Confident that EU patent law won't pass

[jasonlane]

*** sorry this post should be here, can someone move it please ***

EU patents law

I e-mailed a few of my local MEP's (Minister of European Parliament) of the issue of patent change in the EU. Here's their response.

I'm happy at least that at least some of them aren't in the dark about this, which gives me confidence. This law must not be allowed to pass.

   

quote:

[flap]

quote:Patenting software is as absurd as patenting a novel or a recipe.

Actually it's more absurd than patenting a novel (which wouldn't really be harmful) or recipe - it's more analogous to patenting a general scenario that could appear in a novel, or the mere use of a specific combination of ingredients in a recipe.

[jasonlane]

Absolutely.

Who was that company that last year? They trying to extort money out of e-commerce sites, because they said they had patented e-commerce! For crying out loud!

Was there an outcry to this when the law was passed in the US???

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


Actually it's more absurd than patenting a novel (which wouldn't really be harmful) or recipe - it's more analogous to patenting a general scenario that could appear in a novel, or the mere use of a specific combination of ingredients in a recipe.

i dont really agree. If I were to write a book about the civil war, nobody else could because it was my idea? I dont see the difference in software. If I were to write a program that detect what hardware devices i have, nobody else could? It gets way too basic.

Or am I missing something?

[flap]

No, I'm saying that if you patented the specific novel you wrote, it would only mean that no-one else could write the exact same book. It wouldn't stop other people from writing books about the civil war. This restriction is already provided by copyright anyway so it wouldn't make much of a difference. Similarly, if someone patented an entire piece of software, this would only prevent other people from writing the exact same program.

The problem with software patenting is that it covers arbitrary combinations of obvious features, not entire programs. It would be like an author, rather than patenting an entire novel about the civil war, patenting a vague idea used in his book such as a plot device, or a storyline. Or, using the recipe example, it would be like patenting the use of chocolate chips, marzipan and butter in the same recipe.

[jasonlane]

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:


i dont really agree. If I were to write a book about the civil war, nobody else could because it was my idea? I dont see the difference in software. If I were to write a program that detect what hardware devices i have, nobody else could? It gets way too basic.

Or am I missing something?

Yup that's about it. If you patented a love scene in a film, it would be very easy for you persue a court action, if my film had a love scene. I mean just look at the rediculous software patent cases going on in the US now. A case in point:

web page


Patenting software makes it very easy for the plaintiff to engage in action based on very broad terms. The defendant may have very well come to a similar solution, that does not necessarly mean however that code has been stolen. This law breeds monopolism and lack of innovation. However I agree that peoples or company IP has to be protected that's why we need better copyright laws. Copyright is not Patenting, they are two distinc sepperate entities.

[ August 29, 2003: Message edited by: Zardoz ]

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
No, I'm saying that if you patented the specific novel you wrote, it would only mean that no-one else could write the exact same book. It wouldn't stop other people from writing books about the civil war. This restriction is already provided by copyright anyway so it wouldn't make much of a difference. Similarly, if someone patented an entire piece of software, this would only prevent other people from writing the exact same program.

that's called copyright, and that's exactly how it works. we can't copy the exact same book. to patent it however would allow us to "protect" the idea of the book.

 

quote:
The problem with software patenting is that it covers arbitrary combinations of obvious features, not entire programs. It would be like an author, rather than patenting an entire novel about the civil war, patenting a vague idea used in his book such as a plot device, or a storyline. Or, using the recipe example, it would be like patenting the use of chocolate chips, marzipan and butter in the same recipe.

doesn't that go against what you just said? According to your theory on books, it should only stop people from copying the exact same software, which is done by copyright. Just because one's software and one isn't, doesn't change anything.

[flap]

quote:we can't copy the exact same book. to patent it however would allow us to "protect" the idea of the book.

No, it wouldn't. What do you think the "idea" of a book is, anyway? You generally only patent ideas, whereas you can only copyright entire works.

 

quote:doesn't that go against what you just said? According to your theory on books, it should only stop people from copying the exact same software, which is done by copyright. Just because one's software and one isn't, doesn't change anything.

No, you seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting there's a difference between books and software. People don't patent entire pieces of software, or books, or films etc.; they use copyright for that. Microsoft don't patent Microsoft Word, but rather they use copyright to prevent people from copying it. They may, however, patent the individual features of Microsoft Word.

If you patented your entire book, or your entire piece of software (which no-one does, as it would be pointless) it have more or less the same effect as copyrighting it i.e. it would only stop someone from copying the entire thing. Patenting isn't used in this way, it's used to cover specific features or ideas.

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


No, you seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting there's a difference between books and software. People don't patent entire pieces of software, or books, or films etc.; they use copyright for that. Microsoft don't patent Microsoft Word, but rather they use copyright to prevent people from copying it. They may, however, patent the individual features of Microsoft Word.

If you patented your entire book, or your entire piece of software (which no-one does, as it would be pointless) it have more or less the same effect as copyrighting it i.e. it would only stop someone from copying the entire thing. Patenting isn't used in this way, it's used to cover specific features or ideas.

one click shopping, there's a fighter over that right? it seems pretty basic to me, patenting the clicking of a button to buy something? couldn't i then patent displaying the price using a monitor? it's obsurd. Are you arguing that software patents have no flaws, that it's a good idea?

and i'm sure microsoft would have tried to patent word if there wasn't already word processors before it.


so, i have this handheld game... i look and it says it has patent. If I one were to make another handheld game, ur saying that they could as long as it didn't look exactly the same as the one with the patent? that defeats the point of a patent. I dont think I'm the one misunderstanding this situation.

maybe i'm wrong though, lets hear from some other people.

[flap]

quote:it's obsurd. Are you arguing that software patents have no flaws, that it's a good idea?

Er no, that's my whole point. My only issue with the email quoted above was that software patents are actually even *more* absurd than it indicates.

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


Er no, that's my whole point. My only issue with the email quoted above was that software patents are actually even *more* absurd than it indicates.

oh, i didn't realize you were the original one i quoted. oops. i think it's a horrible idea, but i'm just not so sure it's worse than for books.

[flap]

I'm not saying it's worse than for books; that wasn't the point I was making.

Look, the person in that email said:

 

quote:Patenting software is as absurd as patenting a novel or a recipe.

The point I was making is that that is an inadequate analogy. If we were talking about patenting entire pieces of software then it would be relevant, but actually software patenting is about patenting individual features. No-one patents entire pieces of software, or books, or recipes. But even if they did, it wouldn't have any effect as they already have their work covered by copyright.

What they could have said was:

Patenting software features is as absurd as patenting a novel storyline or a genre of fiction, or a specific combination of ingredients to use in a recipe.

And to take your example about MS Word, what I was suggesting is that MS would never patent Microsoft Word, specifically. Yes, they'd like to patent 'the word processor' as a general idea, but if they patented the specific program 'Word', that wouldn't have that effect.

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
And to take your example about MS Word, what I was suggesting is that MS would never patent Microsoft Word, specifically. Yes, they'd like to patent 'the word processor' as a general idea, but if they patented the specific program 'Word', that wouldn't have that effect.

What's the difference? I could patent a program called "bob", it could be a benchmark for my video card. wouldn't a patent for bob include video card benchmarks, as that is what bob does? and if now, what's to stop someone from patenting video card benchmarks? it could happen, and i think that's what this is about. if nvidia had video card benchmarks patented, you think ati would be happy with that? a patent for "bob" would allow the owner of the patent to sue anyone who has such a benchmark. while a copyright for bob would allow him to sue only if his code is being stolen.

[flap]

quote:wouldn't a patent for bob include video card benchmarks, as that is what bob does?

If you patented Bob, all that would do is prevent people from writing another Bob, that worked in the same way and did exactly the same thing. If someone wanted to patent video card benchmarking, they'd patent 'video card benchmarking' as a specific feature/idea/algorithm, and not the entire program. They might use this patented idea in many programs, or Bob might be a program that does dozens of other things unrelated to benchmarking. That's why people patent specific features rather than entire programs. If you look in the About box of programs like Word, you'll see (I think) references to multiple patented features. MS would have had to patent each of these individually; it wouldn't be sufficient to patent the entire program in one go.

[jasonlane]

I think that the e-mail could have been worded slightly better. Nonetheless what there trying to do with this change in law will not benefit the industry on the whole.

Personally I think it's a bad idea.