Patents: Free Software under serious threat

[lazygamer]

So when it comes to free software and patents, US has lost the battle, Europe is fighting the battle,  but what of Canada? Did Canada lose this battle like the US already, or has it just not been brought up yet?

Maybe some of the Canadian MESers could answer this...

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted 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.

Does that sound insane to anyone else? Eventually someone would patent the double click, then the triple click, and so forth. You'd move to key combinations for a task like clicking. The combinations would eventually get so long and complex, it'd be like typing in a domain name to click a file menu (which you have to get permission to use). You'd think that a nice guy would patent something easy like a 4-click method and make it public, but we know microsoft will buy everything convinient. You should NOT be able to patent a method (like clicking).

[Faust]

Charles Babbage must be hella sore at all these Intel, AMD, Apple and Sun goons stealing his patented work.  Damn pirates that's what they are.  And Ada Lovelace must be pretty pissed off at Windows / Linux / Sun / BSD etcetera.  Bastards stole her patented "programming" concept.  Hey I wonder if anyone has patented keyboards yet?  I'm going to run down to my local patent office, see if I can claim these things as mine.  Holy hell I could raise prices to like $200 per keyboard!  

oh and:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by jeffberg: Mac Capitalist:
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.

Yes, because of course before the patent office existed nothing was ever invented.

[Calum]

you can't "invent" an idea. no fucking wonder your US patent laws are so fucked if you can't even figure that out.

You can "invent" a bicycle (well you can't now, somebody already did that) but you cannot invent a software model of a bicycle.

oh, what's the use?

[flap]

quote: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.

 

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:
Does that sound insane to anyone else?

Yes, it does. Particularly as he first says that software patenting should be illegal, and then goes on to suggest that, well, software patenting should be legal.

No-one tries to patent entire pieces of software, like a word processor - that would be pointless. The very problem with software patenting is that the features he talks about can be patented. That is, obvious ideas or vaguely defined conjunctions of obvious ideas.

[Faust]

No Urg!  Don't make hot red burning stuff go!  No office for patent - you no make money!

[neo_x500]

Software patents are weak at best, for instance, say if Europe looses this battle and somebody patents the GUI, what will germany, who went totally ope source do? Will they be forced to go back to Macrosuck, or will they pay royalties to the cock-sucking company that tries to patent this. The problem with this is that the patenting of software should have been settled long ago, when the first software programs were being written. How many pieces of software are running around now? The answer: Thousands; hell, millions. How are we supposed to define who owns what, or who came up with what? What does it mean for companies who lost suits on this, who could suddenly reverse the decesions made. Software patens are so vague, so fucking crazy that there would never be anyway to rationalize who owns what, and who has the right to copy this, or distribute that. What if Linus suddenly decided to patent linux, which he could legally do if these software laws came into effect? He could litirally eliminate all distrobutions of linux at his will. Although he would never do that because it goes against the GPL, it is a scary reality. What of UNIX and the SCO lawsuit against IBM. The compnay name has changed so many times, and the ownership and copyrights and possibly PATENTS have shifted so many times that it is impossible to tell he should legally have tyhe rights to it. If laws like this become commonplace, I suggest picking up a career as a law attorney, because those guys would be making the most moolah in the years to come over software battles. Software patents are wrong, nuff said. *end constant rambling*

[Laukev7]

I strongly believe in rewarding or at least giving credit to the person who came up with an idea. I do agree, though, that the patenting system is crazy. In my opinion, patents should grant exclusivity to its applicant, but in a much more restrictive way.

For example, the period of exclusivity should vary, such that broad concepts should be given an exclusivity period of 1-5 years (3 years maximum for computer software), while more specific inventions may be granted up to 10-20 years (those are just examples, do not take them seriously), rather than the 100 years long patents that make competition impossible.

The inventor should at least be granted, one way or another, an advantage of some sort, a headstart to gain a foothold in the market (gotta love these body part expressions!). And, of course, the inventor should get full credit for his invention/concept.

[Calum]

COPYRIGHT GODSDAMN IT!!!!!!!!

aren't you hearing a word i am saying?????

that's why COPYRIGHT EXISTS!!!!!!

[Laukev7]

No need to yell, I know what a copyright is. Copyright only prevents brand imposture (ie copying the look-and-feel of an interface, misusing brand names, etc). It doesn't keep a huge corporation from hijacking the idea and crushing the inventor before his product even gets on the market.   A patent, on the other hand, gives a chance to the inventor, which a copyright cannot grant.

Other thing, I wasn't even specifically talking about software. What makes you think that a copyright would be enough for anything else?

[flap]

quote:Copyright only prevents brand imposture (ie copying the  look-and-feel  of an interface, misusing brand names, etc).

No, that's trademarks; not copyright.

 

quote:It doesn't keep a huge corporation from hijacking the idea and crushing the inventor before his product even gets on the market. A patent, on the other hand, gives a chance to the inventor,

That's the myth of patents that the corporations would have you believe - that patents are there to "protect" individual, struggling inventors from big companies. Actually patents are generally used, and bought up, by big companies like Microsoft, IBM etc. in order to control/restrict a technology's use, and to extort money out of everyone who uses them.

[Laukev7]

You did not read my other post, flap. I know perfectly well that the patent system, in its present state, only benefits to monopolists. What you just said is exactly why I suggested that thr life span of a patent should be restricted to a few years only, rather than a lifetime.

You also took the last quote out of context. I explicitly said in my last post that I was discussing the general application of the patent system, not exclusively software. You are also assuming that a patent does the same damages to "real" inventions as to intellectual concepts.


And tell me, if the acetylsacicylic acid (a.k.a Aspirin) has been patented by Bayers (I'm not sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong), then why do we find many competing brands, such as Anacin and Tylenol, if the patenting system supposedly crushes competition?

[ June 10, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]


As for the copyright, I may have confused it with trademark. But no explanation of copyright and patents is being made in Calum's article, nor is any difference between the two shown, and as such I see no immediate basis in the claim that "copyright addresses the needs of software much more adequately".

[ June 10, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Fett101]

"Under current patent law, the patent holder for a pharmaceutical product has the exclusive right to supply the product for 20 years from the granting of the patent. One problem with this, from the perspective of the pharmaceutical companies, is that the 20-year period begins with the granting of the patent, not with FDA approval of the drug. As the time required for drug approvals lengthened substantially due to requirements for more elaborate clinical trials, the period of market exclusivity provided by the patent declined. The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 provided an extension to the patent period equal to one-half of the time from the beginning of clinical trials to the end of the drug approval process. This extension can last for at most five years and the total period of market exclusivity cannot exceed 14 years. To receive this extension, a pharmaceutical company must display "due diligence" in the approval process."

Patents don't just support monopolies. They support companies that pour cash into R&D, and prevent other companies from exploiting them by just copying the product exactly. But currently, patents are being given out far too freely, such as a pantents for for "one click web shopping" and "stationary menu's on websites". May as well patent the exchange of money for goods and services.

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:

Other thing, I wasn't even specifically talking about software. What makes you think that a copyright would be enough for anything else?

ok, your attempts to belittle me are invalid for the folowing reasons:

1) the topic is "software patents" therefore i feel i am justified in assuming that you were talking about software patents

2) what makes you think i think copyright would be sufficient for other areas? i NEVER said such a thing. May i refer you to point 1)? I am talking purely about software patents.