Comments on: Last Chance to Thank Poland http://freeculture.org/blog/2005/01/30/thanks-poland/ Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:01:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rob http://freeculture.org/blog/2005/01/30/thanks-poland/comment-page-1/#comment-271 Rob Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:25:57 +0000 /?p=110#comment-271 I am in complete agreement about software patents. If you do a bit of research, you will find people extending patents for completely unrelated items to software, mainly because they can. One of my favorite examples is the extension of a patent from the late 80's on using MIDI to turn on pro-audio amplifiers. This patent was purchased and extended to autonomic computing by one of IBM's strategic partners, Singlestep. I have heard some very respected software architects suggest that the PTO essentially rubber stamps software patents, with the intention of letting disputes be resolved in courts. The process at the PTO isn't really designed to handle an industry that evolves as quickly as software. I am in complete agreement about software patents. If you do a bit of research, you will find people extending patents for completely unrelated items to software, mainly because they can. One of my favorite examples is the extension of a patent from the late 80′s on using MIDI to turn on pro-audio amplifiers. This patent was purchased and extended to autonomic computing by one of IBM’s strategic partners, Singlestep. I have heard some very respected software architects suggest that the PTO essentially rubber stamps software patents, with the intention of letting disputes be resolved in courts. The process at the PTO isn’t really designed to handle an industry that evolves as quickly as software.

]]> By: Gavin http://freeculture.org/blog/2005/01/30/thanks-poland/comment-page-1/#comment-270 Gavin Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:00:39 +0000 /?p=110#comment-270 Nick, I think just about everyone can agree that trivial patents should stop being granted and should be easier to challenge. But there's a lot to say for why software, as a whole, just simply shouldn't be patentable. IANAL, but patents are really meant for mechanical inventions. Software -- many people, including lots of prominent programmers, think this -- is closer to the sort of creative work that copyright covers than the mechnical inventions that patent covers. If you read around on some of the sites linked, I think you'll start to see why. For some examples, here are <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html" rel="nofollow">a patent that probably should not have been granted</a> and <a href="http://www.kyz.uklinux.net/giflzw.php" rel="nofollow">a patent that probably should have</a>. In addition, having exclusive, 20-year control of a method of doing something, even if others discover it independently, just doesn't make sense: software moves far too fast. I think a lot of us agree that software patents are a two-pronged problem: not only are they poorly implemented, they're just bad in concept. Although Patent Offices have problems of implementation in many fields, the only other field I can think of that's currently patentable but perhaps shouldn't be is the genes of living creatures. Nick,

I think just about everyone can agree that trivial patents should stop being granted and should be easier to challenge. But there’s a lot to say for why software, as a whole, just simply shouldn’t be patentable. IANAL, but patents are really meant for mechanical inventions. Software — many people, including lots of prominent programmers, think this — is closer to the sort of creative work that copyright covers than the mechnical inventions that patent covers. If you read around on some of the sites linked, I think you’ll start to see why. For some examples, here are a patent that probably should not have been granted and a patent that probably should have. In addition, having exclusive, 20-year control of a method of doing something, even if others discover it independently, just doesn’t make sense: software moves far too fast. I think a lot of us agree that software patents are a two-pronged problem: not only are they poorly implemented, they’re just bad in concept. Although Patent Offices have problems of implementation in many fields, the only other field I can think of that’s currently patentable but perhaps shouldn’t be is the genes of living creatures.

]]> By: Nick http://freeculture.org/blog/2005/01/30/thanks-poland/comment-page-1/#comment-269 Nick Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:02:11 +0000 /?p=110#comment-269 I am not sure I agree with this stance on patents. I think about software patents such as mp3 compression algorithm and I think it deserves protection as much as say the cotten gin. I agree with many that the patent office is doing a terrible job of evaluating software patents. I feel that the focus of this arguement against software patents is too broad. I think the focus should be to put pressure on the patent office and dispute these silly patents that have made it through their system. I understand that this threatens the open source movement but I don't think this is a reason to deny Fraunhofer protection for their brilliant audio compression algorithm. I don't necessarily agree that software patents threaten innovation. Once again Fraunhofer's codec made music the "killer app" for the web. Software patents are disproportionately harmful to smaller companies and independent programmers - I guess I can see this but this still is not a reason to get rid of software patents. Your last point "Patent offices have a poor track record in judging non-obviousness and prior art" is where the focus of this argument should concentrated. The patent office is at fault not software patents as a whole. My $0.02 I am not sure I agree with this stance on patents. I think about software patents such as mp3 compression algorithm and I think it deserves protection as much as say the cotten gin. I agree with many that the patent office is doing a terrible job of evaluating software patents. I feel that the focus of this arguement against software patents is too broad. I think the focus should be to put pressure on the patent office and dispute these silly patents that have made it through their system.
I understand that this threatens the open source movement but I don’t think this is a reason to deny Fraunhofer protection for their brilliant audio compression algorithm.
I don’t necessarily agree that software patents threaten innovation. Once again Fraunhofer’s codec made music the “killer app” for the web.
Software patents are disproportionately harmful to smaller companies and independent programmers – I guess I can see this but this still is not a reason to get rid of software patents.
Your last point “Patent offices have a poor track record in judging non-obviousness and prior art” is where the focus of this argument should concentrated. The patent office is at fault not software patents as a whole.
My $0.02

]]> By: Free Culture blog » EU Software Patents, Part Deux http://freeculture.org/blog/2005/01/30/thanks-poland/comment-page-1/#comment-272 Free Culture blog » EU Software Patents, Part Deux Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=110#comment-272 [...] of context. But though we at FreeCulture.org may not know much about the EU bureaucracy, <a href="http://freeculture.org/blog/index.php?p=110" rel="nofollow">we know we don’t like software patents</a>. The European Parliament has said it doesn’t, eith [...] [...] of context. But though we at FreeCulture.org may not know much about the EU bureaucracy, we know we don’t like software patents. The European Parliament has said it doesn’t, eith [...]

]]>