I'm sure I must have the wrong end of the stick on this one because if someone comes up with a program to do something in a certain way and wants to market it, surely taking out a patent on it is the obvious thing to do? Otherwise if it's any good, everyone would simply use it for nowt. A bit like coming up with new kind of tool or a new drug.
But that point seems to obvious to me, that I'm sure I've missed something. Can someone enlighten me?
As with all these things, it depends, but software patents can easily fall foul of these rules:
European Patent Convention[edit]
The European Patent Convention does not provide any positive guidance on what should be considered an invention for the purposes of patent law. However, it provides in Article 52(2) EPC a non-exhaustive list of what are not to be regarded as inventions, and therefore not patentable subject matter:
The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
To make money off software, copyright is one way to go.
European Patent Convention[edit]
The European Patent Convention does not provide any positive guidance on what should be considered an invention for the purposes of patent law. However, it provides in Article 52(2) EPC a non-exhaustive list of what are not to be regarded as inventions, and therefore not patentable subject matter:
The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
To make money off software, copyright is one way to go.
You missed off a very important part of the law:
"Article 52(3) EPC then qualifies Art. 52(2) EPC by stating:
The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such."
i.e. not everything that relates to a computer program is excluded from patentability.
In the past it was a material product that was the intent.
These days, a few simple lines of code are that material product, thus we now have patent 'land grabs'. Not needing any expensive product, just a few minutes thought, everyone can join the race to section off innovation. You don't even have to write the code for that
Interestingly that anti patent reform group that encompasses both Apple and Microsoft is called the "Partnership for American Innovation"
"Article 52(3) EPC then qualifies Art. 52(2) EPC by stating:
The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such."
i.e. not everything that relates to a computer program is excluded from patentability.
E.g. the technology MS developed in getting translation of movements in the kinect to near instant speed should be patentable IMO but the general concept of motion tracking should not be patentable.
That would depend on whether it would be seen as "obvious" to anyone else working in that particular field, if it is then the patent should not be granted as that is one of the criteria for declining it. Indeed it's the grounds on which many successful challenges are granted...
Conceptually, property rights as a reward for undertaking the cost of risky R&D (i.e. patents) are very important. Problem in that china doesn't respect them.
China doesn't have to respect them, UK and US patents have absolutely no meaning in China they are only valid in those countries/areas for which they are granted.
This looks Armageddon for many a developer.
I can't help but think that any Word compatible alternative is now illegal in the US.
In that word documents use loads of code to define the output. Without emulation you cannot make word compatible software.
And I'm sure even OS/X and WIndows would only be legal via cross licensing !
"And I'm not just talking about the most egregious patent trolls. The patents themselves are crap, because the Patent and Trademark Office isn't seriously able to say no to them."
"And companies actually prefer vague and over-broad patents that are hard to judge, because then you can try to apply them in wildly inappropriate situations, and it's not like the threat is the patent itself - it's the litigation."
"It's all bullsh-t, sane people know it's bullsh-t, but making real change is difficult. Politically, the US patent system also tends to help US companies, because once you get into a court of law, it's not about the law any more (and it's certainly not about the patent, which is crap and which neither the judge, the lawyers, nor the jury will understand anyway), and it's much easier to sell as an "us vs. them" story."
For the life of me, I can't quite think who he is mainly aiming at.
:rolleyes:
Seems that some of the "...but do it on a computer" patents are being invalidated.
" Software patent holders will know that if they take a case to trial, there's a high probability that their patent will be destroyed "
I'm not so sure about that. This is a drop in the ocean of likely 100s of thousands of 'do it on a computer' patents out there.
This is not patent related but trademark protection.
Considering Instagram is a take on the suffix gram, considering there are loads and loads of words already using it, I really do fail to see how Gram can be owned by the Instagram people.
Both Insta and Litter are the main nouns, and obviously quite different. Curiously, it is Insta that seems to adulterate the standard usage of Gram.
Comments
As with all these things, it depends, but software patents can easily fall foul of these rules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter
European Patent Convention[edit]
The European Patent Convention does not provide any positive guidance on what should be considered an invention for the purposes of patent law. However, it provides in Article 52(2) EPC a non-exhaustive list of what are not to be regarded as inventions, and therefore not patentable subject matter:
The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
To make money off software, copyright is one way to go.
So do you think anyone should be able to copy anything they want without restriction?
You missed off a very important part of the law:
"Article 52(3) EPC then qualifies Art. 52(2) EPC by stating:
The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such."
i.e. not everything that relates to a computer program is excluded from patentability.
These days, a few simple lines of code are that material product, thus we now have patent 'land grabs'. Not needing any expensive product, just a few minutes thought, everyone can join the race to section off innovation. You don't even have to write the code for that
Interestingly that anti patent reform group that encompasses both Apple and Microsoft is called the "Partnership for American Innovation"
Good point.
That would depend on whether it would be seen as "obvious" to anyone else working in that particular field, if it is then the patent should not be granted as that is one of the criteria for declining it. Indeed it's the grounds on which many successful challenges are granted...
China doesn't have to respect them, UK and US patents have absolutely no meaning in China they are only valid in those countries/areas for which they are granted.
http://www.patentbolt.com/2014/05/microsoft-reveals-future-smartwatch-dock-in-new-patent.html
"Software Patents Are Bullshit"
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/08/software-patents-are-bullshit/
This looks Armageddon for many a developer.
I can't help but think that any Word compatible alternative is now illegal in the US.
In that word documents use loads of code to define the output. Without emulation you cannot make word compatible software.
And I'm sure even OS/X and WIndows would only be legal via cross licensing !
http://www.businessinsider.in/A-Conversation-With-Linus-Torvalds-Who-Built-The-Worlds-Most-Robust-Operating-System-And-Gave-It-Away-For-Free/articleshow/36215352.cms
Torvalds as usual, telling it like it is .
"And companies actually prefer vague and over-broad patents that are hard to judge, because then you can try to apply them in wildly inappropriate situations, and it's not like the threat is the patent itself - it's the litigation."
"It's all bullsh-t, sane people know it's bullsh-t, but making real change is difficult. Politically, the US patent system also tends to help US companies, because once you get into a court of law, it's not about the law any more (and it's certainly not about the patent, which is crap and which neither the judge, the lawyers, nor the jury will understand anyway), and it's much easier to sell as an "us vs. them" story."
For the life of me, I can't quite think who he is mainly aiming at.
:rolleyes:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/07/airbus-submits-patent-application-for-windowless-jet-cockpit
AIrcraft currently have windows so Airbus want the patent for 'windowless cockpit'.
Like many others it seems to go after a 'land grab'.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/09/apple_siri_patent_case_china/
Apple no doubt will have to cough up the cash or mute Siri, at least in China.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/24/apple-concept-would-automatically-enable-ios-do-not-disturb-mode-during-exercise
A DND patent
This one sums up most of them in that so many take a basic everyday action and patent it because they want the patent for it to be 'done by a computer'.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/inaugural-stupid-patent-month
Seems that some of the "...but do it on a computer" patents are being invalidated.
" Software patent holders will know that if they take a case to trial, there's a high probability that their patent will be destroyed "
I'm not so sure about that. This is a drop in the ocean of likely 100s of thousands of 'do it on a computer' patents out there.
This is not patent related but trademark protection.
Considering Instagram is a take on the suffix gram, considering there are loads and loads of words already using it, I really do fail to see how Gram can be owned by the Instagram people.
Both Insta and Litter are the main nouns, and obviously quite different. Curiously, it is Insta that seems to adulterate the standard usage of Gram.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160622/09581834783/general-mills-granted-design-patent-tortilla-bowl-because-why-even-pretend-anymore.shtml