Patents: Free Software under serious threat

[Calum]

3 years ago, Europe was very much against software patents, recognising that the ill informed approach to doling out vague intellectual property rights would ultimately kill innovation, now it appears the European parliament no longer sees a need to protect the right to reinvent the wheel, potentially jeopardising projects such as GIMP, Mozilla and Linux/GNU.

read more and find out how you can make a difference here:

Free Software Support Group article
and here's a recent news article about it all:
Article on IDG.com.sg

[HibbeeBoy]

Quote--: The U.S. and Japan allow patents on a much wider range of software, and they both permit patents for business methods. Business methods include innovations such as one-click purchasing, for which the online retailer Amazon.com Inc. received a patent in the U.S. in 1999.

Amazon used the patent to get an injunction against use of a similar purchasing feature by a rival, Barnesandnoble.com, but an appeals court lifted that injunction last year. --End quote

This is just plain dumb. How can a business process be patented ?

It's almost like they want to patent arithmetic. You know, 2+2=4 but you can't use that because "we" have a patent, you need to use 3+1 or 1+3 to equal 4. It's just stupid.
To patent the "progress bar" is just fucked up.

2 good articles.

[M51DPS]

No you can't, I already have a patent for 3+1=4. This also mean that you can't use 1+3=4, because it's too similar to mine. You could try 0+4=4, but I think someone is going to get a patent for that one too soon. Looks like you might have to use subtraction.

[Pantso]

Hear hear! Calum's (you know, the troll) article has been posted on Newforge!!

If only I were a troll like Calum!  

[Calum]

oh come on panos, we all know it's far more productive to shout down any opposition using swear words in capitals! my puerile attempts to spark a meaningful debate are simply trolling, it wastes everybody's time.

People, i urge you to fax or write (letters) to your MEPs, apparently your say counts more if you use real paper rather than email (???)

[Pantso]

That's apparently so Calum.    

Back on topic. I'm in the process of writing a formal letter to one of our MEPs about the patents issue, as simply and clearly as I can. I took your own letter as reference btw.     And yes, it's true that a letter is much more credible than a simple e-mail so just pick a piece of paper and a pen (in the good old-fashioned way) and show that you really care!  

[neo_x500]

WAIT. We had a lawsuit in the U.S. over this crap. Apple sued Microsoft because the new windows version was to similar to the mac os. Apple lost, and microsoft screwed them on the agreement for microsoft to make office software for apple. This was where apple got screwed big time. Now if this patent thing was made law in the U.S. wouldn't apple have the right to patent their OS, since they brought the GUI into wide use. Before you harp, I know my facts aren't all straight, but I got the thrust of it. Anyway, couldn't apple re-open this thing, it would make Microsoft Windows AGAINST THE LAW!! Because mac os is now based on Unix, open source would survive. It would put apple back in control. Techniquely IBM created the first GUI, but they let Apple jump on it. One of the two would have control if this software patents came into effect. I doubt it will happen though, since the wheel has been reinvented so many times already. Would it really make all the new "wheels" unusable, illegal?

[GoodwillMan]

It would also make every other GUI against the law to. Including the X Windowing System, which is used by Linux. Software patents are bullshit!

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Neo:
WAIT. We had a lawsuit in the U.S. over this crap. Apple sued Microsoft because the new windows version was to similar to the mac os. Apple lost, and microsoft screwed them on the agreement for microsoft to make office software for apple. This was where apple got screwed big time. Now if this patent thing was made law in the U.S. wouldn't apple have the right to patent their OS, since they brought the GUI into wide use. Before you harp, I know my facts aren't all straight, but I got the thrust of it. Anyway, couldn't apple re-open this thing, it would make Microsoft Windows AGAINST THE LAW!! Because mac os is now based on Unix, open source would survive. It would put apple back in control. Techniquely IBM created the first GUI, but they let Apple jump on it. One of the two would have control if this software patents came into effect. I doubt it will happen though, since the wheel has been reinvented so many times already. Would it really make all the new "wheels" unusable, illegal?

I don't think it would be possible to sue MS again because you can't cue somebody more than once for the same thing.  Also, Xerox invented the GUI not IBM.  Apple stole it from Xerox.  Xerox sued and lost.  Then MS stole it from Apple. Apple sued and lost.  I guess they kind of deserve losing, not only did Apple scrap all over Xerox.  They gave MS permission to use "Some" of their GUI compenents.

[Pantso]

Don't be consumed in such details people. The issue of software patents is more serious than you can imagine and it concerns all of us one way or the other. Therefore I suggest you read Calum's article once more.

[neo_x500]

quote:I don't think it would be possible to sue MS again because you can't cue somebody more than once for the same thing. Also, Xerox invented the GUI not IBM. Apple stole it from Xerox. Xerox sued and lost. Then MS stole it from Apple. Apple sued and lost. I guess they kind of deserve losing, not only did Apple scrap all over Xerox. They gave MS permission to use "Some" of their GUI compenents.  

I think you're talking about double jeopordy, and that only applies to criminal cases (if you are found innocent they cannot try and prove you guilty again). This was how OJ got away. But in Civil cases, like the one apple versus M$, double jeopordy does not apply. I don't think that xerox sued apple, actually I heard they invented the GUI and decided not to use it, instead they invited apple programers to come and look at it. According to some stories they let apple have it, but this is all before my time, so I wouldn't really know.
(Think I would make a good lawyer??)

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Neo:


I think you're talking about double jeopordy, and that only applies to criminal cases (if you are found innocent they cannot try and prove you guilty again). This was how OJ got away. But in Civil cases, like the one apple versus M$, double jeopordy does not apply. I don't think that xerox sued apple, actually I heard they invented the GUI and decided not to use it, instead they invited apple programers to come and look at it. According to some stories they let apple have it, but this is all before my time, so I wouldn't really know.
(Think I would make a good lawyer??)

Taking into Account Calum's previous post, I won't delve any further except to say... I had heard that people at xerox invnted it, then xerox excutives (people who know nothing and were suggested against it by the inventors) invited apple.  Apple used it, then after it was a huge success, Xerox sued.  That is what I have heard.

Now back to the patent thing.  I do believe that one should be able to patent ideas.  It is totally logical to me.  You invent something and patent it.  What is the difference between inventing an idea, a different way of doing something; and inventing an actual product that works in a different way and does something.  Makes complete sense to me.  Without it, wut is the point of inventing an idea, a workflow, a way of doing something.  You can't make any money off of it, you have no way to prove u invented it, and everyone will copy you.  Doesn't sound very worth inventing something if that is what will happen.

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:

Now back to the patent thing.  I do believe that one should be able to patent ideas.  It is totally logical to me.  You invent something and patent it.  What is the difference between inventing an idea, a different way of doing something; and inventing an actual product that works in a different way and does something.  Makes complete sense to me.  Without it, wut is the point of inventing an idea, a workflow, a way of doing something.  You can't make any money off of it, you have no way to prove u invented it, and everyone will copy you.  Doesn't sound very worth inventing something if that is what will happen.

Oh really? Aren't you equally protected if you hold the COPYRIGHTS to your product? Patenting a piece of software is a lot different that holding the copyrights for it! Read Calum's article for God's sake!

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Panos:


Oh really? Aren't you equally protected if you hold the COPYRIGHTS to your product? Patenting a piece of software is a lot different that holding the copyrights for it! Read Calum's article for God's sake!

now that I read the top half of the article.  If I was making software I would want to patent it.  Sounds good to me, controlling the market, charging what I want.  It would be a monopoly.  However, as an end user I could see how this would be bad.  I'm mixed on the subject.  I still don't see why it should be illegal though?


edit:
after reading the second half, I would have to agree that the software industry would grind to a halt.  But imagine how it could simplify things.  One program for one purpose.  Not 20 different varients all of which are not 100% compatible with eachother.  This is my dream of computer, simplicity.  Everyone has one choice, one app, one OS, one etc.  However, this is starting to sound a lot like socialism.  I want choices.

In the end I am still mixed.

[ June 07, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]


edit 2
After thinking.  I think software patenting should be illegal, but Idea and workflow and specific features on computers or in software should be patentable.  Like 1 Click.  Or Piles.  Those are both ways of doing thing, they are ideas.  Ideas should be patentable, but not the actual "Online Store" or "File Browser."

I think I'm done correcting myself

[ June 08, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]

[Calum]

yeah it really would make things a lot simpler if nobody was allowed to do anything new.

i am sickened by the shameless tripe in this thread. This issue concerns europe. The US already pisses away its own patents laws due to apathy, that's why you have so many fucked legal cases.

now anybody who lives in europe want to see that happen here? not me, so go and write or fax your representative to try and stop it please.

thank you!