Update on Software Patents in the EU 18
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." "
Latent Patentism (Score:1)
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
I will fight (Score:3)
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.
IBM was trying to get a Patent for WHAT???!!! (Score:3)
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" [herring.com] 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:I will fight (Score:1)
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
Just another pain in the ass? (Score:1)
Sorry about the Anon post. (Score:1)
Re:Latent Patentism (Score:1)
Software patents are unclever (Score:2)
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.
what use is open source in a world with sw-pat ? (Score:1)
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? (Score:1)
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
Re:IBM was trying to get a Patent for WHAT???!!! (Score:1)
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?
See where we're going?
File - held as binary on a computer, requires aMethod and system for displaying [this] previously obscured information
...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *
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
hmm maybe I should patent a way of thinking next? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Software patents are unclever (Score:2)
> 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$).
All patent laws should be repealed worldwide (Score:1)
Corporate Excuses (Score:1)
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.
Re:Latent Patentism (Score:1)
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.