| |||||||||||||
Does no one see the implications for patents?Does no one see the implications for patents?Posted May 9, 2012 0:04 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)Parent article: SAS v. WPL decision addresses boundaries of copyrights on software (opensource.com)
No one knows what the ECJ might do with a software patent. They've never dealt with a case that even remotely touches the topic. Then suddenly they publish a decision saying: to accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development. BAM! Monopolising software ideas = bad. That's our entire argument against software patents right there, written by the ECJ. If the proposals for a specialist EU patents court materialise (and in the current form, we hope they won't), then the ECJ might be the appeal court. If the ECJ show more of this kind of thinking, then maybe we should focus on ensuring that the ECJ is indeed the appeal court for any such specialised courts.
I'm scraping together info on the patent aspects here:
(Log in to post comments)
Does no one see the implications for patents? Posted May 9, 2012 14:56 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
The entire point of patents is to 'monopolize' ideas.
It's difficult to argue that patents are bad when they monopolize ideas when patents are widely accepted as good and legal instruments.
Also, technically, USA software patents are illegal just as they are in Europe. They get around this by making one of the claims of the patent involving running on some type of computing device. So that is how they are able to worm around the restrictions against 'cant patent math'.
The biggest problem is that the subject matter and scope of what is 'patents' is completely arbitrary. There really isn't any good reason why patents can legally cover the process of creating a new type of windmill or drug while not being able to legally cover software or a business process. The differences really amount to a line drawn in the sand.
Does no one see the implications for patents? Posted May 9, 2012 17:09 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] "The entire point of patents is to 'monopolize' ideas". The point of patents is limited monopolization of ideas in exchange of publication. That part about limits and having to give something in exchange is usually overlooked, but it's the point of patents. It's my belief that they were invented to discourage secret recipes that would die with their inventor. This does not apply to software as a product (when you get a copy that you can study, even in binary form) but could apply to software as a service (when you only get the results).
Does no one see the implications for patents? Posted May 9, 2012 18:39 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> The point of patents is limited monopolization of ideas in exchange of publication.
That doesn't conflict with anything I said.
> It's my belief that they were invented to discourage secret recipes that would die with their inventor.
I think that forcing people to document their inventions in the public domain was one of the justifications for having monopolies over processes, but I don't think it's a primary purpose at all.
> This does not apply to software as a product (when you get a copy that you can study, even in binary form) but could apply to software as a service (when you only get the results).
Well you can study a mouse trap and understand how it works. Yet a mouse trap is still patentable. Most functional devices are like that. You can reverse engineer most of them and understand how a patented invention works without having to review the patent.
So there really isn't any logical line you can draw between something that you can 'study' versus something you cannot as criteria of patent-ability. That is to say that there is nothing unique here as far as software is concerned.
Does no one see the implications for patents? Posted May 9, 2012 20:44 UTC (Wed) by jthill (guest, #56558) [Link] I think that forcing people to document their inventions in the public domain was one of the justifications for having monopolies over processesI'm pretty sure
Does no one see the implications for patents? Posted May 12, 2012 21:03 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I think that forcing people to document their inventions in the public domain was one of the justifications for having monopolies over processes, but I don't think it's a primary purpose at all. I wouldn't say forcing, any more than I'd say the tax credit for oil exploration forces people to explore for oil. I also don't think that the eventual passing of the invention into the public domain was the essential goal. The essential goal was the immediate disclosure of the invention. There's lots society can do with knowledege of an invention even without the ability to make, use, or sell it. Beside that, with the monopoly in place, inventors are better able to sell the ability to make, use, and sell to others for a reasonable price. But that's just historical. Today, many people recognize an equally important reason for the monopoly: to encourage people to invent in the first place. Sometimes that's expensive and a monopoly means the inventor can get paid back.
Does no one see the implications for patents? Posted May 9, 2012 20:36 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It's my belief that they were invented to discourage secret recipes that would die with their inventor. You need a history refresher course, then. They were invented for one goal and one goal only: enrichment of patent holders. Nothing more, nothing less. Later most patents were abolished. Repeat after me (three times): the abolishment of most patents is "one of the landmarks in the transition of [England's] economy from the feudal to the capitalist". Most patents were abolished but some were kept "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". But of course as time goes on patents are used more and more for their original purpose. It's time to repeat the procedure and cut the reach of patents again.
Does no one see the implications for patents? Posted May 9, 2012 23:25 UTC (Wed) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link]
Reading the articles you posted doesn't give me the same readings. Letters patent (the 1st one), which still exist, are not the same as patents (although the latter evolved from the former). And your second link says
'The statute repealed all past and future patents and monopolies, except those created in the future over completely novel inventions. Seen as a key moment in the evolution of patent law, the statute has also been described as "one of the landmarks in the transition of [England's] economy from the feudal to the capitalist"'
In other words, it created the modern patent system. For the US, the governing law, is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 - and it's clear that the patents are a limited monopoly in exchange for publication of information:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Does no one see the implications for patents? Posted May 10, 2012 13:37 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> You need a history refresher course, then.
They don't teach you history of England in my country.
It's about software Posted May 10, 2012 8:08 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
> The entire point of patents is to 'monopolize' ideas.
And for *software*, the ECJ says that would be bad for society.
Does no one see the implications for patents? Posted May 12, 2012 21:11 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Be careful with statements about patents and monopolizing ideas. Patent lawyers contrast "ideas" with "inventions" and I believe it is still the official rule in the US that you cannot patent an idea, but only an invention. The debate, then, isn't whether it's OK to monopolize an idea, but whether the patents we call software patents monopolize an idea. So the ECJ saying you shouldn't monopolize ideas doesn't necessarily add anything at all to the software patent debate.
|
|||||||||||||