Update on Software Patents in the EU

jmason writes "An update on the EU's deliberations regarding software patents is up on the www.freepatents.org site: "the European member states of the Munchen convention have decided to wait for one more year before taking a decision on article 52.2, which says that computer programmes as such are not patentable. The European Commission (DGXV) seems to be pushing for more software patents rather than for more control on trivial software patents with no industrial application." "

Comments

Latent Patentism

[mong]

When reading the document, I noticed that it is use of elementary software processes which looks set to be prohibited.

How "elementary" are these processes? I notice, happily, that some of the big names are firmly opposed to this. I also notice the example IBM patent request - read the application description carefully, tell me what you think it means...

Mong.

* Paul Madley ...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *

Re:Latent Patentism

[Microlith]

That patent does look suspicious. Like in how to redraw a window that was covered by another window. Am I right? If so, that is most definitely not an original idea, not worth the patent.

Re:Latent Patentism

[BlaisePascal]

I think it tries to patent a system that automatically wraps the content of a window around other windows placed on top of it.

I don't think it covers redrawing obscured content once the obscuring window is (re)moved, but rather redrawing obscured content in an unobscured location.

I will fight

[Anonymous Coward]

I have written few pieces of free software that infringe on numerous US patents. Even if the EU law changes to allow software patenting I will continue and go down as a martyr if need be.

I don't have the time or the will to investigate whether something is patented or not. If it suits my purposes I will use it and release the source. How am I supposed to know if something in an scientific article is patented or not. I don't care, so sue me.

Destroying free software by patenting is unethical, I urge people to boycott all companies that are restricting non-profit software by suing free software authors. Free software is for the common good and if companies are against it then they are also agaist their customers, the people. Software copyrights are enough. If they develop some revolutionary technology then let them keep it secret for all I care. Restricting programming freedom is the same as restricting the freedom of speech, the source code is my opininion and I'm entitled to express it in public.

Re:I will fight

[RNG]

Yes, and I wish more people would join the fight. People generally don't seem to realuze that the only thing coorporations care about is money. Boycott them, speak out about why this is evil and tell people why infromation wants to be free. Deny them your money (and hope that enough other people do so) and they will get the message. At least now with the internet we have the power/ability to mobilize the (computer literate) masses and channel the storm of protest (witness Toshiba's reaction after they got swamped by angry mails after refusing to release their IR programming information).

In my experience, even computer illiterate can grasp the power/relevance of open source and free information if you only explain it to them using terms and analogies they are familiar with. Once they understand, I can usually get the to agree to the point the patents, closed source and all the other issues surrounding this are evil (or at least pretty bad).

Lets go spread the gospel, the world might just be ready for it ...

IBM was trying to get a Patent for WHAT???!!!

[Bretai]

Did anyone click on the 96305851.6? It looks like IBM was trying to get a patent in Europe for:

Title of invention: Method and system in a data processing system windowing environment for displaying previously obscured information

I've been a Database programmer for many years, and I can tell you, the above description can mean about anything.
Does anyone remember when OpenMarket patented the web shopping cart? This shows how moot the patent process has become reguarding software.
If you missed it, i recommend reading the Herring article: "I'm gonna sue your ass" it really points out the folley of patenting software. My humble opinion is that all the patents do is make it hard for anyone to compete unless they have a million dollar patenting department full of IP (Intelectual Property) lawyers. Patents are a hold over from "Ivory Tower/cathedral" programming, discourage colaboration. The exact opposite of the Open Source ideals. I hope the EU gets the point. Even if the US still hasn't...

Re:IBM was trying to get a Patent for WHAT???!!!

[mong]

Exactly - thats why I asked that people should explain to me exactly wht they think it means. And it means that IBM are gonna get a patent which allows them to "display previously obscured information".

Lets consider what is "obscured information". First, with a brief summation of exactly what information is: Information is "data which informs somebody" - if you are informed by something, this is information.

On this basis, what can you be informed by, and what information can be seen to exist in an obscured state?

• Email - once transmited, becomes a load of 0s and 1s
• Database - data on a hard disk requires a dbms to interpret
• Graphics - a jpeg file means nothing to me - dunno 'bout you!

See where we're going?

File - held as binary on a computer, requires aMethod and system for displaying [this] previously obscured information

So basically, any information displayed on any wimp system would be breaching this copyright.

However, aren't IBM a little late here? I could understand Xerox doing this, but IBM? Humph!

Interestingly, it states that the patent is only concerned with a windowing environment so presumably, if we switch ack to a good old CLI, we'll be fine?

IBM? IMBeciles?

Mong.

* Paul Madley ...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *

Just another pain in the ass?

[NtG]

So are we all going to have to run out and grab patents for our code before someone else does?

Re:Just another pain in the ass?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patenting software. Hmm, Patenting code and icons etc is rather ridiculous. Bill gates would probably patent the idea of the "hello world" program and sue every university in the world if he had his way.

Though there must be some incentive for business to come up with applications or OS's which can clearly be protected from being stolen. A patent is rather dangerous though as it leads to an instant monopoly for that business for a length of time. Also you get all these companies suing each other over "look and feel" etc. Surely code being copyrighted is enough. If someone can code programs that do what your software does, but is built from scratch, then surely that is fair competition. If you cant handle "fair" competition, get out of business because youll never survive.

Patenting the look and feel of interfaces is just ******* ridiculous. Its a a too grey area to dabble in. Long as you dont nick the code, i feel you can nick the look. I mean i dont see car manufactuers suing each other because another firm 's cars also have a steering wheel and four wheels.

my 2pence anyway

Brad

Sorry about the Anon post.

[TimoT]

Things like this shouldn't be said anonymously. It was me and I stand by it (just created an account to say this).

Software patents are unclever

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but software patents are a copyright on a thought or an idea.
How common isn't it that ideas on a particular topic pops up in several places around
the globe at roughly the same time. Tough for the poor sod that happened to be a day
later in discovering/developing something revolutionary. All the months of hard work
and the effort put in to the work. Someone else happened to patent the idea
24 hours earlier.

Or, like Microsoft, invent all sorts of diffrent descriptions of invented and imaginary
things and make them as fuzzy as possible, patent them and hope that someday, someone
will invent something that could be covered by their patents so they can sue for patent
infringments.

I know, they aren't the only ones doing it, but they happen to have the copyright on
something so silly as icons. What if they started pursuing that particular patent?

Patents on ideas and thoughts as well as algorithms and code can only be
a bad thing. Maybe not for the owner of the patent, but for the world as a whole.

Re:Software patents are unclever

[TimoT]

> Or, like Microsoft, invent all sorts of diffrent
> descriptions of invented and imaginary things
> and make them as fuzzy as possible, patent them
> and hope that someday, someone will invent
> something that could be covered by their patents
> so they can sue for patent infringments.

And wait till it gets popular before they sue, so they get money without working for it.

In one instance I started to write a modular software synthesizer that produces compiled code from signal processing network descriptions (still working on it). I found a M$ patent on componentized signal processing, which is about the same thing (ie. generate code run-time from abstract filter descriptions to cut procedure call overhead, reverb was mentioned). The M$ patent was filed in June 1997 and Common Lisp Music, which is from 1991 has done it already, we discussed this on music-dsp and other companies had also done this but not patented it. So much for knowledge of events outside the company boundary. I'm not even aware if they are using this thing anywhere. If this was a valid patent (which it isn't, because of prior art, the important stuff isn't valid anyway) you could say byebye to efficient modular software synthesizers that emulate old analog software synthesizers (that is, from anyone else than M$).

Re:Software patents are unclever

[Anonymous Coward]

i have written a polling dataflow audio synthetiser/processor library in Objective-C and in C++, when hacking on SPARC/Solaris boxen at University of Quebec (at Hull), when i was in first year. It was in early 1997 methinks, but the concept had floated in my head for a while.

i normally don't use commercial music software, so i have no trouble believing that it has been done before... especially from LISP guys, famous for all sorts of language experimentation.

now i'm more into functional music generation (note the distinction between music and audio) but i'm too lazy to code.

matju (aka boum01)

what use is open source in a world with sw-pat ?

[olaus]

we're all so proud to use/write open source but what use is copyright free code when the patents matter !

very few people will dare to publish open source software when they would have to check it against some thousand patents :(

Can you patent a language?

[LL]

The power and abstraction of software is both its strength and its Ancilles heel. Any thought can only be expressed using the current available languages and concepts. We have evolved from assembly-level bit twiddling, to macros, imperative languages, functional, object-oriented and now high levle scripting/glue systems. Yet each level of language abstraction invalidates any patented technique below it. If someone patents the use of the letter "E" and charges monopoly rents, think how painful communications would be.

The fundamental problem is that it is impossible to prevent other people having the same idea. Given that there are 5 billion people all trying to survive, sooner or later, everything will be independently rediscovered or reinvented. Should being the first to discover automatically extinguish the rights of others who wish to develop the idea further? One can think of an example of a certain plant MNC who has been awared the exclusive rights to bioengineer cotton fibre and has basically done nothing as yet but refuses to allow anyone else encroach on a potentially lucrative market.

Business nowadays has less to do with innovation than issues of control in a market nichce and thus extract long-term profits. Such is the power of the almighty dollar. Idealism my be good for the pampered classes but it doesn't pay for your kid's medical bills.

LL

hmm maybe I should patent a way of thinking next?

[josepha48]

Maybe I should patent a method of thinking like a moron. I bet if I had the money I could actually get it approved. I have seen patents on lots of stupid things and software is one of those stupid things to patent.

One thing about patents thou, is that if someone patents software and you create a program that does what there program does but then make improvements on there exisiting software you can then pantent your stuff as an improvement, PROVIDED IT IS NOT AN OBVIOUS IMPROVEMENT. Better yet OPEN SOURCE your improved version of there software, and then put the but head who got the patent out of business.

Hey IF you are not using there code, and yours is different enough and there is a non-obvious improvement, this is legal! Microsoft did it to Apple.

All patent laws should be repealed worldwide

[Louis Savain]

All patent laws are stupid fascist laws and are designed to benefit a few and enslave the many. They do not promote innovation; they mostly promote a horrendous amount of reinvneting the wheel because it forces people to spend a considerable amount of money to circumvent existing patents. Knowledge should be as free as the air we breathe.

Corporate Excuses

[homunq]

The main excuse that corporations give for accumulating large stocks of frivolous patents (software or otherwise) is "We'd never sue someone over these patents unless they sued us first." On the scale of individual companies, this argument is morally defensible, if true. For company X to accumulate patents for the sole purpose of countersuits actually probably reduces the number of frivolous lawsuits against them.

But clearly, on a general scale, the assumption is that any competitor with enough money to sue company X over patent infringement has already infringed company X's patents. In other words, the idea is to make it impossible to do business without breaking the law. This is clearly stupid even for the big corps, and unfair to the small ones/ open source projects/ and individuals.

It does bring up a good idea though. Have some sort of GPL for patents. "You can use this patent freely as long as you never sue anyone for patent infringement." If corps really are accumulating patents just for countersuits, they shouldn't hesitate to put them all under such a license, assuming it was well-written enough to work.