Report Says Patents Threaten Software Innovation 274
GORby_ writes "According to PriceWaterhouseCoopers, software patents are 'a particular threat to the European ICT Industry.' Quote from the report: 'There are particular threats to the European ICT industry such as the current discussion on the patent on software. The mild regime of IP protection in the past has led to a very innovative and competitive software industry with low entry barriers. A software patent, which serves to protect inventions of a non-technical nature, could kill the high innovation rate.' The full report (pdf) discusses Europe's ICT strategy."
In further commentary to this story... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In further commentary to this story... (Score:2, Interesting)
* If I was unable to patent my idea, then there would be NO use in my pursuing it because a large company like MS could throw money to make their own solution after seeing my development. So how does THAT encourage me to take risk, go out and start a company, thus employing other people?
If I could not patent my ideas, then as soon as I came to market, some
Re:In further commentary to this story... (Score:2)
Re:In further commentary to this story... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see the value of these patents. The patents involved were essentially an attempt to landgrab beyond the bounds of what was actually invented. A mix of copyright, and trade secrets (via closed source code) would have been entirely sufficient to protect the systems I designed from competitors.
What extra value do software patents provide be
Re:In further commentary to this story... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, the problem with software patents is that with software, the line between "idea" and "implementation" is incredibly wide and fuzzy. This is because, once you have an idea to do *something* in code, there are very few different ways to actually go about doing it. Oh sure, there are different algorithms you could use for each step -- but more often than not software patents don't even get that detailed. All they seem to do is list what each step does, not how exactly it does it, and that's good enough for the USPO.
The other reason that the line between software implementations and ideas is so blurry is because there's never a physical invention. All you're doing is writing down instructions for a machine to follow. In essence, you're just stating your *idea* in a way that the machine understands.
For example, if you're to tell any semi-competent programmer who's never heard of Amazon.com that you wanted to make a web site that lets users buy an item with only one click, the great majority of them will come up with the same basic implementation -- store in a database all the information needed to make a purchase for that user, track which user is logged in, when the button is pressed cross reference the user into the database and automatically send the information through the purchasing mechanism. There really is no other reasonable way to go about implementing this kind of thing. Obviously, there's details depending on exactly how their database is set up, but it doesn't matter. The patent, as it's written and accepted by the USPO, effectively covers any attempt to do this sort of straightforward manouver.
Even if this programmer who's never heard of amazon comes up with the idea all by themselves they can't make a product that uses it because amazon has the "rights" to the idea.
Contrast this with an actual, physical invention -- say, one-button 4 wheel drive in an explorer. Now this is an idea that requires a lot of detail to hash out and get patented. And there's a lot of ways to go about doing it, none of which are very obvious. To get it patented, you have to have an electromechanical system pretty much designed that *works*, and that requires a lot of R&D.
To get the equivalent software patent accepted, all you need is the idea, and a rudimentary knowledge of how computer systems are set up. You practically don't have to do *any* R&D at all. And ideas are supposedly not patentable but for some reason high level software implementations are.
---
Ok, that answers why software patents may be bad philosophically, but you wanted to know why they're bad practically? Well, because it's so easy to "develop" a software patent, companies create thousands and thousands of patents as fast as they can to try to "stake out" their territory on the IP map. All that matters is that they were the first to be granted the patent, and no one else had used that particular technique yet. They may not have been the first to think of it, the first to R&D it (if they even did any R&D), or even the first to file for a patent! But they get a temporary monopoly on that new technology and that stifles innovation.
It also hurts the little guy -- smaller companies don't have the resources to push patents through with the same efficiency *or* to take on the big boys when patent disputes come into play.
Finally:
Capitalism vs Socialism
You think that having the government grant you a temporary monopoly in a certain area is "capitalism" and letting the market work for itself is "socialism"? Wow. Just wow.
Obvious to *us*, but... (Score:2)
No shit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Software patents are a reality, whether you and me want them or not. There is too much money on the pro side for software patents to go away, so stop dreaming. Better start thinking of ways to deal with the situation.
Re:No shit. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No shit. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No shit. (Score:2, Insightful)
Without software patents, the instant anybody comes up with an idea, they've generated a new revenue stream for a large company. The large company simply sees and likes the idea so develops a product around it and sells it. Sure, products may become cheaper because not having software patents allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their own versions of the software, but the large compan
Re:No shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's logically nonsensical: Given A or ~A, A benefits large companies and ~A benefits large companies.
Without software patents, the instant anybody comes up with an idea, they've generated a new revenue stream for a large company. The large company simply sees and likes the idea so develops a product around it and sells it.
Except that:
(a) Implementation time in software relative to product cycle time is very long, making the value of being the first person to implement something still valuable without the need for an artificial monopoly. Traditional patents were designed for systems where ideas were pretty simple ("use a new sort of gear here") and the product lifecycle was long ("Yes, we've been making this type of plow for seven years now"). This vastly decreases the benefits of patents in the software field.
(b) Nobody uses patents as intended, in a manner that benefits the population as a whole. Large companies just maintain patent portfolios to keep people from entering and cross-license with their competitors. Little incentive to produce better products. Lots of companies have hard caps on what they'll pay for a license due to outrageous software patent litigation. For example, IIRC (and this may be out of date), Intel has a hard limit on a one-time $100K fee per patent, though they are willing to cross-license with other holders. That's not a very conducive environment to protect that little independent researcher that you're thinking of.
Sure, products may become cheaper because not having software patents allows every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have their own versions of the software, but the large companies who can employ a lot of folks can have more resources to develop the application further.
Software patents have absolutely nothing to do with encouraging companies to do research. In a corporate lab environment, real advancements don't get patented, because then all your competitors have cross-licensed access to your research. They remain secret.
Along those lines, we should do away with copyrights on software as well for the same reason. Once someone writes some code, why should it be limited in how you can use it? Why have to have someone rewrite more code to do the same thing? All code written should be released under the BSD license, then.
Of course not. Copyright doesn't have the problems of software patents (you don't have "obvious copyrights"). Copyright does a better job than patents of dealing with the long-implementation short-lifecycle approach of software.
Re:No shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No shit. (Score:3, Informative)
If you think they'll leave it at that, I admire your high opinion of our political system. I myself expect a little struggle for the media, followed by clear patentability of software.
Re:No shit. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No shit. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly true. That doesn't mean that this is a two-sided debate in any sense... the pro-patent side doesn't involve themselves in the debate. They involve themselves with lobbyists. If you have a reference for the "other side" that actually addresses the arguments from this side, I'd love to see it.
Better start thinking of ways to deal with the situation
Move software development out of the US and other places with broken patent laws. Remember the "ITAR subsidy" for non-US cryptography companies?
That would hit the "pro side" in their pocketbooks.
Re:No shit. (Score:2)
In another news... (Score:2, Funny)
Who commisioned the report? (Score:2)
Re:Who commisioned the report? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who commisioned the report? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who commisioned the report? (Score:2)
In fact, this is the first time that a vote was changed in the European parliment.
Lets hope this is a sign of things to come
duh nuh (Score:2, Informative)
Re:duh nuh (Score:2, Informative)
Coral doesn't work... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Coral doesn't work... (Score:2)
A good oppurtunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A good oppurtunity (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, *we* might have known it for years and told people about it, but if a conservative consultancy/ accountancy firm says it, it immediately makes it more credible in the eyes of the mainstream media, the public, and in the eyes of our representative. It makes it easier to convince people that the issue is real and serious.
On a slightly different note, who knows where I can find the MEPs for London?
Re:A good oppurtunity (Score:3, Informative)
Go to the European Parliament, UK Office - UK MEPs [europarl.org.uk] page, click on London.
Deja vu... (Score:5, Informative)
1 [slashdot.org], 2 [slashdot.org], 3 [slashdot.org], 4 [slashdot.org], 5 [slashdot.org], 6 [slashdot.org], 7 [slashdot.org], 8 [slashdot.org]...
Now, with whatever threatens innovation, we guess if these reports were true, it should Darwinianly be extinct by now.
Re:Deja vu... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now is the time (Score:5, Informative)
There are two opportunities left. The Council of Ministers has already voted in favour [ffii.org] of a pro-swpat text, but this has yet to be confirmed, and while uncommon, it is still possible for countries to change their vote. Given the extremely suspect way the original decision was reached (which would be scarily familiar to fans of "Yes Minister"), this could happen, but national governments must be lobbied, particularly the Netherlands and Germany.
If this fails, then the European Parliament gets to amend the Council's text, however this is much more difficult than that first time around, and so all Europeans that care about this issue must lobby their MEPs to ensure that they vote in the correct way.
We have made a difference, we can still make a difference, but only by engaging with the political process. If anyone would like to learn more, please visit the FFII [ffii.org] website.
Minister Brinkhorst (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Minister Brinkhorst (Score:2)
Re:Now is the time (Score:3, Insightful)
This give the recall of the vote a lot more cloud and hopefully will start to appeal to parliaments in other EU countries.
Re:Now is the time (Score:2)
Re:Now is the time (Score:4, Informative)
German IT news site heise.de reported today [heise.de] that the confirmation, originally scheduled for tomorrow, has been postponed. There is indication - but no certainty - the paper is going back to the relevant comittee for further discussion and possible changes.
European IT experts and smaller firms have fought hard against software patents over the last months. While the battle is far from won, it is good to see there is some sort of effect, and lobbying work has not entirely immunized the EU to reason.
Re:Now is the time (Score:2)
outlook (Score:3, Insightful)
DMCA erosions (Score:5, Interesting)
We all(I already have) should be going to the EFF [eff.org]'s DMCA Action Page [eff.org].
Contact your senators and representatives.(USA).
Chris
Even the Bad Guys are on our side (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that they, unlike for example Richard Stallman, most surely have no axe to grind when they talk about software patents stifling innovation. When they complain about the effects of software patents, they are complaining only about their effect on the bottom line - and every informed analyst will know that. So their stance against software patents will carry a lot more weight than that of the people who've been crying out in the wilderness for all these years.
It's strange the friends we seem to be making these days ... First IBM, now PWC.
Re:Even the Bad Guys are on our side (Score:5, Insightful)
WRONG! (Score:2, Informative)
A simplified history lesson for everyone
1) PwC spun off their MCS group (think large ERP/system implementations..e.g. Accenture) to become PwC Consulting
2) PwCC rebrands itself "Monday"
3) IBM Global Services buys Monday [insert horrible markeing jokes here]
PwCC/Monday was ~ 35K (I think) employees.
PwC STILL HAS OVER 130K EMPLOYEES.
PwC is the largest of the Big 4 Audit firms.
IBM does not "own" anything of PwC.
Hmm..I don't think... (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel sorry for the USPTO. They obviously lack technical expertise, and can't afford the salaries to attain it. If they were getting feedback on what patents were downright bad from the court system, they could train and evolve to start granting more deserved patents.
No, you don't... (Score:2)
And a patent system that makes it too hard to challenge patents and too easy to amend them to expand their reach isn't at fault?
alternative link (Score:2, Informative)
Re:alternative link (Score:2)
The specific problem as I see it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This means they can effectively hold to ransome any new software venture that turns out to be succesful, regardless of what they do.
Exactly ... (Score:2)
It seems like most of what I studied in university is becoming patented. I can't think of any other professions where the basic techniques can get patented.
Imagine if the 'using a bunsen burner to apply heat' or 'using a saw to chop wood' was patented.
The cr
I BET (Score:2)
Well yes, but (Score:3, Interesting)
What concerns me though is: if we do away with patents what will replace them? Have any
My thinking has always been that too much control of too much information has been in the hands of too few individuals. Software patents, as they're presently implimented, worsen this problem by allowing exclusivity and ownership of ideas that are otherwise easy to disribute. What concerns me is that those ideas don't come from nowhere; creativity is required at some stage. Even if the originator of an idea doesn't own it, (s)he was still presumably paid for it. Do we, the geeks, beleive that total freedom of information will leave an incentive to actually invent anything new? I've seen the argument that the benefit will come from somewhere else, like geeks supporting the software, bands getting paid by touring, etc. Ultimately you can't get something for nothing, though, and unless I'm mistaken the above shift would have us bitching about ludicrous ticket prices and support charges.
Has anyone run into an IP scheme that would balance the creator/user relationship? Our present system is skewed and prone to monopolism, and a total absence of ownership would entail its own set of problems. We have to pay for something, somewhere (not that I'm a free market capitalist, but when the flow of money stops people starve).
Re:Well yes, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, patent filings, which express the "ideas" of a patent, are themselves neither patented nor even allowed to be copyrighted. After all, patents were intended to give incentive to disseminate information, and restricting patent filings in effect would undermine their claimed purpose. Similarly, source code expresses the "ideas" of a given software work and certainly should not be subject to patents in part for this very same goal.
Finally, since patents are about use, when they are applied to non-tangible things where use is expression, they in effect are a legal barrier to the very right to think. Hence, for thinking about, or using an idea, even in private, is at least theoretically a patent infingement. Certainly we do not patent books, and for many of the very same reasons we should not patent software.
All in all, I would love to see an active software patent repeal movement in this country.
Re:Well yes, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Most software involves problem solving that is merely the means to an end, not an end in itself. Take for example the (patented) use of the XOR function for mouse pointers. The XOR function is not an invention that stands on its own as a result of long, painstaking and expensive research that eventually enabled the mouse pointer to be invented. It's the other way around: someone was programming a mouse pointer and decided to use the existing XOR function to solve the problem of restoring the graphics that the pointer passes over. This use of the XOR function does not qualify as an invention or research, it was simply a (very obvious) solution that needed to be solved to achieve the end result. It needed to be solved because these guys were the first to implement a mouse pointer, and as such they were able to patent this solution.
Simply being the first to solve a trivial and hitherto irrelevant problem should not be good enough to be awarded with a patent. Patents are designed to establish ownership of the result of expensive and difficult research, but most of the software patents protect things that were neither expensive or difficult to find, and are not worth 'protecting'
Ownership of software can be (and is) established through copyright; we don't need patents on top of that. Look at the current crop of lawsuits concerning software patents. Are they
a) An effort to defend the fruits of painstaking, expensive research that resulted in genuinely new ideas, or
b) An effort to lock out competitors, who would have spent the same 5 minutes to solve the problem under dispute without any effort, had they been there first rather than second.
Most cases are of type B. This is not surprising as another
Take Mom's Secret Recipe for apple pie. Copyright protects the entire recipe: I'm not allowed to publish it without Mom's permission. However if I decide to publish a slighty different recipe, using cinnamon rather than vanilla essence or something, I'll probably be in the clear.
Software patents are similar to patents on the various steps to make the pie: Mom might have patented the use of flour and butter to protect her particular recipe, but this means that I owe Mom royalties even if I am making apple pie to my own recipe, or even a completely different kind of pie.
Re:Well yes, but (Score:2)
Re:Well yes, but (Score:2)
Quicksort, simulated annealing, B*-trees, ReiserFS, the Banker's algorithm, quad trees, top down parsing, binary search, programming languages, PGP, PNG, bongo drums.
These are things which were never protected by patents, and yet were still created. What should replace software patents? Nothing, that's what.
Good Thoughts, but incorrect premis (Score:5, Insightful)
You start off with a false premise: that something must replace patents (else there will be little or no innovation)
Patents do not need to be replaced with anything. The software world experienced much more innovation without them, and continued innovation in the United States only exists because they go largely unenforced.
Have any
There is no such problem. Your assumption is false.
I'm all for making software as "free" as possible, but I'm also of the mind that there would have to be some kind of IP structure in place.
I am assuming you are new to the software industry (apologies if this is not the case, but your statement indicates that you are unfamiliar with how the software economy worked in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s prior to software patents, and prior to their being widespread). Having said that, you have some interesting thoughts despite the false premise from which you begin (you very correctly identify and express unease with the monopoly entitlement the government is granting on so many basic ideas and software implimentations, and the catastrophic consiquences to a robust and free market that follow).
Software has always enjoyed the protection of copyright, which has always been enough protection for companies large and small (c.f. Apple Computers, Microsoft & Joe's consulting) to make excellent profits. Patents are in fact antithetical to this, as they lock down basic ideas. Patents only came along much later (in the 1980s IIRC) If you write software in the United States, you violate patents. You can thank your lucky stars no one has decided to enforce them against you
Has anyone run into an IP scheme that would balance the creator/user relationship? Our present system is skewed and prone to monopolism, and a total absence of ownership would entail its own set of problems.
It depends on what you mean by "IP". If you're talking about trade secrets, the current laws work reasonably well. If you're talking about trademarks, the current scheme works pretty well modulo people abusing trademark law to silence critics using their name (this seems to get sorted out reasonably by the courts most of the time).
If you're talking about patents, the best reform is to eliminate patents. Government entitlement monopolies have been shown historically to not only NOT encourage innovation, but to actively stifle it. As an example, read up on the history of the airplane, the Wright Brother's patents, and America's desperation to catch up to advanced European (non-patent-encumbered) aviation technology during world war I. For those to lazy or uninterested to look it up, the short answer is that the US Government, in a tacit admission that the Wright Brother's patent on airplanes stifled innovation and improvements, effectively seized their patent (nationalized it), paid them a flat 1% royalty, and threw the technology open to all comers and competitors to develop modern airplanes. The amount of innovation that followed was truly phenominal.
If you are talking about copyrights, some have suggested a form of non-monopoly "authorright" as an alternative
Here is a gem from the report:: (Score:4, Interesting)
duh? Well, how about CUSTOMS TARIFFS designed to bring the price of low wages countries products more in line with those in the high wages coutries??? If a country pays jack shit to it's workers, the tarrifs go back in the importing country's government's pockets who can then use it to help increase that country's competitivity. But if it pays it's workers better, in turn, THEY BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE, because the receiving countries' tarrifs drop, and the extra price they are able to get for their products stays in the exporting country as profits, instead of tariffs in the importing country!!!
Geee whizz, in the last century, Henry Ford generated quite a commotion when he raised his worker's pay; that enabled them to BUY automobiles, which propelled Ford at the forefront of the industry!
But nowadays, bourgeois have no more foresight, and the swarms of MBAs they fatly pay have no more common-sense than a brain-dead sponge (with or without square pants), so they keep doing everything in the name of ultra-myopic short-sight. Free-trade only benefits the company owners, for the rest of the population, it means a steady decrease in the standard of living!Re:Here is a gem from the report:: (Score:4, Insightful)
What a brilliant idea: let's increase the cost of goods to poor people in the West and shovel even more of their money to unproductive government workers through the new taxes.
Re:Here is a gem from the report:: (Score:2)
Countries that impose protectionist tariffs are not known for voluntarily and unilaterally reducing those tariffs for the benefit of foreign competition. If anyone thinks imposing tariffs as a threat for a country to pay its workers better, guess wha
Re:Here is a gem from the report:: (Score:2)
You mean before the government started stealing nearly 50% of our income in one tax or another?
I read an interesting study a few years back about US families: turned out that the lower-paid worker in a couple typically took home just about
Re:Here is a gem from the report:: (Score:2)
Re:Here is a gem from the report:: (Score:2)
Of course other countries can impose tariffs!!! That's called levelling the playing field !!! The idea is to let governments act for the BEST INTEREST OF THEI
Re:Here is a gem from the report:: (Score:2, Insightful)
All economics is based on human nature because the actions of humans combine to make the economy. If you don't understand basic human nature, you can't understand basic economics.
Here are the basic principles of human nature you miss :
Not like this report will change anything :( (Score:2)
Presumably due to "lobbie$" and "political contribution$$$" I guess.
Many other EU states are against it actually.
Same bullshit everywhere.
Which brings to mind, why are the irish so powerful? Are they what, the president of the EU or something?
Not that I'm very in tune with politics in that part of the world, so would like to hear more from those living ther
Re:Not like this report will change anything :( (Score:2)
They were last year, when they brought this up. The EU is (for now) using a rotating presidency: every 6 months, presidency goes to another member country.
Besides, such issues that are not seen as big ticket issues by the general public are commonly used as bargaining chips to get support for other proposals. Add to this either incompetence or malice/corruption of some of the representatives of member
Re:Not like this report will change anything :( (Score:2)
Introducing Monday (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Introducing Monday (Score:2)
Those interested in buying patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Those interested in buying patents (Score:2)
Something to clean the power out of my DDR sockets!
Dear Megacorp, (Score:5, Funny)
In it, you are asserting that $FEATURE of my software product is infringing upon your $PATENT.
What is interesting, is that we recently received a similar letter from another company claiming that $FEATURE is infact an infringement of their $PATENT.
On further examination, it would appear that the USPTO has awarded you both a patent for the same thing ROAFLOL
If you chose to take this action no further we shall also consider this matter closed. If, however you wish to continue with a claim for breach of patent infringement our first line of defence shall be to have your patent annulled on the grounds of duplication. You may wish to consider this seriously if you are already receiving royalties from $PATENT from other parties.
Yours,
PHB.
Re:This would be funny (Score:2)
a) the stupid incomprehensible language in which these things are written
and
b) the volume in which software patents are coming at them, with lip service given to actual prior art searching - even within their very own patent database.
"Issue 'em all and let the courts sort 'em out."
Hitting mainstream media (Score:2, Informative)
You can listen [bbc.co.uk] to it if you want to. But I think that if it's getting time on a mid-morning general interest program then people must be becoming more aware of software patents and the problems they might cause.
The Rationale for IP Protections (Score:5, Insightful)
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Of course, the "limited Times" phrase is there because protections prevent other types of innovation (based on immitation) from taking place. It is there so that (sadly) politicians can decide where to strike that balance for each market.
So the main question about software patents should be: to what extent has the absence of software patents negatively impacted the pace of software innovation? As far as I can tell, copyrights have been more than sufficient to strike the balance I talked about earlier, and patents would simply tilt the balance and harm innovation. European legislators should understand this and avoid going down the misguided path of the US congress in their counterproductive copyright extension route.
this just in! (Score:2, Funny)
High Innovation Rate? (Score:5, Insightful)
What high innovation rate? Software is doing the same shit today that it was doing back in '95, we just have prettier interfaces now. I'd hardly call that innovation.
I keep hearing that the computer world is special because of the high turnover rate of products, but outside of the hardware world I really don't see it. Most people I know have been using the same basic software since at least 2000 but have upgraded their mobo/proc at least twice during that period of time.
The only "innovation" I have seen out of software is various bug fixes which shouldn't be there in the first place, but since the software writers are held to ridiculously low standards for quality control they can release the same piece of software 5 times and say: "Look at our high rate of innovation". Perhaps someone can point out all the great software innovations that have occured over the last 10 years. Since there is such a high rate of innovation it should be a trivial excersize for the typical slashdot reader.
Re:High Innovation Rate? (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing that you can honestly look at your OS of choice and claim that there have been no innovative changes in it since 1994.
Does it still provide the same basic functions? Sure; file handling, I/O, disk writing and the like are still what the OS does. But by the same token, transportation without personal labor is what the car does...just like the horse and buggy did.
I don't think anyone who uses computers on an e
Bad Patents threated ALL innovation (Score:2)
Patents threaten innovation across all fields.
But it was decided that this was a fair trade off to get commercial interest in developing these new ideas.
What we need is to fix the patent system.
Banning software patents will just require a bit more lawyerwork to change it into another category.
Re:Bad Patents threated ALL innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
Software patents? No, thanks! (Score:5, Informative)
EU should never allow any kind of software patents. Such mistake would destroy the software economy and force small or mid-sized companies to spend more on legal costs rather than software research and development. Also, the patents will not protect small businesses from hungry MegaCorps (tm): These laws are made for MegaCorps, not for protecting innovation. Inventors and programmers do not want and do not need software patents; without public domain stuff you cannot build or invent something new.
Whooa, hold your horses (Score:2, Informative)
Does anyone else also think that the text is more equivocal than suggested by the submitter?
As far as I can tell, this is the relevant paragraph from the report: 342 There are particular threats to the European ICT industry such as the current discussion on the patent on software. The mild regime of IP protection in the past has led to a very innovative and competitive software industry with low entry barriers. A software patent, which serves to protect inventions of a non-technical nature, could kill
Patents are Unfeasible (Score:2, Interesting)
Platform Independence Too (Score:2)
Breakthrough 4: Realize the vision of 'any content, anytime, anywhere, any platform'
Content is considered an important engine for future economic growth and employment. The EU needs to fuel this engine by realizing the vision of 'any content, anytime, anywhere, any platform' by e.g. introducing multiplatform access for content producers and new digital rights management regimes.
Totally OT: Re:a PDF ?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Have a look at the link in the story: www.pwc.com.nyud.net:8090...
This will have no impact on PWC's servers. Then again, I would have thought that they could afford to buy enough bandwidth to keep up.
Re:A Mature Look at Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
If, on the other hand, you're trying to write some decent software, patents are a very bad thing. What's more productive, coding, or running patent searches to see if you're allowed to use what you just wrote?
In fact, software patents and "real things" patents are very different beasts. Note the number of "RL activity... but on the Internet!" patents awarded. I couldn't patent, say, p
Re:A Mature Look at Patents (Score:4, Informative)
If yes, then we can patent music and movies and books and everything else that's under the domain of copyright because it IS possible to make a piece of hardware that has only one book or movie or song on it. If no, then software patents don't make sense either.
And, I WILL support software patents strongly if they allow me to get patents on music and movies and books and so forth, because then I will know that the courts understand that they're allowing patents on expressions of abstract thought.
And if that's how they want to roll, that's fine by me. I just don't like it when I see them making an arbitrary distinction between code and data, because I see a CD as a set of instructions that causes a CD player to carry out a process, just as a computer carries out a process by running software. And, I believe that a new piece of music is in fact novel, nonobvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of making music, and it's useful as it bring enjoyment or other emotions to people.
Re:A Mature Look at Patents (Score:2)
Re:A Mature Look at Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you looked?
Until you do, your belief is nothing more than that. Your faith in the patent system is touching, but in this case it's misdirected.
Software is inherently more complex than just about anything else that individuals are able to build and expected to understand. Any non-trivial program involves hundreds of techniques that are potentially patentable under the current regime. Most programs people would consider trivial are going to contain dozens. This means that, first, determining if a program violates any patents requires first a detailed analysis by an expert in software patents to determine what potentially patented techniques are used, then hundreds to thousands of patent searches to determine if any of these techniques are patented. After this, you need to arrange licensing for the dozens of actual patented techniques that are used, and given the investment you have already made it would only be prudent to apply for patent protection on the remainder.
And that's for a program like, say, "Minesweeper".
Either that, or you just ignore the whole problem and hope for the best. Since even a company like Microsoft can't afford to hire an expert patent lawyer who is also a software developer and half a dozen paralegals for each programmer, this is all you can do.
So, since most people who develop potentially patentable techniques can't even tell if they're patentable or already patented, and a reasonably talented programmer would probably be doing so several times a week, software patents do not provide any useful protection for most inventors of potentially patentable software. They just provide a chilling effect on the development of publicly documented interfaces and protocols.
Re:A Mature Look at Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Patenting of software is the same as patenting musical progressions (or riffs). Imagine where music would be if the riffs were patented. Imagine if authors could patent unique expressions that convey meaning more effectively than other expressions. Imagine if artists could patent color combinations that more effectively conveyed an image.
Hopefully, by thinking outside the cubicle for a moment, you may see the ramifications of this. The music industry would starve with patents on music like software patents. The writing industry would starve with patents on writing like software patents. All art and engineering would evolve much more slowly and be much^2 more expensive with the patent system that software enjoys.
InnerWeb
Re:A Mature Look at Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INNOVATIVE SOFTWARE.
And there hasn't been in years. Modern software builds so much on previous work (much of it from before the days of software patents) that the amount of prior art renders the very idea of patenting it laughable. At a very high level, all software is is a means of making an existing job easier by automating that which lends itself to automation.
As computers progress, it becomes easier to automate more things. But ultimately, taking an existing business practise and appending the phrase "... on a computer" doesn't make it innovative.
Re:A Mature Look at Patents (Score:2)
Re:A Mature Look at Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem having patents for new and innovative things. The problem is that, at least in the US, most of the patented stuff is obvious to an experienced worker in his field of expertiese, or it just reimplements something from real life on a computer.
E.g. nobody would ever try to patent sorting papers on you real life desktop into stacks, but doing so on your computer desktop all of a sudden becomes worhty a patent even though the task of fixing this is trivial.
If the things patented are trivial, then we can expect that any person with a university degree and/or some years of experience is extremely likely to produce patented solutions without knowing it just by coding what naturall comes to his mind. He could do patent searches, but this is quite hard since much in software design is about general ideas with sometimes overlapping contexts, chances are that he will not find what he is looking for as he expresses the same idea in different terms.
If we let a couple of monkeys hammer away at a keyboard they will sooner or later have written the complete works of Shakespeare. Now imagine that Shakesspeare had written all his stuff in a language containing the only words if, then, else, while. The time for that to happen would have been greately reduced. Now, replace the monkeys with humans that use this very limited language to express themselves, and you will very soon see sentences that look quite Shaksperian even if the never ever read a line from the original auther.
So if you like software patents, why not patents on litterature, and art. After all if I think that I'm the first person who write a crime story where sombody is killed by a knife why shouldn't I patent it. I'm quite sure that such patent have never been filed. As I privately have a slight suspicion that sombody actually may have written such a story before me, I am happy to licence the idea to other authers for a fee slightly less than it would cost to take the dispute to court. The only one who would not go to court would be sombody that positively would know that he could prove prior art, but as that person is most likely to be dead there is little risk.
Now it strikes me, why write a book in the first place. After all, the part where sombody is killed by the knife is a very minor part of a normal crime novel. Why spend all that time. Why risk to be sued by the auther holding the patent on having characters being transported by a car, or having a conversation, or kissing, or..., In fact by actually writing a book I open myself to all kinds of liabilities. Besides I'm not much of a writer anyway.
I think I just stick to just filing the patent on the knife usage. Then I can wait for some real auther to get a bestseller using my knife concept. After all people are known to have been killed by knifes as early as Julius Ceasar, so its bound to get into a novel soner or later. So I sit back and wait unitl somebody actually write such a story and get what is rightfully mine from him. That way the risk of being sued is much less, not to mention that it is much less work. I don't have any costs for marketing either.
Now, If software patents are so important for the software industry, the same thing would be valid for other ways of expression like litterature and art. So why should it not be possible to have patents in this field as well? After all there is big money in this business just as in software. Look at the movie and record industry, or that software industry such as Microsoft buy the rights to digital publishing of classic art.
The strange thing is that you seldom hear people argue that patents on art would be a good thing, even though my guess is that there are more artists in need of some extra income than there are software developers. Why should they not be able to get some money from their way of express themselves, when the software developer can?
Or is it just that patenting peoples way of expression themselves is a bad idea?
Re:A probably stupid question: What is ICT ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A probably stupid question: What is ICT ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A probably stupid question: What is ICT ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not all sugar and spice (Score:4, Insightful)
Once all software patents are enforced throughout the world, innovation will come to a standstill. It will be impossible for any new company to create anything. And large companies will rest on their laurels.
You can't be sure of that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe. We won't know for sure unless:
Someone comes up with a way to measure the contribution of "innovation" to the economy that doesn't depend on counting patents
That measure is applied to places and times with and without patents (US before/after software patents, US vs. EU vs Japan)
Without that kind of measure, we're reduced to dueling anecdotes - patent holder beats up megacorp and makes
Re:Frist (Score:2)
This just in: "Fast Moving Bullets Hurt Face"
Re:Non-technical? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on several points.
I think we do have a reasonable standard here in the US (nonobvious to a skilled practitioner in the field), it's just not being applied. In nearly all cases, patent examiners are not skilled practitioners in the field.