Anyway, not patentable: [Section 1.2.(c)] a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer; with the caveat: "but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such" and "In the main, the exclusions are directed to mental, intellectual, aesthetic or abstract matters, though 'a program for a computer' does not entirely fit into these characterisations."
I think that sort of means "except as defined below". So, I read most of that document. Nowhere, let me repeat that, nowhere are the phrases 'technical contribution' or 'technical effect' or any (supposedly) equivalent phrases actually defined in the document.
There are vague references to German cases, EPO and UK court decisions. On that note, how is the general developer community supposed to determine what is meant by 'technical effect' by reading these cases (in German if you're Italian or whatever)? Does the UKPTO deliberately want to obfuscate any definition for the general public? If not, publish the definitions.
On the other hand, there are some lengthy paragraphs in very tortured English of patents that were rejected because they had no 'technical effect'. One sentence gives the idea: "Decisive is what technical contribution the invention as defined in the claim when considered as a whole makes to the known art." Of course, still no definition of 'technical contribution'.
Later sentences give a hint perhaps: "...program causes the computer to operate in a technically different way..." Aaargh! More rubbish! "...operate in a technically different way..." What does that mean? How does a computer specifically built to operate in a technically specific way alter that process? That vague definition simply raises a ton more questions. It's not a useful definition.
Later on, we get the EPO (which, politically, tries its best to get pure s/w patents and has had its wrists slapped as a result) saying that: "...allowing an operator to... feed information into a computer... and that this is a technical matter." Good grief. They'll define watching TV as a technical matter next.
So, 1/10 for your post. No recognisably useful definitions and consequently the UKPTO stating they have such is just a load of hot air designed to allow US mega corps to pay your wages. To the detriment of SMEs and individuals, of course...
It is not clever, it is trivial. I needed to perform some form of compression to represent coordinates (not Lat./Long.) on a database a couple of years ago. Didn't patent it because a) I live in Europe, b) It simply required some first year university math.
But, no doubt, M$ would have gasped with glee at our simple algorithm and M$ fanboys everywhere would have been slapping our backs and calling us "geniuses".
You register to go to a workshop. And not everybody can get to these workshops as they are being deliberately limited. If you wanted really to be open about it, the UKPTO could publish its definitions on the Web (whichthe imply they have). At least the public would then be informed.
It is weasel wording because there is no proper definition. Why do you think workshops are being held to define the term? Patent lawyers will easily get round most definition and, unless there is a lengthy and strictly maintained definition, pure software patents will become a fact of life in Europe.
The da Vinci Code is utter tripe - and I don't have a religious bone in my body. Dan Brown also wrote almost exactly the same book, called it "Angels and Demons" with the same characters, the same plot, very similar errors about scientific institutions but it was set mainly in Rome.
The pot-boiler writing is irritating enough without the wildly erroneous 'science'. Indeed, the 'science' in A&D is so laughable no one could be fooled by it. For example, the Big Bang was caused by [taa, daaa]... wait for it... antimatter!
Nope. Nor SanFran or St. Francis or whatever. I thought Science Fiction as in sfsite.com, mainly because of "...group of SF writers..." and half of/. do not live in the US.
"Technical effect", the weasel wording used to justify pure software patents (what software does not produce a 'technical effect').
The Patent Office says: "Participants [to a series of workshops] will be shown a variety of definitions for 'technical contribution' and invited to work in groups to test these against a range of innovations. They will also be welcome to propose definitions of their own."
What about publishing these definitions so that the general public can see them? Not in jolly old Blighty...
FTA: "Unfortunately, however, it seems the Commission will not treat this as a chance to drop the entire issue but will continue pursuing software patents for the sole benefit of a tiny number of large, mostly American, companies," said Cox.
That's what I meant by the Internet. It was kick-started by tax dollars. The commercial world-wide system would never have begun without ARPA/NSF and kids at universities using it. Any commercial rollout would have been as messy and fragmented as mobile systems in the US. Are you trying to tell me that the protocols and routing methods of ARPA/NSF have nothing to do with the current commercial system? Sheesh. Why post as Coward if you've got a real point to make?
Wireless Internet is a luxury and not employed by many.
So was the wired Internet at one time. It too, was a tax funded 'luxury'. It often happens that infrastructure of any sort requires a long-term kick start. Private companies will usually not do this.
It's curious that in the art world, 'provenance' is so important. Not just because it might determine whether a (very good) fake is a fake but because, for some reason, humans do not associate art with anything but humans doing the creating.
This is a species-ist attitude. There's actually a continuum. Autistic people can (and do) produce art, people otherwise denoted as 'vegetables' produce art. But elephants, apes, chimps, donkeys and ravens have created paintings. Birds can actually recognise a genre such as cubism. Art generated by computers has been considered 'real' art unless its provenance is known when it is dismissed as much as a good fake.
The arrogance of (human) artists (and art experts) is quite breath-taking. If a human artist hangs an orange sheet over a rock, then, for some reason emotions are evoked: it is "art". But if a chimp dumps the same piece of cloth on the same rock, creating the same effect and runs off, it is no longer "art".
Art is only considered "art" by those arrogant enough to say: "it's because I say so."
On the other hand, I suggest you read the Journal of Economic Growth, 2004, vol. 9, issue 1, pages 81-123:
"Furthermore, patents affect the allocation of R&D resources across industries, and patents can distort resources away from industries where they are most productive."
Patents are incredibly valuable at encouraging innovation, in that an innovator knows that their time and investment can't immediately be cloned by a competitor that didn't have to make an investment.
And here's where the pro-patent lobby contradict themselves. The (first) 'innovator' gets a patent and then any competitor (as you point out) is effectively put off innovating themselves in the same area.
BTW, can you point to any ecomonic research which shows that patents generally promote innovation?
You may be interested to note that the economist Hayek was not entirely persuaded in some respects of the patent system:
"I am thinking here of the extension of the concept of property to such rights and privileges as patents for inventions, copyright, trade-marks, and the like. It seems to me beyond doubt that in these fields a slavish application of the concept of property as it has been developed for material things has done a great deal to foster the growth of monopoly and that here drastic reforms may be required if competition is to be made to work. In the field of industrial patents in particular we shall have seriously to examine whether the award of a monopoly privilege is really the most appropriate and effective form of reward for the kind of risk-bearing which investment in scientific research involves."
It has also been argued that software patents in themselves are not economically useful. RMS, in a speech at Cambridge University said:
"... an Australian government study of the patent system in the 1980's... concluded that aside from international pressure, there was no reason to have a patent system - It did no good for the public - and recommended abolishing it if not for international pressure." [http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/danger-of-software- patents.txt]
Mitch Kapor (founder of Lotus Corp.) argues that software patents are inherently bad:
"Patents can't protect or invigorate the computer software industry; they can only cripple it." [http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/issue s.article]
That's no excuse for not putting together some decent anti-spam laws. 80% of traffic (that I'm paying for indirectly) is classed as utter junk. When will legislators do something, when it's 99.99999999% of all traffic, when corporates at last start complaining 'their' business is being hurt? Sheesh.
I hope you're kidding. If the EU were to define the terms of open documents, you'd have 25 countries each with their own experts half of whom would be fiddling the costs only to produce an 18,000 page document which, in order to be exactly translatable into all the official languages of the EU uses words (in the English language version, at least) that neither Websters or the Longer Oxford seem to recognise. The document would appear in eight versions and be finalized in 2014.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh... Ooooh, how obvious was that?
... feed information into a computer ... and that this is a technical matter." Good grief. They'll define watching TV as a technical matter next.
Anyway, not patentable: [Section 1.2.(c)] a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer; with the caveat: "but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such" and "In the main, the exclusions are directed to mental, intellectual, aesthetic or abstract matters, though 'a program for a computer' does not entirely fit into these characterisations."
I think that sort of means "except as defined below". So, I read most of that document. Nowhere, let me repeat that, nowhere are the phrases 'technical contribution' or 'technical effect' or any (supposedly) equivalent phrases actually defined in the document.
There are vague references to German cases, EPO and UK court decisions. On that note, how is the general developer community supposed to determine what is meant by 'technical effect' by reading these cases (in German if you're Italian or whatever)? Does the UKPTO deliberately want to obfuscate any definition for the general public? If not, publish the definitions.
On the other hand, there are some lengthy paragraphs in very tortured English of patents that were rejected because they had no 'technical effect'. One sentence gives the idea: "Decisive is what technical contribution the invention as defined in the claim when considered as a whole makes to the known art." Of course, still no definition of 'technical contribution'.
Later sentences give a hint perhaps: "...program causes the computer to operate in a technically different way..." Aaargh! More rubbish! "...operate in a technically different way..." What does that mean? How does a computer specifically built to operate in a technically specific way alter that process? That vague definition simply raises a ton more questions. It's not a useful definition.
Later on, we get the EPO (which, politically, tries its best to get pure s/w patents and has had its wrists slapped as a result) saying that: "...allowing an operator to
So, 1/10 for your post. No recognisably useful definitions and consequently the UKPTO stating they have such is just a load of hot air designed to allow US mega corps to pay your wages. To the detriment of SMEs and individuals, of course...
It is not clever, it is trivial. I needed to perform some form of compression to represent coordinates (not Lat./Long.) on a database a couple of years ago. Didn't patent it because a) I live in Europe, b) It simply required some first year university math.
But, no doubt, M$ would have gasped with glee at our simple algorithm and M$ fanboys everywhere would have been slapping our backs and calling us "geniuses".
But not for representing Lat./Long. in a URL...
It doesn't even have to be math. See United States Patent 5373560, a patent on two primes expressed in hex.
You register to go to a workshop. And not everybody can get to these workshops as they are being deliberately limited. If you wanted really to be open about it, the UKPTO could publish its definitions on the Web (whichthe imply they have). At least the public would then be informed.
It is weasel wording because there is no proper definition. Why do you think workshops are being held to define the term? Patent lawyers will easily get round most definition and, unless there is a lengthy and strictly maintained definition, pure software patents will become a fact of life in Europe.
The da Vinci Code is utter tripe - and I don't have a religious bone in my body. Dan Brown also wrote almost exactly the same book, called it "Angels and Demons" with the same characters, the same plot, very similar errors about scientific institutions but it was set mainly in Rome.
... wait for it ... antimatter!
The pot-boiler writing is irritating enough without the wildly erroneous 'science'. Indeed, the 'science' in A&D is so laughable no one could be fooled by it. For example, the Big Bang was caused by [taa, daaa]
Nope. Nor SanFran or St. Francis or whatever. I thought Science Fiction as in sfsite.com, mainly because of "...group of SF writers..." and half of /. do not live in the US.
"Technical effect", the weasel wording used to justify pure software patents (what software does not produce a 'technical effect').
The Patent Office says: "Participants [to a series of workshops] will be shown a variety of definitions for 'technical contribution' and invited to work in groups to test these against a range of innovations. They will also be welcome to propose definitions of their own."
What about publishing these definitions so that the general public can see them? Not in jolly old Blighty...
FTA: "Unfortunately, however, it seems the Commission will not treat this as a chance to drop the entire issue but will continue pursuing software patents for the sole benefit of a tiny number of large, mostly American, companies," said Cox.
Might not be govt. owned - but they're heavily subsidised.
That's what I meant by the Internet. It was kick-started by tax dollars. The commercial world-wide system would never have begun without ARPA/NSF and kids at universities using it. Any commercial rollout would have been as messy and fragmented as mobile systems in the US. Are you trying to tell me that the protocols and routing methods of ARPA/NSF have nothing to do with the current commercial system? Sheesh. Why post as Coward if you've got a real point to make?
Wireless Internet is a luxury and not employed by many.
So was the wired Internet at one time. It too, was a tax funded 'luxury'. It often happens that infrastructure of any sort requires a long-term kick start. Private companies will usually not do this.
It's curious that in the art world, 'provenance' is so important. Not just because it might determine whether a (very good) fake is a fake but because, for some reason, humans do not associate art with anything but humans doing the creating.
This is a species-ist attitude. There's actually a continuum. Autistic people can (and do) produce art, people otherwise denoted as 'vegetables' produce art. But elephants, apes, chimps, donkeys and ravens have created paintings. Birds can actually recognise a genre such as cubism. Art generated by computers has been considered 'real' art unless its provenance is known when it is dismissed as much as a good fake.
The arrogance of (human) artists (and art experts) is quite breath-taking. If a human artist hangs an orange sheet over a rock, then, for some reason emotions are evoked: it is "art". But if a chimp dumps the same piece of cloth on the same rock, creating the same effect and runs off, it is no longer "art".
Art is only considered "art" by those arrogant enough to say: "it's because I say so."
British Columbia is a province? I thought it was a town somewhere near Scotland....
(A joke, BTW)
"The Birth of Plenty".
On the other hand, I suggest you read the Journal of Economic Growth, 2004, vol. 9, issue 1, pages 81-123:
"Furthermore, patents affect the allocation of R&D resources across industries, and patents can distort resources away from industries where they are most productive."
Patents are incredibly valuable at encouraging innovation, in that an innovator knows that their time and investment can't immediately be cloned by a competitor that didn't have to make an investment.
And here's where the pro-patent lobby contradict themselves. The (first) 'innovator' gets a patent and then any competitor (as you point out) is effectively put off innovating themselves in the same area.
BTW, can you point to any ecomonic research which shows that patents generally promote innovation?
You may be interested to note that the economist Hayek was not entirely persuaded in some respects of the patent system:
... concluded that aside from international pressure, there was no reason to have a patent system - It did no good for the public - and recommended abolishing it if not for international pressure." [http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/danger-of-software- patents.txt]
e s.article]
"I am thinking here of the extension of the concept of property to such rights and privileges as patents for inventions, copyright, trade-marks, and the like. It seems to me beyond doubt that in these fields a slavish application of the concept of property as it has been developed for material things has done a great deal to foster the growth of monopoly and that here drastic reforms may be required if competition is to be made to work. In the field of industrial patents in particular we shall have seriously to examine whether the award of a monopoly privilege is really the most appropriate and effective form of reward for the kind of risk-bearing which investment in scientific research involves."
It has also been argued that software patents in themselves are not economically useful. RMS, in a speech at Cambridge University said:
"... an Australian government study of the patent system in the 1980's
Mitch Kapor (founder of Lotus Corp.) argues that software patents are inherently bad:
"Patents can't protect or invigorate the computer software industry; they can only cripple it." [http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/issu
Have you got some links on this?
All trousers have two legs
All men wear trousers
Therefore all men have two legs.
That's no excuse for not putting together some decent anti-spam laws. 80% of traffic (that I'm paying for indirectly) is classed as utter junk. When will legislators do something, when it's 99.99999999% of all traffic, when corporates at last start complaining 'their' business is being hurt? Sheesh.
Hmpf. But not as useful. Try entering "12 inches in centimetres" on MSN... I get really useful stuff on Seabirds and Plant Care.
In other project news, 2 + 2 = 4. No it's 5. No it's 8, No it's 23...
I hope you're kidding. If the EU were to define the terms of open documents, you'd have 25 countries each with their own experts half of whom would be fiddling the costs only to produce an 18,000 page document which, in order to be exactly translatable into all the official languages of the EU uses words (in the English language version, at least) that neither Websters or the Longer Oxford seem to recognise. The document would appear in eight versions and be finalized in 2014.
...even if it is only 5 minutes : bill'em...
If only I could do that with my family...