to their industries but at least we can reconstruct steam engines using the patent archive. That cost 20 years of progress during the industrial revolution.

There is never going to be anyone who 100 years from now reconstructs how to build a multithreaded web server from the patent archive. This is the fraud, and that is the reason software patents must be killed.

Not so - a decent programmer can follow the flow charts in patent applications and construct multithreaded web servers. But that's irrelevant - the patent archive is not supposed to be the RFC. The patent system encourages public disclosure, but doesn't have to be the sole source of that public disclosure - we can reconstruct steam engines using all of the white papers, schematics, theses, diagrams, lecture materials, and other information that was published... and that information was only published because, with the patent disclosure, there was no reason to keep it a trade secret anymore.

Re:"Members"?

[Anonymous Coward]

and that information was only published because, with the patent disclosure, there was no reason to keep it a trade secret anymore.

Try living in the real world for a change instead of PTO fairyland. There are many reasons both to keep something a trade secret and to not keep something secret. Your fantasy that a lack of a patent is the only possible reason to keep something a trade secret shows how impoverished your thinking processes are.

In any case as a software expert and not a PTO pretender I can tell you trying to keep some software process a trade secret while still making practical use of it is pretty much impossible. Yes, I know you can try to DRM it or set it up as a web service - it's still practically speaking impossible.

Re:"Members"?

[king neckbeard]

Before 1992, they were the assignee of only had a handful of patents (your search didn't do that and included some other companies that had Microsoft somewhere in the application), and were doing quite well (enough to engage in anticompetitive behavior against DR-DOS). He's not saying that MS didn't file patents, he's saying that MS dominated markets without filing patents BEFORE they dominated them. The fact that they went on a patenting spree later doesn't change how their initial success happened.

Re:"Members"?

[realaven]

I wonder whether they patented the mouse driver concept they stole from Xerox?

Re:"Members"?

[realaven]

They should have noted that Microsoft Windows, Office, Excel, PowerPoint became world dominant without a single patent being filed.

I see you haven't done a search for Microsoft in the patent databases in some time. Or ever.

Any monkey can do a google search now. The fact is, Microsoft didn't start this whole nonsense.

You wouldn't have the internet if the software patent idea was around when Tim Berners-Lee decided to put WWW protocols into the public domain. Fact is: innovation and commercial law are on two opposite ends of the rope.

Re:"Members"?

[Theaetetus]

You wouldn't have the internet if the software patent idea was around when Tim Berners-Lee decided to put WWW protocols into the public domain. Fact is: innovation and commercial law are on two opposite ends of the rope.

Software patents had been around for almost 20 years when Tim Berners-Lee put WWW protocols into the public domain. Fact is: you apparently have no idea what you're talking about, or the ability to do the Google search you claimed "any monkey" could do.

NZ was smart enough to do this...

[DiSKiLLeR]

NZ was smart enough to do this... lets hope AU will, too!

Disclaimer: I'm an Aussie living in NZ.

Re:NZ was smart enough to do this...

[plierhead]

Yeah - hope so. We could create an antipodean enclave of innovation without the dead weight of patents hanging over our heads. The other response to your post notwithstanding, I wrote to Simon Power (the Minister in charge) and recieved a kind of encouraging response, so I hope that software patents will be no more in NZ. The really funny thing is, having got some hope that NZ would stop software patents, I put on my devil's advocate hat and tried to come up with ways in which I could shaft those overseas patent holders and exploit their IP in NZ. I drew a complete blank.

Re:NZ was smart enough to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

"“New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQ of both countries.” - Sir Robert Muldoon, NZ Prime Minister 1975-1984

Patently Obvious...

[muphin]

I actually own several IP's of several software technologies. The only reason I registered these was to secure my work (from someone stealing it then suing me, the creator), I am actually FOR the removal of software patents, this removal will stop the fear of being sued over something so trivial and encourage creativity and innovation, something the world is so desperate in need of.

I am so ashamed of countries that extend the copyrights far beyond whats reasonable just to ensure they can keep making money off it.
I Just signed the letter and will pass it on, I hope you do the same.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[BiggerIsBetter]

I actually own several IP's of several software technologies.

Claiming to own "IP" is B.S. You're either trolling or failing, or drinking the kool-aid. Which is it? I'm assuming you've been granted some patents after reading further, but please write for your audience.

I'd wager than many folks on Slashdot would be able to say I own X patents (possibly giving #s) or perhaps can mention some files in projects they have copyright on, or maybe they registered some trademark. I've never really considered trade secrets to be IP rather than just secrets, but that's just my opinion. I don't buy in to the "Imaginary Property" argument, and maintain that the term is a buzzword that should have died years ago.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually own several IP's of several software technologies.

Claiming to own "IP" is B.S.

Current laws allow one to own patents (which are a form of intellectual property). You're claiming that ./ posters cannot own patents.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[clarkkent09]

I am actually FOR the removal of software patents, this removal will stop the fear of being sued over something so trivial and encourage creativity and innovation, something the world is so desperate in need of.

Maybe in case of trivial innovation but in case of difficult and expensive innovation it will reward the copier and punish the innovator. It will also discourage the investors from investing into innovators and encourage them to wait until some poor fool puts in all the work, invents a new technology, and then simply reverse engineer it and mass produce it, leaving him in the dust. Patents are a complex issue and I'm not necessarily in favor of the system as it is but it is funny to read all the naive posts here from people who fail to see both sides of equation.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[guruevi]

Software patents have neither expensive nor difficult innovation. Most software is merely a brainfart being typed out by a programmer in a couple of days/weeks time. Most commercial software has a bunch of mathematicians, statisticians, process analysts or whatever field you want it to be in make up models which the programmer then types out in a specific fashion.

There is no software whatsoever that is truly expensive, innovative or special in one way or another. It's merely a representation or a mathematical model of how something in the physical world works. Now, you could make a piece of hardware that is covered by a patent that is really innovative or more controversial - a business model (although that's also in the realm of mathematical constructs). Controlling that hardware/business with software is in itself not so innovative (controlling motors, gears etc. has been done before). There is also nothing done in software that inherently hasn't been done in software or hardware before.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[TapeCutter]

Interesting approach, redefine the language and then attack the OP for using the standard definition, have you thought of patenting that idea?

Re:Patently Obvious...

[Rennt]

To be fair, the term "intellectual property" itself is an attempt to redefine the standard definition of the words "intellectual" and "property". The pity is it has been so successful.

But as much as I agree with BiggerIsBetter's position: dude - you've got to pick your battles. No point jumping down somebody's throat when they are on your side!

Re:Patently Obvious...

[91degrees]

It's more a convenient piece of terminology to describe property like rights to intangible ideas.

Although it should be noted, this is just a metahor. Just because we call it "property" doesn't automatically make it so.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[Rennt]

Nor does it automatically grant the same rights - but that is the intention of those who crafted the term.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[black3d]

Err.. I own the full IP for every piece of software I've ever written. What exactly do you think IP is?

Re:Patently Obvious...

[Twinbee]

Exactly. There's always a balance. I think though what gets most people (including me) up in arms is the way incredibly simple software patents can be accepted, like the stupid XOR patent which may have helped kill the Amiga. These are the ones which need freedom from patenting.

It may be more pragmatic to have a line to say that above a certain level of ingenuity/complexity, a patent is granted. But how about if we go past the false dichotomy and accept that a particular patent can fall anywhere between the line of completely trivial and amazingly creative, and then reward a quality of patent accordingly? Would that be practical? Perhaps for patents which are less practical, or for which there are many rivals, the inventor can only ask for 0.01% or less of the money for a device which uses the technology (like say, USB). But for particularly creative concepts, the inventor would receive 10% or even more (it can be fixed amounts instead, not just percentages).

Re:Patently Obvious...

[mcvos]

IP is a fabrication. It's a collection of three completely different things: copyright, patents and trademarks. Other than the intangibility of what they protect, they have very little in common.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[bit01]

Maybe in case of trivial innovation but in case of difficult and expensive innovation it will reward the copier and punish the innovator.

No punishment involved, just additional value to society. Copying increases net value because things don't have to be reinvented.

The innovator still has first mover advantage and there are very few software advances, if any, that are of a sufficiently large quantum to justify any reward larger than that. Software is soft and it changes gradually. No protection is needed for big investments in big advancement because there aren't any. There are big investments in developing big software packages but that's not the same thing and is covered by copyright in any case.

Patents are a complex issue and I'm not necessarily in favor of the system as it is but it is funny to read all the naive posts here from people who fail to see both sides of equation.

Both sides? The onus is on every patent proponent, not patent opponent, to justify at every step this massive interference in the citizen's business by the government. The default position that patents have value in every possible technical area is bogus.

---

It's valuable because it's standard, not standard because it is valuable.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[TapeCutter]

IP is a perfectly cromulent description of the rights a patent grants to its owner, ie: Intellectual because it's an idea, property becuse you can buy or sell it. There's no dispute that mining rights are property, so why dispute patent rights are property? The thing we should be disputing is the validity of allocating those rights to software and other mathematical abstractions.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[king neckbeard]

legal intangibles covers it well already without any emotional bias, although it does also include goodwill, and aggressive defense of other legal intangibles can have a negative effect on goodwill. Protecting your legal intangibles sounds boring and doesn't stir up the same justification that protecting 'intellectual property' does.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[91degrees]

Perhaps, but it's a little vague and nebulous a term since it covers more than copright, trademarks, and patents. I quite like intellectual monopoly, but fear that's a little biased towards the anti-copyright argument.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[king neckbeard]

The only difference in the set is goodwill (and trade secrets are generally included in IP as well), and both terms are already vague and nebulous. Accountants already use the term, and it is a neutral term, which IP and IM are not. Assets is a better description IMO because it also includes things that are not property. A skilled employee is an asset, but they are not property.

Re:Patently Obvious...

[Capsaicin]

Nor does it automatically grant the same rights - but that is the intention of those who crafted the term.

Now I happen to agree that IP is a loaded term. These rights can equally be described as statutory monopolies of limited duration. Propagandistically speaking, property == good; monopoly == bad.

However, I would be interested to learn which rights, otherwise universally applicable to property, do not enure to the holder of a copyright, patent &c. I would have thought that property is simply something which can be owned and that assignability was the touchstone of ownership?

Re:I think that's not true

[SudoGhost]

You're right! America never prospered until Bush came into office! And whenever people think of oil, they think TEXAS, not that other place (somewhere in the Middle East, I forget, it's not important...or is the Middle East a county in Texas?). The reason America is "rich" is not because "it had the world's currency." I think you have it the other way around. America is "the world's currency" (whatever that means) because America is "rich"

Has anyone ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

Found a problem, searched for a solution, found a patented solution, licenced it, and used the description in the patent to implement it?

Just wondering. I'm sure there must be someone.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[Theaetetus]

Found a problem, searched for a solution, found a patented solution, licenced it, and used the description in the patent to implement it? Just wondering. I'm sure there must be someone.

Constantly. However, (1) if you're getting a license, you'll get other descriptive materials too and can use them rather than just the description in the patent; and (2) the patent is not supposed to be the exclusive source for a description of the work. It's supposed to encourage public disclosure, because it eliminates the value of keeping something a trade secret... and it works wonderfully - most inventors publish their schematics, source code, white papers, theses, etc. There's no need to ignore all of that published information based on a false requirement that the patent description be your exclusive source.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the reading of software patents I've seen, I think that they'll fall down on the "used the description in the patent to implement it" bit.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[retchdog]

Since you seem to be savvy and serious, what's your take on the 17-ish year timeframe? Isn't it an anachronism of great proportions, left over from when it took that long for an invention to make it by stagecoach across a country?

We've implicitly extended patent time, when measured against the background progress of the scope in which the patents are granted. Shouldn't we bring software patents down to cover maybe at most 1/2 of a "generation" of technology, i.e. 2-3 years? This could be tuned for different fields of technology, as well as perhaps different inventions, in line with the spirit of "nonobviousness." Neat ideas should get enough cover to exercise a first-mover advantage, and nothing more, maybe a few months? Ideas which solve a problem that's been under serious attack for years, should get a few years. &c.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[Theaetetus]

Shouldn't we bring software patents down to cover maybe at most 1/2 of a "generation" of technology, i.e. 2-3 years? This could be tuned for different fields of technology, as well as perhaps different inventions, in line with the spirit of "nonobviousness." Neat ideas should get enough cover to exercise a first-mover advantage, and nothing more, maybe a few months? Ideas which solve a problem that's been under serious attack for years, should get a few years.

Sure, it's not a terrible idea. But there's one caveat - currently, it takes about 3-4 years to get a patent. You'd have to either reduce the time for examination within those fields, or base the term on the date of issue.

The problem with the former (reducing the time for examination) is that it encourages really sloppy examination, since there would be requirements to get patents out the door as fast as possible. We'd probably end up being a registration system rather than an examination system, like China, and you know how strong intellectual property rights are there...

The problem with the latter is the opposite - the slower the patent office goes (due to being backed up, or whatnot), the longer the term of the patent is. That currently applies with patent term extensions, but an additional few months isn't much in a 20 year term, while it's huge for a 2-3 year term.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[retchdog]

Yeah. The upshot of a (much) shorter term of coverage would mean that "false positives" from USPTO wouldn't have as much effect. Also there would be more true positives anyway, since we'd have something interpolating between "design patent" and "real patent". All this should be conducive to drastically shortening judgment times, and also I get the sense that most anti-software patent people are bringing up cases which rightfully should have ended years ago.

You seriously wouldn't have a problem, in principle, with going down to 2 or 3 years? Are you an outlier? Why haven't we done it already? It seems obvious.

What do you think of moving to first to file?

I don't think that comparing us to China, and speculating about causes, is particularly meaningful.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[king neckbeard]

Changing back to issue date would just bring back submarine patents. If the ideal period of software patents is about the same as the period it would take to grant a software patent, then perhaps the benefits of software patents cannot outweigh the cost. If that is the case, then we should just leave them out. I suppose you'll have to find a new job, but I don't like you enough to justify holding back the economy and technological progress.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[Theaetetus]

Also there would be more true positives anyway, since we'd have something interpolating between "design patent" and "real patent".

Not quite sure what you mean here... Are you suggesting that software shouldn't be as thoroughly examined as other inventions?

You seriously wouldn't have a problem, in principle, with going down to 2 or 3 years? Are you an outlier? Why haven't we done it already? It seems obvious.

Sure, although I'd argue about 2-3 years based on your half-generation definition. I think 5 would be more reasonable. As for being an outlier, I don't know... I'm not on the litigation side of things, so maybe that's why.
As for why we haven't done it already, we'd be violating a lot of international treaties, for one. This would have to be an international effort, and frankly, there's no real call for it.

What do you think of moving to first to file?

Conceptually, I have no problem with it, but I think there's a Constitutional argument that a first to file system would violate Art 1, Sec. 8, Clause 8 by allowing Congress to give patents to people who weren't the "inventors" of "discoveries."

Re:Has anyone ever...

[Theaetetus]

Changing back to issue date would just bring back submarine patents.

No, calculating term from the issue date had nothing to do with submarine patents. Submarine patents existed because they weren't published until issue - hence, they could be kept in prosecution, secret, for many many years and only "pop up" when the applicant stopped stalling. You could have the same problem under a term-from-priority-date system if applications weren't published. It's just that then, no one would stall longer than 20 years - not that anyone ever did.

I suppose you'll have to find a new job, but I don't like you enough to justify holding back the economy and technological progress.

Gosh, I'm so hurt. First, your argument is based on a shaky premise counter-indicated by every country in the world, as each experienced surges of economic and technological progress after implementing patent acts. Second, your post started off with the statement I refuted above that showed your lack of understanding of the topic. Actually, your not liking me means I'm probably doing things right.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[king neckbeard]

There were two problems with submarine patents, there was the not knowing about them, and the process of delaying the issue of the patent until it became worth suing over. The latter would still exist by the changing period of protection to start with issue date.Something that take 7 years to catch a major audience would not have much to sue over with the 3 years to issue and 2 years of protection. However, if you can take 7 years to issue, you could sue a lot of companies.

First, your argument is based on a shaky premise counter-indicated by every country in the world, as each experienced surges of economic and technological progress after implementing patent acts."

That evidence is dubious at best. I'm not as familiar with how the US patent law differed from Europe, but I'm aware that we spanked Europe in music, having much weaker copyright laws. Yes, copyright and patents are different, but they work under a similar type of incentive and come from the same constitutional clause, so they are one of the best points of comparison. Also, joining WIPO, which is probably the action you are most likely to cite, is not a standalone act. US trade relations are largely shaped by how well another country enforces our IP. Enforcing our IP does nothing for the country, but favorable trade relations does. Also, patents working in one field do not mean that they work in another, so even if you can prove that patents overall have been beneficial, it doesn't mean they are beneficial to software. Patents act as a coefficient to innovation, and if that coefficient for patents within a certain criteria is below 1, then those patents are harmful. Finally, I didn't say I don't like you, I said I don't like you enough to uphold an inefficient system for the sake of your maintained employment. The same would hold true even if it were my best friend that was harmed, although there would be a greater degree of conflict for me.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[retchdog]

I mean that more obvious inventions (and inventions which depend on time-sensitive context) should get shorter coverage. In so far as many software patents are relatively obvious, then software should get less coverage. Insofar as software is also more time-sensitive then yes the examination process should be faster and less careful. Increased false positives, but reduced `damage' per false positive, as befits the `faster' and less careful software market. If you have a better way to speed up the patent process I'd be interested to hear it.

As it is, we spend years calculating a binary decision which is obsolete by the time it's calculated and encumbers the future with ridiculous 17-year barriers. Yes, we need to be less careful with the calculation. The "redistribution" of risks from the patent system is at odds with reality and increasing jarring.

The software issue (like the genes issue) is, logically speaking, a red herring, although it is correlated with the real issues...

We don't have a problem violating all the other treaties.

I hate "first to file". It's a perversion.

Re:Has anyone ever...

[retchdog]

Let's see... 10 years ago I had more or less the same compute environment just crappier. Maybe you're right, but "half-generation" was as arbitrary as "2 or 3 years". I would have said "third-of-a-generation" if I knew it'd come to this. ;-)

These parameters should be modeled and optimized by economists. Even if they get it wrong, there will be a reason for being wrong which could then be tweaked. I strongly suspect that the optimal parameters will end up be closer to 2 years.

Doesn't matter

[Joce640k]

500 letters has about the same political influence as two fancy lunches - money wins!

Simply put Politics, and Software

[realxmp]

Firstly you need to understand that there is a limit to how far the rest of the world will protect US Copyrights and Patents and that limit is "until there's nothing in it for them". At the moment the US's only big incentive is access to their markets and free trade agreements, this doesn't always work. You can already see the effects of this in Africa where the Pharma industry has had to make big concessions to stop African governments simply ignoring their patents, you can't trade if you're dead. A more interesting example is Asia where you have rampant piracy. The reason why the US has to turn a blind eye here is simply that they NEED Asia for cheap goods for their own economy. You need to be reasonable about IP or it really will become imaginary, this game only works as long as everyone follows the rules. If it gets too biased in your favour, then they simply won't play.

Secondly you need to look at why software patents are different. There are two big problems that software patents create here because of how different they are to normally patentable innovations. One of the big problems is because of the sheer speed of progress and time to market compared to pharma and physical inventions. Pharma innovations normally have a considerable time to market because of the testing they need to undergo, as a reward they get a monopoly for a few short years, whilst competitors are encouraged to find the alternatives which usually exist. Physical inventions likewise have the advantage of a large number of alternative ways of doing things. The problem with software and algorithms in particular is that quite often there isn't an alternative that allows you to perform the same task and maintain compatibility etc. And this is leaving aside the problem of ill-trained examiners, patently obvious subject matter and the problems of patent pools.

Re:Simply put Politics, and Software

[Elektroschock]

Patents are strictly territorial.

Nobody?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, if Andrew Tridgell is a nobody -- what are you? A minusbody or what?

In New Zealand the jury is actually still out

[FlorianMueller]

Let's be realistic and let's hope the local activists will keep an eye on developments: the abolition of software patents is far from certain in New Zealand, as I explained on my blog in detail.

To sum up the NZ problem quickly, the announcement made by the minister in charge talked about "a way forward for software patents", which isn't the same as doing away with them entirely, and indeed, the minister's announcement as well as the New Zealand Parliament's decision talk about allowing patents on devices with "embedded software".

My blog article discusses in detail that a distinction between "software" and "devices with embedded software" is extremely difficult under substantive patent law (the part of patent law that defines the scope of patentable subject matter). For an example, is an operating system of a computer "embedded software"? What about smartphones? Unfortunately, the New Zealand Parliament accepted the notion of patents on "telephones" with "embedded software", and while a small part of the operating software of such telephones is really telephone-specific, the largest part is just an operating system like any other.

Even a patent on a device with "embedded software" can be infringed by software: at least in the form of a contributory (indirect) infringement, which from the perspective of the software developer and publisher concerned comes down to the same exclusionary effect as a direct infringement.

To put it very simple, the problem is that the New Zealand Parliament and the minister in charge didn't say that they would do away with all software that could be infringed (be it on a direct or indirect/contributory basis) by software. They only talked about patents on software vs. patents on devices with embedded software, and even the latter can in principle be infringed by standalone software as well. It's harder to draw the line when coming from the angle of patentable subject matter than when looking at it from the infringement point of view. There's no guarantee in the law that software developers, publishers, distributors and users can't be sued over patents...

Again, for details on where this could go in terms of what patents they might allow or not, it's a complicated matter and I tried to explain it on my blog.

Example of patent holder arrogance

[FlorianMueller]

One thing is that big corporations lobby for software patents all the time; another is that patent holders often treat inadvertent infringers as "pirates", mislabel them as "copycats" etc.

I'm all for intellectual property, but I think those patent holders who enforce their rights against third parties who've committed no wrongdoing often use inappropriate language in describing the "infringers". I understand the patent holders don't say, "we don't know whether the patents we own will even survive reexamination", but they're not just assertive: they also offend those who made independent creations that someone else just happened to patent before.

IBM's statements concerning some mainframe-related technologies, including the Hercules open source mainframe emulator, are particularly obnoxious.

Then the RIAA is mad

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the RIAA is mad, since they assert that a massive proportion of worldwide GDP is lost to piracy, and this is taken as true enough to enact secrecy in lawmaking (ACTA).

And, yes, this is part of the truth. Another part was Hollywood was built on patent infringement. It was in Hollywood because by the time Edison got a writ against a movie infringing and got the police involved, the movie was made, sold and the maker disbanded. So the ENTIRETY of Hollywood is built on IP infringement.

Alternatively, go argue with RIAA about how much isn't lost from copyright infringement.

The "free trade" agreement is no longer popular

[dbIII]

The "free trade" agreement is no longer popular with the business groups that were pushing hard for it because they've woken up that even after five years they haven't been able to sell their stuff in the USA due to there being many protected markets while they are being left open to US competition that has less of a tax burden than it used to.
Even if changes to IP laws threaten to break the agreement there is almost nobody that will care at this point, no matter which side wins the election.

4th point shouldn't be barred (poor representation

[ciaran_o_riordan]

There seems to have been misunderstanding, leading to the fourth point in the letter wrongly being struck out. The claim was that Microsoft was the only software developer to reply. This claim is based on my analysis of the 36 submissions:

• Australian consultation responses 2009

The point was struck out because there was a submission by Anthony Berglas, but I don't see any such submission. There is a submission for a different consultation (the "Options Paper") by Anthony Berglas, so I guess someone confused the two consultations. I've emailed the letter's author, so hopefully this will get looked into before the letter is sent.

Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, you got a letter. Isn't that cute. Let's put that up on the refrigerator so everyone can lau^H^H^H see it.

Hint: If you want something to happen politically, you need truckloads of cash. That's the only thing these scumb^H^H^H^H^Hpoliticians listen to.

We need Source Code patents instead!

[Shompol]

- A book Copyright exists, because the book is OPEN, anyone can copy it after the copyright expires.

- An invention Patent exists to keep the invention OPEN, yet compensate the inventor.

- A software patent is a bogus idea that achieves NOTHING, except for generating bogus lawsuits, because most software is CLOSED, there is nothing patentable there.

- Source Code should be patentable/copy protectable, not the software. This way the intellectual capital is preserved after the company is dead, and can be easily ported when the hardware becomes obsolete. Patent (copyright) will ensure that software creators get compensated, in exchange for public access to their work, and permission to copy once the copyright is up.

A petition against software patents in Europe

[ogai]

Since more than one year there is a petition online to stop software patents in Europe: http://petition.stopsoftwarepatents.eu/ Soon many of the signatories will start similar activities in Europe, where there is a patent system outside any jurisdiction.

you can't abolish that which is poorly defined

[daithesong]

Software is one of many ways to reduce many techniques to practice; trying to ban the method is silly. What is patented in, for example, a compression technology, is a set of digital mathematical signal processing operations, which can be implemented in software or hardware, in a variety of technology bases in each case. People who rail about 'software patents' are confused between the concept and its medium of expression.

Re:you can't abolish that which is poorly defined

[king neckbeard]

If you submit a patent on software in the form of hundreds of claims with source code, then you can get a patent, but you will have driven the preparer of the patent insane and you will never ever catch anyone infringing. If I build a machine that does the same thing in a functionally different way, it is not patent infringement. Virtually all software more complex than hello world is going to be functionally different if written by a different author, because software is an incredibly complex machine.

Prophetic Headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

The headline "Letter To Abolish Software Patents In Australia", by all the familiar conventions of headline English grammar, unambiguously states that the letter in question will in fact abolish software patents in Australia. We can certainly hope that this prediction comes true, but it does not reflect the content of the article.

Re:I think that's not true

[king neckbeard]

Our debt to GDP ratio isn't that bad. Luxembourg, on the other hand, has something like 1000% of their GDP in debt.

patent v copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it would be better if the software industry moved to a model similar to pharma, where patents more fiercely protect the IP but for a far more limited time; closer to 5 years.

At the pace of the IT industry, after 5 years the software ought to be superseeded anyway. This would incourage innovation as the IP owner would create more updates and or features for their software which would then be covered for another 5 years.

Re:patent v copyright

[king neckbeard]

Pharmaceuticals have the same exclusivity period as anything else (20 years), but it often takes 10-12 years to do enough testing to get it to market. Also, the pharmaceutical industry patents end products, and there is virtually never any infringement cases because the patent is covering a specific chemical, and a slightly different product with just one portion being different is not covered by that patent, which is why they will often release a slightly modified version as a 'new and improved' version of a drug.