a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: John Tserkezis on 6 Apr 2010 07:47 keithr wrote: > What makes software different? If you can patent a novel circuit or > mechanism, why shouldn't you be able to patent a novel software process? > Having been, at different times in my life, a hardware designer and > (currently) a software developer, I do not see a difference between the > two, they are the same thing carried out by different means. They're very different. It's akin to patenting say, the ripple sorting, or bubble sorting methods, (ignoring prior art for now) or any other newfangled sorting method that's perhaps incredibly faster. This allows other vendors to develop very similar techniques to your superduper sort method, without stealing your code, or even being aware of your code. It does happen. Under current law, there is no copyright violation. But with patents, in the event a very similar technique is found in a competitor's code, the competitor would be liable for costly payments for code they wrote years ago, and in good faith, never even knew it was similar to yours. Or vice versa. > The main problem that I see is the way that software patents are issued, > often for ill defined and questionablely novel ideas, but then that can > also apply to other types of patents too. As Dr Phil would say, a good indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. The patent offices have proved to be full of idiots, who continually pass through patents that have been in prior art use for a long time. Or, patenting some very vague description of some vague idea, that could virtually describe anything. I'm not buying there's inherent built-in protection against that, ensuring all ideas are specific. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding smells funny.
From: WangoTango on 6 Apr 2010 10:46 In article <4bbb1f4a$0$21780$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid says... > Under current law, there is no copyright violation. But with patents, > in the event a very similar technique is found in a competitor's code, > the competitor would be liable for costly payments for code they wrote > years ago, and in good faith, never even knew it was similar to yours. AND, depending on code structure, optimizations, and CPU architecture, similar, but different, source code may compile to the same native CPU instructions. So, who is the patent violator there? The code writer or the compiler vendor? Stranger things have happened.....
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker on 6 Apr 2010 16:11 Don McKenzie wrote: > > This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld. > Tuesday, 06 April 2010 They're more than a decade late on the bus, then. > �a computer program is not a patentable invention.� That's been the wording in Germany since just about forever. Problem is that patent lawyers, as lawyers will, found a loophole to completely subvert the meaning of that clause. They did so mainly by submitting not the algorithm itself, but rather a piece of hardware based on it, for patenting. Once they got the patent, they applied it to other people's pure software works. Which led to the _completely_ ridiculous situation where a piece of work was expressly denied a patent itself, but could still fall prey to other people's patents. SW patents make no sense whatsoever.
From: Mark Zenier on 6 Apr 2010 16:08 In article <81uukiFepfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Don McKenzie <5V(a)2.5A> wrote: > >This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld. >Tuesday, 06 April 2010 > >======================== > >Thumbs down for software patents in NZ >Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions > >Open source software champions have been influential in excluding >software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill. > >Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select >Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be >patentable and includes the sub-clause �a computer program is not a >patentable invention.� > >http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-patents-in-nz > Another bit of interesting news is that QUT and IP Australia is setting up an experimental crowd-sourced prior art web site. Register on the site and you get to review applications for prior art and send notes on what you find to the offical examiner. <http://www.abc.net.au/rn/futuretense/stories/2010/2852587.htm> Mark Zenier mzenier(a)eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
From: Oliver Betz on 7 Apr 2010 15:07
Mark Zenier wrote: [...] >Another bit of interesting news is that QUT and IP Australia is setting >up an experimental crowd-sourced prior art web site. Register on the >site and you get to review applications for prior art and send notes on >what you find to the offical examiner. nice idea. There are so many applications of stuff not being really new but not widely known. I'm only afraid that only few people will participate. Oliver -- Oliver Betz, Munich despammed.com might be broken, use Reply-To: |