a computer program is not a patentable invention

[Don McKenzie]

This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
Tuesday, 06 April 2010

========================

Thumbs down for software patents in NZ
Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions

Open source software champions have been influential in excluding
software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.

Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select
Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be
patentable and includes the sub-clause “a computer program is not a
patentable invention.”

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-patents-in-nz

Cheers Don...




--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam

These products will reduce in price by 5% every month:
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html

 

[John Tserkezis]

Oh my god, this has to be a late April's Fools article.
There can't be that much common sense available these days.

I can do one better. Ordnance Survey, a mapping agency in the UK have
now (from 1st April) released some of their street mapping data for free
download. (16G all up from what I've been told).

They also freed up the postcode locational database, that cross
references post codes with physical locations. Previously that data was
simply unavailable due to licensing costs making it completely useless
for everyone except the odd commercial outfit who could warrant the
cost. There was *HUGE* public debate about this, asking why something
so simple could possibly cost so much - ruling out any use for the
general public.

For the benefit of those who don't already know, Ordnance Survey till
now have been absolute arseholes on pricing, who would charge for
someone's snot on the disk they send you, as an optional extra. Not
only that, from what I've read, they somehow own (?) any data product
you create from their maps. Wonderful, you have to pay for the
privilege of creating data for them.

Coupled with the date, one could be forgiven it was a sad joke.

Except it's for real.

But don't worry, it's not all good Their most popular 1:25K and
1:50K map series maps are still in commercial format.

 

[keithr]

This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
Tuesday, 06 April 2010

========================

Thumbs down for software patents in NZ
Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions

Open source software champions have been influential in excluding
software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.

Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select
Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be
patentable and includes the sub-clause “a computer program is not a
patentable invention.”

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-patents-in-nz


Cheers Don...

What makes software different? If you can patent a novel circuit or
mechanism, why shouldn't you be able to patent a novel software process?
Having been, at different times in my life, a hardware designer and
(currently) a software developer, I do not see a difference between the
two, they are the same thing carried out by different means.

The main problem that I see is the way that software patents are issued,
often for ill defined and questionablely novel ideas, but then that can
also apply to other types of patents too.

 

[Mark Borgerson]

so if I go in my basement and work on a new mousetrap for 10 years I
can patent it, but if work on a new algorithm for 10 years it's
somehow not worthy of protection?

An algorithm is not necessarily a program. The program should be
protected by copright.

a program is just a virtual machine

And it is just one way of utilizing an algorithm.


Mark Borgerson

 

[Mark Borgerson]

I can do one better. Ordnance Survey, a mapping agency in the UK have
now (from 1st April) released some of their street mapping data for free
download. (16G all up from what I've been told).

They also freed up the postcode locational database, that cross
references post codes with physical locations. Previously that data was
simply unavailable due to licensing costs making it completely useless
for everyone except the odd commercial outfit who could warrant the
cost. There was *HUGE* public debate about this, asking why something
so simple could possibly cost so much - ruling out any use for the
general public.

For the benefit of those who don't already know, Ordnance Survey till
now have been absolute arseholes on pricing, who would charge for
someone's snot on the disk they send you, as an optional extra. Not
only that, from what I've read, they somehow own (?) any data product
you create from their maps. Wonderful, you have to pay for the
privilege of creating data for them.

Coupled with the date, one could be forgiven it was a sad joke.

Except it's for real.

But don't worry, it's not all good Their most popular 1:25K and
1:50K map series maps are still in commercial format.

Nautical charts and topographic maps have been available from US
agencies without cost for many years now. IIRC, Canada still make
nautical chart data available only to licensed commercial vendors.


Mark Borgerson

 

[D Yuniskis]

This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
Tuesday, 06 April 2010

========================

Thumbs down for software patents in NZ
Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions

Open source software champions have been influential in excluding
software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.

Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select
Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be
patentable and includes the sub-clause “a computer program is not a
patentable invention.”

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-patents-in-nz

Yay! Though, frankly, a more reasonable approach would
have been to *greatly* reduce the period in which patent
a patent on such "art" is granted -- and prevent the patents
from being "renewed".

Given how quickly the industry moves, it's hard to imagine
*anything* being worthy of protection for more than a few
(e.g., 3-4) years.

I think if that were the case, folks would avoid the patent
hassle entirely, rely on trade secret, as needed, and just
plan on being "nimble" in the marketplace instead of
trying to live off old (artificial) glories...

 

[Peter Dickerson]

This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
Tuesday, 06 April 2010

========================

Thumbs down for software patents in NZ
Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions

Open source software champions have been influential in excluding
software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.

Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select
Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be
patentable and includes the sub-clause “a computer program is not a
patentable invention.”

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-pat...

Cheers Don...

--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page:http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam

These products will reduce in price by 5% every
month:http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html

so if I go in my basement and work on a new mousetrap for 10 years I
can patent it, but if work on a new algorithm for 10 years it's
somehow not worthy of protection?

a program is just a virtual machine
--------------------------
so if I go in my basement (were I to have one) and work on a new book for 10
years why shouldn't I patent that. No, software is much more like a book
than a machine. Algorithms are much more like mathematics. More vague
algorithms such as user interfaces and heuristics are much more like a
novel. That's what copyright is for.

The purpose of patents, as I understand it, is to give the inventor
protection to commercialise there idea while making the invention available
for the public good in the long run. If you want to protect software in the
same way then the code needs to be published in the patent application and
be freely available for public use once the patent duration expires.
Copyright, does require you to expose you code and the protection period is
far longer.

Peter

 

[Paul Carpenter]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

so if I go in my basement and work on a new mousetrap for 10 years I
can patent it, but if work on a new algorithm for 10 years it's
somehow not worthy of protection?

a program is just a virtual machine

There comes a problem with patenting software, consdiring the book
analogy someone else cited.

Patenting software is like patenting a book of a specific size,
type and colour of paper, cover photo, and binding combination. The
copyright for a book exists mainly on the content of the book (and
ancilliaries like illustrations, photos, cover layout.

Consider a novel circuit patent, and someone adds one resistor to
improve it, they have improved upon the patent, not infringed it.

How are you going to patent the software in binary form or at source
level in what language for which host. One could agrue using a different
compiler has improved upon the patent because using a different compiler
or compiling switches has speeded the software up hence improved upon
a previous patent.

The algorithm used is best described without actual software as in
5 years everybody could be using it written in a different language
for three new instruction sets of new cpus.

Just the byte oreding of the storage could make it non-identical,
let alone different instruction sets of the host that may improve it
again.

How are you going to patant software for any cpu, any language,
any bus/register width, any memory size, any byte/word ordering.
then prove the software is a copy.

--
Paul Carpenter | [email protected]
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

 

[John Tserkezis]

What makes software different? If you can patent a novel circuit or
mechanism, why shouldn't you be able to patent a novel software process?
Having been, at different times in my life, a hardware designer and
(currently) a software developer, I do not see a difference between the
two, they are the same thing carried out by different means.

They're very different. It's akin to patenting say, the ripple
sorting, or bubble sorting methods, (ignoring prior art for now) or any
other newfangled sorting method that's perhaps incredibly faster.

This allows other vendors to develop very similar techniques to your
superduper sort method, without stealing your code, or even being aware
of your code. It does happen.

Under current law, there is no copyright violation. But with patents,
in the event a very similar technique is found in a competitor's code,
the competitor would be liable for costly payments for code they wrote
years ago, and in good faith, never even knew it was similar to yours.

Or vice versa.

The main problem that I see is the way that software patents are issued,
often for ill defined and questionablely novel ideas, but then that can
also apply to other types of patents too.

As Dr Phil would say, a good indicator of future behaviour is past
behaviour.

The patent offices have proved to be full of idiots, who continually
pass through patents that have been in prior art use for a long time.

Or, patenting some very vague description of some vague idea, that
could virtually describe anything.

I'm not buying there's inherent built-in protection against that,
ensuring all ideas are specific.

The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding smells funny.

 

[Mark Zenier]

This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
Tuesday, 06 April 2010

========================

Thumbs down for software patents in NZ
Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions

Open source software champions have been influential in excluding
software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.

Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select
Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be
patentable and includes the sub-clause “a computer program is not a
patentable invention.”

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-patents-in-nz

Another bit of interesting news is that QUT and IP Australia is setting
up an experimental crowd-sourced prior art web site. Register on the
site and you get to review applications for prior art and send notes on
what you find to the offical examiner.

<http://www.abc.net.au/rn/futuretense/stories/2010/2852587.htm>

Mark Zenier [email protected]
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

 

[Hans-Bernhard Bröker]

This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
Tuesday, 06 April 2010

They're more than a decade late on the bus, then.

“a computer program is not a patentable invention.”

That's been the wording in Germany since just about forever. Problem is
that patent lawyers, as lawyers will, found a loophole to completely
subvert the meaning of that clause. They did so mainly by submitting
not the algorithm itself, but rather a piece of hardware based on it,
for patenting. Once they got the patent, they applied it to other
people's pure software works.

Which led to the _completely_ ridiculous situation where a piece of work
was expressly denied a patent itself, but could still fall prey to other
people's patents.

SW patents make no sense whatsoever.

 

[Oliver Betz]

Mark Zenier wrote:

[...]

Another bit of interesting news is that QUT and IP Australia is setting
up an experimental crowd-sourced prior art web site. Register on the
site and you get to review applications for prior art and send notes on
what you find to the offical examiner.

nice idea. There are so many applications of stuff not being really
new but not widely known.

I'm only afraid that only few people will participate.

Oliver

 

[Jasen Betts]

Yay! Though, frankly, a more reasonable approach would
have been to *greatly* reduce the period in which patent
a patent on such "art" is granted -- and prevent the patents
from being "renewed".

Given how quickly the industry moves, it's hard to imagine
*anything* being worthy of protection for more than a few
(e.g., 3-4) years.

Anything that becomes an accepted standard like LH-compression,
VFAT/FAT-32, MPEG Layer 3 or H.264, can be a nice little earner
for the patent holder longer than that.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---

 

[Adam Anderson]

so if I go in my basement and work on a new mousetrap for 10 years I

can patent it, but if work on a new algorithm for 10 years it's
somehow not worthy of protection?

You could patent it but unfortunately you use stairs to access the
basement and as I patented "stair algorithms" many eons ago and all
works derived therefrom you owe me big time, of course I waited until
you'd made a commercial venture out of your mouse trap before I informed
you off this.

 

[Albert van der Horst]

This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
Tuesday, 06 April 2010

========================

Thumbs down for software patents in NZ
Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions

Open source software champions have been influential in excluding
software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.

It is pretty .......... to post news about a bill on an international
forum without even mentionning the country it is in.

 

[Walter Banks]

[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

There comes a problem with patenting software, consdiring the book
analogy someone else cited.

Patenting software is like patenting a book of a specific size,
type and colour of paper, cover photo, and binding combination. The
copyright for a book exists mainly on the content of the book (and
ancilliaries like illustrations, photos, cover layout.

Consider a novel circuit patent, and someone adds one resistor to
improve it, they have improved upon the patent, not infringed it.

How are you going to patent the software in binary form or at source
level in what language for which host. One could agrue using a different
compiler has improved upon the patent because using a different compiler
or compiling switches has speeded the software up hence improved upon
a previous patent.

The algorithm used is best described without actual software as in
5 years everybody could be using it written in a different language
for three new instruction sets of new cpus.

Just the byte oreding of the storage could make it non-identical,
let alone different instruction sets of the host that may improve it
again.

How are you going to patant software for any cpu, any language,
any bus/register width, any memory size, any byte/word ordering.
then prove the software is a copy.

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 Banks]

To use both the book analogy in both the patent and copyright
sense. The result may be a far stronger protection for software.

To add one more comment. Much of the open source software
is primarily protected with copyrights.

Regards,


Walter..

 

[Don McKenzie]

It is pretty .......... to post news about a bill on an international
forum without even mentionning the country it is in.

<SNIP>

Sorry, I should have explained in full detail. I'll try and do better in
future. I promise.


NZ = New Zealand

Other common abbreviations are:
US = United States
USA = United States of America


Cheers Don...



--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam

These products will reduce in price by 5% every month:
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html

 

[Jon Kirwan]

<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

 

[Jon Kirwan]

A patent is a commercial document with a limited life. At the
end of some exclusive rights the originator puts the idea in the
public domain. Those that cheer the dropping of software
patents may find that copyrights are far more protective of
creative work.

I think I took your point on this, already.

I was asking about any specific knowledge or experience you
might have (as I believe your knowledge here will be far
broader than most) about what actual circumstances might tell
us, today -- regarding the situation where software patents
are generally not used (or allowed.)

It seems to me that we could learn from object lessons found
in real life, rather than speculating, and that you might
have some examples to draw from that informed your stance
above. If not, that's a fine answer. That would only mean I
have nothing else to go on.

Certainly, prior to much before 1980 in the US, software
patents didn't exist and so their introduction must have also
led to a lot of speculation, much wrong but some perhaps
right, about what the court decisions then would mean. Today,
we have a lot more information to apply and over a world wide
system, so I'm thinking we aren't in the same situation of
speculation that we were in 30 years ago.

The rest below also doesn't address this, so I am not sure
how to add to that. Best to leave it, for now.

Jon