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.
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 *
Not to mention that oracle deliberately hid discussions left behind by sun pre-acquisition that granted google permission.