Slashdot Mirror
Prominent Pro-Patent Judge Issues Opinion Declaring All Software Patents Bad (techdirt.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: A lawsuit brought by the world's largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures, and handled on appeal (as are all patent cases), by the notoriously awful Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) may have actually killed off software patents. The ruling came from a judge that has ruled over patent cases since the 1980s, and it appears he's been born again into the anti-software patent world. Judge Mayer pointed out that the First Amendment says that "some" patents should not be allowed. The whole concurrence is worth reading, starting with the First Amendment argument -- which is kind of fascinating in that it goes well beyond what most people had talked about in the past concerning software patents. Judge Mayer makes the point that basically all software is unpatentable because software is "a form of language," which we don't patent: "All software implemented on a standard computer should be deemed categorically outside the bounds of Section 101. ("Section 101" is 35 U.S. Code; 101 is the part that governs patents.) The central problem with affording patent protection to generically-implemented software is that standard computers have long been ceded to the public domain .... Because generic computers are ubiquitous and indispensable, in effect the 'basic tool []' of modern life, they are not subject to the patent monopoly. In the section 101 calculus, adding software (which is as abstract as language) to a conventional computer (which rightfully resides in the public domain) results in a patent eligibility score of zero .... Software lies in the antechamber of patentable invention. Because generically-implemented software is an 'idea' insufficiently linked to any defining physical structure other than a standard computer, it is a precursor to technology rather than technology itself."
That actually aligns neatly with the current UK approach, where standalone software can not be patented but the combination of physical technology and the software needed to operate it can.
Next stop: Algorithms.
As a developer, I'm okay with that.
It means I can implement the best algorithm I can imagine as long as I take the time to implement it myself.
We no longer have to invent contrived ways of to make algorithms not look like the most obvious solution just because somebody patented it.
Patents are bad for makers, copyrights are bad for users.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Patents are bad for makers, copyrights are bad for users.
Copyrights aren't inherently bad for users because they can be turned into copylefts. They are what powers the GPL. The user needs Free Software — not mere Open Source, which only means you can see the source, and does not tell you what you can do with it. Without software patents, Free Software would only be more powerful, and capable of doing more of what the user needs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Have you seen the wars between Sun/Oracle over the Java API? Not even Java code, the Java API.
Bottom line: Copyright still involves lawyers and lawyers can think up reasons to make you miserable no matter what common sense says.
b) Usually the lawyers with most funding will win.
No sig today...
All software patents are illegal. Patent law states that algorithms cannot be patented. Why don't the courts have to obey the law?
Don't stop where the ink does.
By extension, nothing can be patented. Any idea or concept which is currently patented is expressed through language. I agree that the code itself should not be patented as it is indeed a form of language, but the implementation or methodology by which an application achieves an end result is the true value that needs to be protected; not the package it comes in. All that being said, I'm definitely in favour of open source happy-happy code sharing instead of patents and copyrights.
Is atheism a religion ?
Is abstinence a sex position ?
Is a hole an object ?
Is black a colour ?
Is 0 really a number ?
Is credit money ?
I say... this is fun.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Personally, I'm OK with software being patentable provided a couple of changes to the way they are currently awarded. First, a software patent must be truly novel to be patented. Taking something we already did without computers, and making a program that automates it should not be grounds for copyright. Also, taking something that programmers have been doing for decades and all of a sudden deciding to patent it shouldn't be awarded a patent. Perhaps the patent office should hire some actual people versed in software and computer systems development to help determine of some new patent application is actually something we haven't all been doing for the last 20 years.
Secondly, a fully working codebase should be submitted with the patent application such that, when the patent is expired, we actually have a record as to how the patented software was actually implemented. You shouldn't just be able to describe what the software does to be awarded a patent. A fully working code base must be presented so that the patent office can determine that you've actually done something novel and that you've actually made software that does what you say it does.
Thirdly, software patents should be shortened to make up for the fact that software evolves at such a fast pace. 5 years should probably do it.
Personally, I think all patents should be shortened. The world moves at a much faster pace than it did 100 years ago. It's completely possible to come up with a new invention and have worldwide adoption within 2 years, and the product even often becomes obsolete within 5 years. Maybe something like apply for patent, you have 5 years to bring it to market. If you don't have a significant marketable product, then patent expires. If you have a product, you get another 5 years to sell it. Maximum patent length is 10 years.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Not to mention that oracle deliberately hid discussions left behind by sun pre-acquisition that granted google permission.