Look, just like there are incompetant programmers that write bad code there are incompetant lawyers that badly prosecute or defend a case, and there are judges who don't get things right either.
You don't know what happened in these individual cases until you have studied the court records in detail. Furtunately judgments are usually available online so you can read these in full. Why don't you select an example of your choosing and study it?
Anti-patent news media will select the most sensationalist aspect of the case and portray it unfairly in order to attract YOU to read it. It doesn't mean the case is indicative of a bad system.
Slashdot seems to have gone down the road of sensationalising this subject. The same way that non-tech news forums sensationalize stem cell research.
The most amazing part is that the most UNtrue posts get the highest moderation value.
This has now become a forum of people who have collectively agreed to NOT understand the patent system and support each other in a voice of a non-cause. It's a totally invalid and non-sensical rebellion empowered by concensus.
> No. They are NOT. In fact the law specifically PROHIBITS them.
No it does not. It specifically prohibits PURE software patents. Once again you show you have never read the actual paragraphs in law, but are prepared to rant about it none-the-less.
> so how on earth [...]
Once again you make it clear that you have never read a patent in your life - at least not a "software" patent. Once again you take your little knowledge (of mechanical patents) and generalize it into things you know nothing about.
It is pretty curious to me why you needed to pay a lawyer to file a patent when it would have been accepted by the South African patent system anyway.
The end of all patents is something that, like most of your giberish, is a purely theoretical subject of no benefit to discuss.
It all sort of gives a clear picture of the sort of general personality disorder you seem to have.... living in a dream world etc., and drawing analogies between the patent system and apartheid. etc. which is basically bat-shit insane by anyone's measure.
Software patents are legal in South Africa as they are anywhere else, both with and without the patent reforms advocated by "slashdotters".
You just need add to the prologue of the patent text "a generic computer comprising of CPU and volatile storage..." and then it is no longer a "software patent".
It is only PURE software patents that are excluded by anti-software legislation. It so happens that there are almost no PURE software patents anywhere because lawyers are always careful to include the text above just to be sure. And in any case, a PURE software patent would have no utility so would be excluded from admission in any case.
Because the above is not understood by software developers is why they are erroneously campaining against this straw man.
Thanks for this long essay explaining what should be obvious to anyone who engages in this discussion. You needn't have waisted your time.
You think because you have read about the different types of IP that you are now an expert. Have you ever APPLIED for a patent or trademark yourself? No, you have not.
Have you ever looked through the patent or trademark archives and actually read real patents IN FULL to understand how patent law works in practice?
Also no.
You say "people" are doing this and that. Says who? Says slashdot posters? Have you ever downloaded any of those patents and read them?
You need to come out of your world of sitting in your deck chair and staring out over the ocean and theorizing about stuff, and believing everything you hear.
In actual fact a patent has to apply to a specific utility to be accepted. Please go read some real patents on google so that you know what you are talking about.
Because you don't understand it, you find it threatening.
There are many systems in our society that are not perfect, but for which there is no better solution.
If you would like to propose BETTER legislation than we currently have, then please do. But then you must ACTUALLY PROVIDE VIABLE LEGAL WORDING.
Don't complain and then say that SOMEONE ELSE must make the fixes using a magic wand.
I think what you will find when you investigate this thoroughly, is that the sort of changes that the "free software" community would like to institute don't make legal/workable sense.
I have been a C developer for 15 years. I know the difference between software and hardware.
But YOU on the other hand do not know anything about patent law. Patent law, and patents themselves, are like algorithms that cannot distinguish between between software and hardware the same way as a computer algorithm doesn't know whether it is the real AbbeyRoad writing this, or someone who stole AbbeyRoad's password.
Of course Patent law is a lot easier to understand than software. So I am sure if you are good at writing software, spending some time reading through patents (or better yet, trying to write a patent) will sort out your misguided views faster than you can say Knuth.
Right NOW, outside of your dream world, the patent system is intrinsic to the functioning large segments of our economy. And you clearly have no idea how this patent system works because you have never taken the time to read a real patent in your life.
You live in the USA, where the constitution actually does NOT mention patents at all.
But in patent law in general, there is no real distinction beteen algorithms and mathematics. Patent law in fact does NOT restrict someone from patenting pure mathematics. This is just what people on slashdot say who do not understand patent law and have never read a patent in their lives.
What patent law actually says is that an invention that does not have a specific PHYSICAL utility cannot be patented. This prevents someone from filing a patent on an aircraft part and then claiming infringement on a gardening tool.
In actual fact enormous numbers of pure mathematics patents are filed each year. They are just written within the context of a particular industry - like for example medical imaging, or broad-band communications.
> Yet many patents are admitted where there is prior art
oh? give me an example of one?
You say this just because OTHER PEOPLE are always citing examples - Yet if you actually read through software patents you will find each and every patent is legitimate with very few exceptions.
Now, it is not possible for a patent examiner to refuse to admit a patent that has been correctly prosecuted. This means that the applicant has justified the novelty, inventiveness, and utility of the invention.
The fact that some inventions are technically stupid or retrospectively obvious does not mean the patent system is broken.
The fact that some people think free software is threatened by patents does not mean it actually is. Any time you write code you are violating patents. To be worthy of a law suite requires a certain fair context.
You mouth off, but all you can say is that patent law must be scrapped.
Scrapping patent law is under the catagory of ridiculous theoretical stuff that is just not going to happen. Sort of in the same league as moving the earth further from the sun in order to reduce global warming.
This strips you of any credibility you may have had. Not the least because you believe such studies - without having read them.
When you get down the the practical reality of writing patent legislation, there isn't terminology that you can propose that can do any better than the current legislation.
If you think I am wrong, please read actual patent legislation and propose your changes. Perhaps *you* are the closet legal genious that is going to change the world.
> maths and logic are turned into private possessions
well, when has this actually happened? You presume this effect is in play because everyone else on slashdot is alway ranting about it, but do you have actual examples?
Otherwise you are like a hairdresser complaining about a conspiracy to stop scientists from producing perpetual motion.
> At this stage it is extremely simple to distinguish what is "software
Your logic is amiss here. Whether or not a patent has been violated has nothing to do with the form of the product. And it never will, even under legislative proposals most in your favor.
Once again people who have never even read a software patten comment on the patten process, and presume to know everything.
A "software" patent usually does not mention the word "software" anywhere within it. There is no way to tell if the patent is purely about software or not - at least not from a legal perspective.
What makes a patent admissible is if it has particular application and contains a novel inventive step.
So even the most outright ban on all software within patents would change little really. Moreover an outright ban is far more than any patent system has ever thought about enforcing.
So there is no war going on here except in your head.
Give me an example of a software patent that is absurd and we can look it up.
I think what you are saying is: software patents AS I HAPPENED TO HAVE SEEN THEM EXPLAINED by people trying to spin that the patent system is unfair.
You need to read the ACTUAL patent, not some third-hand summary.
In some countries there is no patent office - you can submit any patent.
However in the EPO and USPTO they check for prior art quite extensively.
So you can't submit ideas that are trivial obvious or that have been done before.
You can also only patent something that has specific utility. So if you "violate" a patent, but it is in a completely different market space then this falls outside of the scope of what is defensible.
So the circumstance you are imagining can't happen in practice.
The REASON why people get upset about the idea of software patents is because they are swapping terminology, and don't understand how the patent system works. I.e. straw man scare mongering.
Software patents are actually a MEANS for small inventors to get protection. You WANT software patents. You have just been given falacious information.
Very often I will see Free Software distributions say "we are not going to ship this library because it violates patent XYZ".
Now who went down the road of deciding to ship or not ship libraries. It was a scare-mongering Free Software biggot who suddenly woke up one day and decided, for no reason, that these patents where a threat, in order to have something to picket about.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't know that they aren't.
Look, just like there are incompetant programmers that write bad
code there are incompetant lawyers that badly prosecute or defend
a case, and there are judges who don't get things right either.
You don't know what happened in these individual cases until
you have studied the court records in detail. Furtunately
judgments are usually available online so you can read these
in full. Why don't you select an example of your choosing
and study it?
Anti-patent news media will select the most sensationalist
aspect of the case and portray it unfairly in order to attract
YOU to read it. It doesn't mean the case is indicative of
a bad system.
Slashdot seems to have gone down the road of sensationalising
this subject. The same way that non-tech news forums
sensationalize stem cell research.
The most amazing part is that the most UNtrue posts get the
highest moderation value.
This has now become a forum of people who have collectively
agreed to NOT understand the patent system and support each
other in a voice of a non-cause. It's a totally invalid and
non-sensical rebellion empowered by concensus.
> I'm sure that a team comprised of [...]
well this has already happened, and is continuing to happen.
Have you ever found out anything for yourself in your life
instead of just quoting selected second hand statements of
other people?
-paul
> No. They are NOT. In fact the law specifically PROHIBITS them.
No it does not. It specifically prohibits PURE software patents.
Once again you show you have never read the actual paragraphs in
law, but are prepared to rant about it none-the-less.
> so how on earth [...]
Once again you make it clear that you have never read a patent
in your life - at least not a "software" patent. Once again
you take your little knowledge (of mechanical patents) and
generalize it into things you know nothing about.
It is pretty curious to me why you needed to pay a lawyer
to file a patent when it would have been accepted by the
South African patent system anyway.
The end of all patents is something that, like most of your
giberish, is a purely theoretical subject of no benefit to
discuss.
It all sort of gives a clear picture of the sort of general
personality disorder you seem to have.... living in a dream
world etc., and drawing analogies between the patent system
and apartheid. etc. which is basically bat-shit insane by
anyone's measure.
-paul
Then can I please have your four patent numbers.
Software patents are legal in South Africa as they are anywhere else,
both with and without the patent reforms advocated by "slashdotters".
You just need add to the prologue of the patent text "a generic computer
comprising of CPU and volatile storage..." and then it is no longer a
"software patent".
It is only PURE software patents that are excluded by anti-software
legislation. It so happens that there are almost no PURE software
patents anywhere because lawyers are always careful to include the
text above just to be sure. And in any case, a PURE software
patent would have no utility so would be excluded from admission
in any case.
Because the above is not understood by software developers is
why they are erroneously campaining against this straw man.
-paul
> I don't believe you have the slightest evidence [...]
We can discuss further after you admit you have never
read a single patent in full.
-paul
In the say way I am sure you can show a verbal parallel between
any two items of subject matter.
This doesn't mean the parallel is useful or applicable.
You are too lazy to spend the time understanding what the patent
system is really about because your own pre-conceived opinions
excite you too much.
People like you - who have intense opinions about things they
know little about - are amongst the biggest problem makers.
It called "filling in the gabs in one's knowledge with
generalizations."
Please realise that though you may think this makes you look
really smart - it is actually very transparent.
-paul
The world of pure theory based on scant pieces of info is a fun place to visit.
In your case, these are the small pieces of info you happen to have run into while traveling in the dark.
Thanks for this long essay explaining what should be obvious to anyone
who engages in this discussion. You needn't have waisted your time.
You think because you have read about the different types of IP that
you are now an expert. Have you ever APPLIED for a patent or trademark
yourself? No, you have not.
Have you ever looked through the patent or trademark archives and actually
read real patents IN FULL to understand how patent law works in practice?
Also no.
You say "people" are doing this and that. Says who? Says slashdot posters?
Have you ever downloaded any of those patents and read them?
You need to come out of your world of sitting in your deck chair and
staring out over the ocean and theorizing about stuff, and believing
everything you hear.
-paul
"They"??
how do you know this?
In actual fact a patent has to apply to a specific utility to be
accepted. Please go read some real patents on google so that you
know what you are talking about.
-paul
Because you don't understand it, you find it threatening.
There are many systems in our society that are not perfect, but for
which there is no better solution.
If you would like to propose BETTER legislation than we currently have,
then please do. But then you must ACTUALLY PROVIDE VIABLE LEGAL WORDING.
Don't complain and then say that SOMEONE ELSE must make the fixes using
a magic wand.
I think what you will find when you investigate this thoroughly, is that
the sort of changes that the "free software" community would like to
institute don't make legal/workable sense.
-paul
I have been a C developer for 15 years.
I know the difference between software and hardware.
But YOU on the other hand do not know anything about patent
law. Patent law, and patents themselves, are like algorithms
that cannot distinguish between between software and
hardware the same way as a computer algorithm doesn't
know whether it is the real AbbeyRoad writing this,
or someone who stole AbbeyRoad's password.
Of course Patent law is a lot easier to understand
than software. So I am sure if you are good at
writing software, spending some time reading through
patents (or better yet, trying to write a patent) will
sort out your misguided views faster than you can say
Knuth.
-paul
Your point is non-sensical.
Right NOW, outside of your dream world, the patent system is intrinsic
to the functioning large segments of our economy. And you clearly
have no idea how this patent system works because you have never taken
the time to read a real patent in your life.
-paul
You live in the USA, where the constitution actually does NOT mention patents at all.
But in patent law in general, there is no real distinction beteen algorithms
and mathematics. Patent law in fact does NOT restrict someone from patenting
pure mathematics. This is just what people on slashdot say who do not
understand patent law and have never read a patent in their lives.
What patent law actually says is that an invention that does not have a specific
PHYSICAL utility cannot be patented. This prevents someone from filing a patent
on an aircraft part and then claiming infringement on a gardening tool.
In actual fact enormous numbers of pure mathematics patents are filed each year.
They are just written within the context of a particular industry - like for
example medical imaging, or broad-band communications.
-paul
> Yet many patents are admitted where there is prior art
oh? give me an example of one?
You say this just because OTHER PEOPLE are always citing examples -
Yet if you actually read through software patents you will find
each and every patent is legitimate with very few exceptions.
Now, it is not possible for a patent examiner to refuse to
admit a patent that has been correctly prosecuted. This means
that the applicant has justified the novelty, inventiveness,
and utility of the invention.
The fact that some inventions are technically stupid or
retrospectively obvious does not mean the patent system
is broken.
The fact that some people think free software is threatened
by patents does not mean it actually is. Any time you write
code you are violating patents. To be worthy of a law suite
requires a certain fair context.
-paul
exactly right
You mouth off, but all you can say is that patent law must be
scrapped.
Scrapping patent law is under the catagory of ridiculous theoretical
stuff that is just not going to happen. Sort of in the same league
as moving the earth further from the sun in order to reduce global
warming.
This strips you of any credibility you may have had. Not the least
because you believe such studies - without having read them.
-paul
> Where novelty is widely interpreted by
So what do you propose?
When you get down the the practical reality of writing patent
legislation, there isn't terminology that you can propose
that can do any better than the current legislation.
If you think I am wrong, please read actual patent legislation
and propose your changes. Perhaps *you* are the closet legal
genious that is going to change the world.
-paul
Why? Because you don't understand the patent system
and have invented a conspiracy.
Please go read actual software patents in the google
patent search before you mouth off about a non-issue.
-paul
> maths and logic are turned into private possessions
well, when has this actually happened? You presume this
effect is in play because everyone else on slashdot is
alway ranting about it, but do you have actual examples?
Otherwise you are like a hairdresser complaining about a
conspiracy to stop scientists from producing perpetual
motion.
> At this stage it is extremely simple to distinguish what is "software
Your logic is amiss here. Whether or not a patent has been
violated has nothing to do with the form of the product.
And it never will, even under legislative proposals most in
your favor.
yes, this is aleady part the patent process.
it is called the "preferred embodiment".
-paul
Once again people who have never even read a software patten comment
on the patten process, and presume to know everything.
A "software" patent usually does not mention the word "software"
anywhere within it. There is no way to tell if the patent is
purely about software or not - at least not from a legal perspective.
What makes a patent admissible is if it has particular application
and contains a novel inventive step.
So even the most outright ban on all software within patents would
change little really. Moreover an outright ban is far more than any
patent system has ever thought about enforcing.
So there is no war going on here except in your head.
-paul
Give me an example of a software patent that is absurd and we can look it up.
I think what you are saying is: software patents AS I HAPPENED TO HAVE SEEN
THEM EXPLAINED by people trying to spin that the patent system is unfair.
You need to read the ACTUAL patent, not some third-hand summary.
In some countries there is no patent office - you can submit any patent.
However in the EPO and USPTO they check for prior art quite extensively.
So you can't submit ideas that are trivial obvious or that have been done
before.
You can also only patent something that has specific utility. So if you "violate"
a patent, but it is in a completely different market space then this falls outside
of the scope of what is defensible.
So the circumstance you are imagining can't happen in practice.
The REASON why people get upset about the idea of software patents
is because they are swapping terminology, and don't understand how
the patent system works. I.e. straw man scare mongering.
Software patents are actually a MEANS for small inventors to get
protection. You WANT software patents. You have just been given
falacious information.
Very often I will see Free Software distributions say "we are
not going to ship this library because it violates patent XYZ".
Now who went down the road of deciding to ship or not ship
libraries. It was a scare-mongering Free Software biggot who
suddenly woke up one day and decided, for no reason, that
these patents where a threat, in order to have something to
picket about.
-paul
The idea of reducing patent terms is a legitimate one.
Probably one of the only sensible posts not made by me.
-paul
Why? Because it is has been done before and your patent will be rejected on submission.
paul