[News] EPO Explains Why Software Patents Are Out of the Question - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] EPO Explains Why Software Patents Are Out of the Question - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 EPO Wins Patent for Jesuitical Casuistry ,----[ Quote ] | As the EPO says, software does not distinguish "between technical and | non-technical processes". The reason it doesn't distinguish is because it is | ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: [News] EPO Explains Why Software Patents Are Out of the Question

  1. [News] EPO Explains Why Software Patents Are Out of the Question

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    EPO Wins Patent for Jesuitical Casuistry

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | As the EPO says, software does not distinguish "between technical and
    | non-technical processes". The reason it doesn't distinguish is because it is
    | a completely factitious distinction: it doesn't exist. Software is just a
    | bunch of algorithms working on data, outputting data; it doesn't
    | solve "technical" problems, it solve mathematical ones. Software is
    | mathematics.
    `----

    http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/20...esuitical.html


    Recent:

    Intellectual Property Regime Stifles Science and Innovation, Nobel Laureates
    Say

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Patent monopolies are believed to drive innovation but they actually impede
    | the pace of science and innovation, Stiglitz said. The current “patent
    | thicket,” in which anyone who writes a successful software programme is sued
    | for alleged patent infringement, highlights the current IP system’s failure
    | to encourage innovation, he said.
    |
    | Another problem is that the social returns from innovation do not accord with
    | the private returns associated with the patent system, Stiglitz said. The
    | marginal benefit from innovation is that an idea may become available sooner
    | than it might have. But the person who secures the patent on it wins a
    | long-term monopoly, creating a gap between private and social returns.
    `----

    http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1129


    $10K For Microsoft's Club Dues

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | After Microsoft went public with its patent licensing specs the other day, I
    | took a closer look at the agreements you have to sign -- and the cash you
    | have to fork over. To license patents from any one Microsoft product, you
    | need to pay $10,000 up front, no questions asked, on top of per-copy-sold
    | duties for your product.
    |
    | It's about what I expected from Microsoft. Good on them that they allow you
    | to peruse and make use of the protocols without charge if you just want to
    | work with them privately and not develop something that's going to be
    | released to others. But everything outside of that requires payment -- and
    | that $10K entry dues per Microsoft product is a great way to keep all of the
    | noncommercial open source players out of the game.
    `----

    http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...r_microso.html


    WIPO patent committee embarks on positive agenda

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The fact that the WIPO patent committee has decided to request the
    | International Bureau studies on “exceptions from patentable subject matter
    | and limitations to the rights, inter alia research exemption and compulsory
    | licenses” and “patents and standards” is testament that the WIPO of 2008 is
    | not the WIPO that invoked “Intellectual Property as a Power tool for
    | Development”.
    |
    | Here below is the Annex to the Summary by the Chair which lists the eighteen
    | non-exhaustive list of issues for further elaboration and discussion in the
    | future. This list includes such topics as “Economic impact of the patent
    | system, Alternative models for innovation, Patents and health (including
    | exhaustion, the Doha Declaration and other WTO instruments, patent
    | landscaping) and Relation of patents with other public policy issues.”
    `----

    http://www.keionline.org/index.php?o...temid=39&p=124


    Open Parliament

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | In private a government delegate compared
    | Microsoft's public affairs methods with the scientology cult.
    `----

    http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-54634/open-parliament
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkiOHpMACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7NawCaAx6MzHJ/vmfcckwdcVeHoc2M
    +AkAoKzFg3ZEKOQIUX0iHMNs4B3vWMda
    =wDtU
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [News] EPO Explains Why Software Patents Are Out of the Question

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz

    wrote
    on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:31:31 +0000
    <14511481.lXthrBZ8CK@schestowitz.com>:
    >
    > EPO Wins Patent for Jesuitical Casuistry
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | As the EPO says, software does not distinguish "between technical and
    > | non-technical processes". The reason it doesn't distinguish is because it is
    > | a completely factitious distinction: it doesn't exist. Software is just a
    > | bunch of algorithms working on data, outputting data; it doesn't
    > | solve "technical" problems, it solve mathematical ones. Software is
    > | mathematics.
    > `----
    >
    > http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/20...esuitical.html


    Not sure that's quite right, but certainly patents of
    algorithms won't care if the implementation is in C, C++,
    Java, Python, PL/1, PL/SQL, COBOL, SNOBOL, Algol (60 or 68),
    C#, Tcl, Ruby, Draco, assembly language, or monks working
    with abacuses, tablets, or stones in chiseled groves with
    papyrus scribble-pads.

    Granted, monks won't do display updates all that quickly... ;-)

    >
    >
    > Recent:
    >
    > Intellectual Property Regime Stifles Science and Innovation, Nobel Laureates
    > Say


    That's the whole point, believe it or not. The innovation
    that patents are designed to prevent is the innovation
    around actual theft of an original idea -- a theft that
    allows a ruthless, well-heeled competitor to work around
    the original idea's limitations, develop the machinery
    required to produce the device the idea covers (or make
    other devices more cheaply, because of the idea) and drive
    the original inventor out of business. (This is assuming
    the idea is in fact original, hence the notion of "prior
    art" while examining the patent.)

    Granted, that notion is easily abused, especially if the
    system is overloaded -- and AFAICT, the USPTO is very busy.
    Nor is it clear that the patent system should extend to
    the notion of algorithms, as opposed to mechanisms.

    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | Patent monopolies are believed to drive innovation but they actually impede
    > | the pace of science and innovation, Stiglitz said. The current ?patent
    > | thicket,? in which anyone who writes a successful software programme is sued
    > | for alleged patent infringement, highlights the current IP system?s failure
    > | to encourage innovation, he said.
    > |
    > | Another problem is that the social returns from innovation do not accord with
    > | the private returns associated with the patent system, Stiglitz said. The
    > | marginal benefit from innovation is that an idea may become available sooner
    > | than it might have. But the person who secures the patent on it wins a
    > | long-term monopoly, creating a gap between private and social returns.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1129


    [rest snipped for brevity]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    /dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

+ Reply to Thread