EU parliament rejects software patents

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Asher:
The anti-patent lobbies opposed the software patents on the grounds that general concepts would be patentable, such as the progression bar. Maybe it's different in Candian/US law, but the European law was apparently headed there.

Patenting such trifle things would be a catastrophic blow for small scale software producers, who'd either need a bloated budget to pay for patents (something the open-source community doesn't have) or a bloated legal budget (something most small businesses can't afford).

If the law hade made strong restriction on patents, that makes the law sensible from a free marketeer's perspective, the Parliament would have never voted with such a huge majority.

The issue here isn't against software patents, it's the stupid patent offices granting patents for trivial things that they don't understand.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Asher
It's my understanding that the term "software patents" is misleading -- most of the "software patents" end up being things like an algorithm being designed to tackle a certain problem.

mathemactical algorithms are excluded from patentability.

in europe you can't patent computer programs (which can be taken to mean software) 'as such', the exception to this is where the program has a 'technical effect' (this is defined, though imperfectly, in cases like viacom's application). it's not the easiest thing in the world to put into laymens terms, but the way i would put it is that is if you develop a program which makes a computer go faster then that is patentable, but the use that extra speed is put to is not patentable. another example - if your program makes mathematical calculations at a faster rate than a human could or another program could then this is not patentable, because it is merely a method of performing a 'mental act'.

this contrats with the US, where pretty much anything to do with software can be patented (state street bank & trust co. v signature financial group, inc, 1998). one click shopping and the like are in fact business method patents, which are very closely related to software patents (by virtue of the fact that pretty much all business method patents are computer based), which are again allowable in US, but not in europe.

the proposed law would instead of excluding computer programs and then making exceptions, have allowed software patents but with exclusions, this would obviously widen the scope for these sort of patents.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Applause to the EU. First Kyoto now this.

Driving businesses to America

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Driving businesses to America

Whoops. That business bounced and ended up in India.

[Asher]

India's patent laws kind of suck, and the R&D is usually done in North America for that reason.

The outsourced Indian stuff tend to be low-level/technical/process positoins, not creative positions.

[Atahualpa]

[Asher]

I liked your original post better.

[Atahualpa]

next time sweetheart... maybe you find the other

[aneeshm]

@ Asher

I agree that this is a good move , but our reasons differ . One is because the current system in Europe is fine - no nonsense like progress bars , one-click shopping , the ifnot statement , and others like that are patentable there . Neither is pure maths .

I think that the crux of the debate is whether an applied science which is purely theoretical in nature is similar to normal engineering - whether mathermatical ideas are inventions of discoveries . America says inventions , Europe says discoveries .

And yeah , the business going to Europe will be much more than what little they lose . And most of the stuff oursourced to India is back-end stuff , but the R&D slice of the pie , though thin , is growing .

[Kuciwalker]

Mathematical ideas, when billions are invested in them, are inventions

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
That said, this is an awesome move. It'll drive more IT business away from Europe and into North America, which will properly protect and reward companies for spending billions on R&D.

Oh yeah.

This one

This one

This one

Just for starters.

Originally posted by Asher
The problem is the patent offices being too lenient on what can be patented, leading to ridiculous patents like one-click shopping...

Or on using XML as word processor documents.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Mathematical ideas, when billions are invested in them, are inventions

Marvin Minsky, among others, is going to disagree with you.

[Kuciwalker]

So?

OMG THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME!!!!!

[Kuciwalker]

But I take heart from the words of the wise JohnT:

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Oh yeah.

This one

This one

This one

Just for starters.

Or on using XML as word processor documents.

Stellar examples, Ace!

The Eolas patent case ruling was overturned, for one...

I can't comment on the Forgent case with DVR because I don't know if it's valid or not. To my untrained eye it looks like bull****, but the courts will decide. For what it's worth here, Microsoft asked to license this patent anyway to avoid a lawsuit, but Forgent went straight for the lawsuit to try to wring money from MS.

With the JPEG case, it looks like it's absolutely valid. An image compression researcher legitimately appears to have derived those algorithms and patented them before JPEG used them, which seems to give them a good case. Here we have an example of a small company profiting from the use of patents.

I don't think the AutoPlay patent should've been awarded in the first place -- it's in the same category as Amazon's one-click shopping.

I'm trying to fathom how you think it constitutes an argument to point to a bunch of links regarding patent litigation which somehow proves a point.

What was your alma mater again?