Anyone else alarmed by this? You should be.

[aRTee]

Just a quick remark (because I don't have much time,.... some of you know why..)

 

Copyrights are about exact expressions, but patents are not about ideas, they are about implementations of ideas. There's a big difference there.

 

The problem with software is that it just doesn't justify the whole principle of patents, and many things in hardwareland don't either.

 

 

Patents are (were originally) about protecting an investment, nowadays they happen to be used more to trade etc, but the original idea is still there.

 

With patents, we would not have had to do without quality violins like Stradivarius made them. He had only secrecy to protect his art, and took the secrets to his grave.

Nowadays, with modern technology and science violins of that quality can be constructed again, but for a long time that was not possible.

 

So the patent serves to protect the implementation of a solution or process so that the time and money/manpower invested in that development can be earned back before anyone else can duplicate the end result and produce cheaply without the burden of the investment.

 

Please realise that without patent law it is doubtful that we would have stuff like cd players, or dvd players/recorders...

 

For software, it seems that it's more the idea that gets patented (clicking a hyperlink etc), which is a bad thing.

Also, there is very loose use of the 2 basic things before something may become a patent: it must be something new (no prior art), it must be something that the 'next guy' wouldn't just think of. So it must be innovative.

 

Furthermore, in software, there is no big investment, other than the marketing (most software costs more in getting proper translations, /--btw which is almost always true for books, the translater gets more than the original author,... --/ and marketing, customer service, helplines etc).

 

Software patents would / will just stifle the market and fend off innovation/progress....

 

And since there is little real investment to protect, why make it patentable??

[SteamCat]

:shock:

 

I'm going to patent roads. My patent will be retroactive to the earliest recorded history of their use.

 

*starts thinking about how to spend his new found fortunes*

 

I suppose this had to happen sooner or later. :roll: This patent crap, someone attempting to destroy Linux and Open Source software. My hope is that it will get nipped in the bud before significant damage is done. Crazy stuff. :(

 

I mean... can you imagine having to pay more for Linux than a Windows license? WTF is that all about? Gee I wonder what company would like to see that happen? :roll:

 

The sheer idiocy boggles my mind.

 

How long do patents remain in effect?

 

I just read in Linux Format that the patent on LZW compression expired on July 20th. I guess people can now legally create gif files in the US. Doesn't expire in Europe until next year. :roll:

 

I ramble. 8)

[theYinYeti]

patent on LZW compression expired on July 20th. I guess people can now legally create gif files in the US. Doesn't expire in Europe until next year

... isn't valid in Europe... until next year? For now, such patents don't hold. You can make European gifs all you want

[Gowator]

Like aRtee say's.

I wanna point out I'm not against patents ... Its WHAT you can patent that I object to. Like YinYeti says, the LZW patent isn't legal in Europe. The new bill is put forward so this can be.

 

However, it is not a software patents bill, its about patents in general. IT just so happens it effect software considerably.

 

As the GIF point proves the problem with software is its cumulative. The lzw compresion is used IN GIH but its only a part. Its this that was patented thus denying the use of patent free GIF's.

 

Within hardware, the same thing occurs but less obstructively. Cannon patented bubblejet technology but that's fine. It was an invention (albeit apparently accidental) and it isn't holding back development in general.

Its not inkjet type printers its just the bubblejet technology.

 

Same with say tape formats, say I patent a method of cramming more data onto a tape. Thats fine to patent so long as I can't patent the idea of hardware compression on tape drives.

My compression code can be protected by copyright and the physcial implementation(say a new design of tape head) is the patentable part.

The patent stops people just duplicating my invention (which is the tape head) but they are still free to design other tapeheads or other ways to cram more data on a tape.

[Glitz]

:shock: 

 

I'm going to patent roads. My patent will be retroactive to the earliest recorded history of their use.

 

*starts thinking about how to spend his new found fortunes*

 

Sorry SteamCat, you wouldn't be able to get a patent for that since the knowledge of roads is already well known in the field. However, if you could come up with an innovative new form of road or something like that then maybe... :wink:

 

Glitz.

[static]

But I thought it didn't matter (hence the scroll bar deal) as long as you were the first to apply..? I want breathing - aw yeah - a patent on breathing. Then I can afford to get myself an audio recording of that storm on Jupiter (the red spot the size of 3 earths) {that's my dream}

[aRTee]

an audio recording of that storm on Jupiter

 

Sorry static, I saw you might be interested so I just patented both the concept of audio recordings (beat this RIAA!) and the storm on Jupiter.

:P

 

BTW prior art is no problem in getting a patent, so you might be able to slip that one about patenting roads in, the problem will be when you start trying to have your patent enforced....

[zero0w]

Still busy but I am going to add more comment on this Patent matter.

 

First, not ALL intellectual property rights are alike. They cover different terms and in different contexts. AFAIK, there are at least 5 IP rights can be categorized (maybe more out there - and then lawyers & lobbyists can come out with new proposal of law...):

 

1) Patent

2) Copyright

3) Visual Appearance

4) Trademark

5) Trade Secret

 

Meanwhile the issue raised from the site http://swpat.ffii.org/ is about Software Patent, which is NOT any Patent in general.

 

Traditionally, most software and media products are protected by copyright. The difference in the nature of copyright vs patent (see my post on the 1st page) poses an important question: why do we need to introduce patent to protect software while we already have copyright protection?

 

Despite the economic incentive argument, I have serious doubt as for the use of Software Patent (not any Patent in general). Patent is supposed to protect creation which requires difficult work and expertise. The R&D spending could cost a lot and it would probably be unfair for other people to rip-off this carefully researched ideas which normal people would not be able to come up with, without access to research facility or the amount of collaboration in an organized professional research team.

 

Software Patent, however, is a complete different case here. And Open Source movement DID foreshadow such move by corporation. Now anyone who has access to Internet and works hard enough can gain a significant amount of programming knowledge on their own (legally, read the thousands of free/GNU FDL e-books + articles out there). Many can create software on their own - and the CVS/BitKeeper source management system makes collaboration WITHOUT a computer lab possible. Indeed, it can be arguable, as it always has been, that Software is an effort of intelligence, that increasingly is accessible by everyone who can have an access to a PC connected to the internet; either in the form of source code or compiled binaries.

 

In other words, a lot more people can come out and create software on their own; but Software Patent is exactly trying to hinder more software creation because in the form of Patent - it controls ideas, not encourages imagination.

 

The effort required to create software, except in a few specialized field, is no longer demanding multi-million-dollar team of engineers or programmers (the support and maintence of security and service, however, is another question; and note I am not talking about manpower - for open source projects could use more or less of manpower in producing software comparable to their proprietary counterpart). So why use patent to protect software which can now be produced in a cheaper, open and perhaps more secure manner? It is indeed about monopoly of software knowledge - the exclusive rights to software creation. And remember, you need to pay a whole lot to apply for a patent, hence public patent/open patent wasn't a viable counter-measure like GPL in software copyright.

[zero0w]

See what we are talking, another patent suit, though the loser is Microsoft, but it can get to any browser and browser plugin too (even on Linux), see the article at ArsTechnica:

 

http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1062344128.html