a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: David Brown on 16 Apr 2010 04:31 On 16/04/2010 00:56, Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks > <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> <snip> >> To use both the book analogy in both the patent and copyright >> sense. The result may be a far stronger protection for software. >> I know about quite a few software patents but I know of very >> few that generated enough revenue to pay for the costs of >> protecting and enforcing the patent. I only know of two that >> actually made real money. >> >> Copyrights are a different matter. There are lots of precedents >> and the courts know how to handles cases of rewritten >> to circumvent as well as assign monetary awards. Depending >> on country the copyright protection can last a long time to a >> very long time. >> >> There are several current very interesting open cases where >> copyrights and not patents may affect software. The most >> interesting one that I currently know about is a standard >> 40+ year old reference book of polynomial constants. >> >> Dropping software patents may result in software >> protection with teeth. >> >> Regards, >> >> Walter Banks > > Walter, one doesn't need to guess about this last comment of > yours, do they? Does Europe permit software patents on the > same scope as the US? If not, then wouldn't their experience > already help inform us about what might happen with "dropping > software patents?" I don't know, but it seems that there is > information in the rest of the world to help shed light in > North America. > > Jon Europe does not permit software patents in anything like the way the US does. There have been some patents awarded in European countries that are arguably software patents, and there have been calls to allow US-style software patents (from a few big companies), and campaigns to make sure they remain blocked (by all other interested parties). Over here, software is covered by copyright law, which (for all its failings) is still the best solution for all parts. Patents were introduced for the benefit of small inventors. Without patents, the inventor could either build up production themselves - profiting from the idea, but only making small quantities of the device and thus limiting the public good. Or they could give the idea to a large company for mass production to the public. But without patents, there was nothing to stop anyone making use of the invention without paying anything back to the inventor. To get a patent, you had to invent something new, useful, implementable, and non-obvious to other experts. There was a time when these criteria were enforced. It's obvious from this that software does not need patent protection any more than books or music - once you have a single implementation of the software, there is no need for mass production. Publishing and distribution already has copyright regulation. In the USA, patents these days are almost entirely registered by large companies, not small inventors. The checks for validity are almost worthless - you pay your money, and you get your patent. It is left for later courts to decide whether or not the patent is valid. These patents are then used as weapons of defence or aggression between the big companies and against smaller rivals or upstarts. Since you have a legal system that generally costs vast sums of money for suit defendants (whether they are innocent or not, and whether the patent is valid or not), patents are basically a legalised protection racket. Software patents make this far worse, since companies can easily register all sorts of broad patents, and typical software developers have no practical way of knowing if the code they write infringes on patents that they have never heard of, and are almost certainly invalid. The developers in this case are in no way "stealing" from the patent's owner, or benefiting from the patent owner's work (if indeed they did any real work for the patent), since they wrote their code without knowledge of the patents. Big companies lose out because of the cost of their army of lawyers and arsenals of patents. Small companies lose out because they either pay their own army of legal experts, or they risk getting sued into oblivion if they get too successful. The only winners are the lawyers, the patent trolls, and the occasional patent holder who strikes it lucky with a truly useful and economically successful patent. There are occasional areas in which patents /do/ make sense - drug research is an oft-quoted example since there the big companies pay a great deal of money to develop the drugs covered by the patents. But in most cases, innovation, economic growth, consumers and companies would be far better served by scraping patents entirely. A good start would be a gradual reduction in the time for patents down towards a couple of years (with exceptions such as ten years for drug patents). The patent situation in Europe is not nearly as bad, but there is progression towards the American mess.
From: Walter Banks on 16 Apr 2010 06:18 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:22:46 -0700, I wrote: > > >I wasn't thinking so much about analogy to other business > >areas _within_ the North American continent, but to the same > >business areas outside of it. Which is why I asked though > >you had provided such examples. > > Your questions caused be to think about the differences between software patents and copyrights. To use a clearer example. Remember I am not a lawyer but this is the way I understand it. Assume that while writing a math package you discover a completely new new way of doing a square root. You register the copyright for the math package and you patent the method you used to do the square root. You now have full control of the duplication and distribution of the math package and if anyone copies it in whole or in part you have various legal recourses including damages. The square root patent on the other hand could be used in many math packages and applications. You could then license individual companies to use it and by agreement receive compensation. Where this gets murky is what would have happened if you only copyrighted the math package. After 15 or 17 years you would still have the copyright and presumably be able to enforce the distribution in whole or in part. That would mean someone who only wanted to use the square root part would need to come to an agreement with you to be able to do so. That is why I made the comment about "protection with teeth" it takes a long time for the material that is copyrighted to be in the public domain. The damage awards in the music industry are examples of just how significant copyright violations can be. Software patents started to be issued at a point when the software industry was very young and it wasn't clear if what was important was process pieces which could be bought and sold like the components of a library or the complete works like na spreadsheet. As recently as the mid 80's software tools commonly licensed libraries as a separate document from the translation tools. There are still some library only companies out there. w.. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whygee on 16 Apr 2010 06:47 David Brown wrote: <snip> > There are occasional areas in which patents /do/ make sense - drug > research is an oft-quoted example since there the big companies pay a > great deal of money to develop the drugs covered by the patents. But in > most cases, innovation, economic growth, consumers and companies would > be far better served by scraping patents entirely. A good start would > be a gradual reduction in the time for patents down towards a couple of > years (with exceptions such as ten years for drug patents). > > The patent situation in Europe is not nearly as bad, but there is > progression towards the American mess. I agree 100% with your whole analysis. yg -- http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org
From: David Brown on 16 Apr 2010 07:37 On 16/04/2010 12:47, whygee wrote: > David Brown wrote: > <snip> >> There are occasional areas in which patents /do/ make sense - drug >> research is an oft-quoted example since there the big companies pay a >> great deal of money to develop the drugs covered by the patents. But >> in most cases, innovation, economic growth, consumers and companies >> would be far better served by scraping patents entirely. A good start >> would be a gradual reduction in the time for patents down towards a >> couple of years (with exceptions such as ten years for drug patents). >> >> The patent situation in Europe is not nearly as bad, but there is >> progression towards the American mess. > > I agree 100% with your whole analysis. > It's not often that happens! Usually I'm considered a bit extreme when I write that sort of rant... mvh., David
From: David Brown on 16 Apr 2010 07:48
On 16/04/2010 12:18, Walter Banks wrote: > > > Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:22:46 -0700, I wrote: >> >>> I wasn't thinking so much about analogy to other business >>> areas _within_ the North American continent, but to the same >>> business areas outside of it. Which is why I asked though >>> you had provided such examples. >>> > > Your questions caused be to think about the differences between > software patents and copyrights. To use a clearer example. > Remember I am not a lawyer but this is the way I understand > it. > > Assume that while writing a math package you discover a > completely new new way of doing a square root. You register > the copyright for the math package and you patent the method > you used to do the square root. > Don't forget that you can only register such a patent in the USA. No other country allows something like that. > You now have full control of the duplication and distribution > of the math package and if anyone copies it in whole or in part > you have various legal recourses including damages. > > The square root patent on the other hand could be used in many > math packages and applications. You could then license individual > companies to use it and by agreement receive compensation. > > Where this gets murky is what would have happened if you only > copyrighted the math package. After 15 or 17 years you would > still have the copyright and presumably be able to enforce the > distribution in whole or in part. That would mean someone > who only wanted to use the square root part would need to > come to an agreement with you to be able to do so. > People can license all or part of code under whatever terms they want - patents don't have to be involved at all. Copyright is what gives you protection and lets you enforce these licenses. > That is why I made the comment about "protection with teeth" > it takes a long time for the material that is copyrighted to > be in the public domain. The damage awards in the music industry > are examples of just how significant copyright violations can be. > The damage awards in the music industry are examples of just how far the US laws and/or lawyers are from reality. These cases, and the music industry's attitude to and handling of file sharing, is about greed - they don't want to change a very lucrative business and see lawsuits as a way of scaring people and maybe squeezing a bit more out of music lovers. Steadily more musicians dislike their tactics, and very few consumers approve. They are trying to label a very large proportion of the otherwise-ordinary citizenry as criminals, do nothing to stop /real/ issues such as commercial bootlegging, and are making it harder for honest consumers to trust them. How anyone can thinkdamage awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing a dozen songs is "reasonable", is beyond my comprehension. > Software patents started to be issued at a point when the software > industry was very young and it wasn't clear if what was important > was process pieces which could be bought and sold like the > components of a library or the complete works like na spreadsheet. > > As recently as the mid 80's software tools commonly licensed > libraries as a separate document from the translation tools. There > are still some library only companies out there. > > w.. > > > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |