Software Patents

[(Shovel)]

This probably belongs in general, but for sake of more intelligent debate...

Software Patenting is still being finalised in the EU, and the final vote has been delayed for a few months I believe. There's advocates on both sides, though the Reg reported that the "We're right, you're wrong" tactics of some members of the Open Source community may have totally cocked up the hope of getting some reasonable, non-American patent laws.

Anyway, today I read this

Here we have a company that no one has heard of with a patent from 1994 that seems to cover ActiveX and some Netscape plug ins - all developed "without permission".
Clearly, this company has done nothing with the patent, or the case would have been brought much earlier. They would also have their own product available implementing this patent.

Yet this has come to court. That's not to say that MS and later AOL will lose, just that it's absurd that a patent that predates Windows 95 can still be relevent (consider how quickly and dramatically the OS line has aged in the current computing climate for "impact").

Then there's the case last year when someone appeared owning the patent to the concept of bulliten boards/messageboards/forums etc. It predating the WWW but was still valid. It never got taken seriously, but it did still stand and with a different judge and more efficient legal line taken by the owners, something could have been made of it.

I believe (though please correct me if this is wrong) that the proposed patents in the EU are going to last 20 years... Imagine if, at the invention of the GUI, someone had patented the "drop down menu" or the "list box".
Especially now, when "foundational" advances in GUI design are much rarer, a patent could kill competition - or worse, bind a great idea to an otherwise shit product. Imitation and evolution is one of the things that has helped make the software industry move so quickly, yet laws exist to try and bind people back.

Erm, "Discuss"

 

[Will]

Patents are very tricky things. You need a balance which protects intellectual property, rewarding people for ideas, but without damaging innovation.

There is no easy answer, but the current US law which extends patents again and again certainly seems a bit over the top, especially since it only lasts so long because Disney have a lot of lobbying power.

If only you could have a system which was fair, and probably outside the courts. At the moment, patent enforcment is about how good your lawyers are.

I'd go for the Will approved "giggle test". If someone tries to claim on a patent, and I can't stop laughing, then they get nothing.

 

[Testin da Cable]

I patented that test 18 years ago! I'll sue yo pasty arse unless you gimme lots of dosh!!

 

[Jonty]

I think Will. hit the nail on the head when he talked about striking a balance between the rights of the patent holder and, as Microsoft like to call it, people's 'freedom to innovate'. I won't profess to know much about all this at present, but from a lay perspective, we have on the one hand authors who want to protect their work, and do so via patents. Without patents, (and intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks etc.) ideas, designs and all other non-corporeal work would be unprotected. Authors would have little to no rights, and thus have little incentive to innovate.

On the other hand are the masses, be they individuals or companies. They want to be as free as they can be to innovate. Patents are naturally antithetical to this, but as outlined above, we still need them. Where the division becomes sticky is when patents are made and never acted upon. Then, when someone comes along and utilises a patented idea, out comes the patent owner looking for his or her pound of flesh. This reminds me of those individuals and companies who register popular domain names en masse and then attempt to sell them off at extortionate fees. Thankfully the courts have been fairly, if not completely, successful at denouncing this practice, but it sadly still goes on.

So, who knows? It's a paradox, really. We need patents to protect authors and encourage them to work. Yet too restrictive a patent system will discourage people from even bothering, for fear of losing out.

Kind Regards

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

I'm not sure why the horror to the idea of software patents. If you invent a machine that performs an action, for the first time, then not only is your machine protected, but also the underlying concept. Currently if you do that in software you aren't protected, when a piece of software is a virtual machine for performing an action. The insanity comes in when you realise that if you managed to make a machine that performed exactly the same action as your piece of software you COULD patent it and it would cover the concept as well.

 

[Testin da Cable]

thing is, some patents are (extremely) vague. almost perposly so. "a form or method for transmitting information over a wire" springs to mind. creators should be made to patent their ideas exactly. no vagueness, grey areas, etc. permitted. no bullshit, if I may be so bold.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Will.
You need a balance which protects intellectual property, rewarding people for ideas, but without damaging innovation.

No you don't, because people exploit it *cough* Dyson *cough*.

Who should benefit financially ? The guy who allegedly thinks up a great idea first, or the guy who puts time, money and effort in bringing the idea to market ?

An "idea" on its own is simply an exploit in no other terms, and the patent system rewards the first dabs, there is no way of making sure the "first" person to patent was the first person to think of the idea, i.e. it's as useless as a chocolate fireguard.

Excuse me a second whilst I just patent my "combination confectionary supported indoor hot coal deflection system".

Remember software can already be copyrighted, like a book, but that only protects the code, i.e. the "time and effort" bit.

Sheesh, I cant even play with my cat without violating some looney patent.