Patent absurdity - Do you know about Software Patent?

• findingnewidea

  12 Oct 05, 13:38

  Patent absurdity
  
  If patent law had been applied to novels in the 1880s, great books would not have been written. If the EU applies it to software, every computer user will be restricted, says Richard Stallman
  
  Monday June 20, 2005
  
  Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software, which would restrict every computer user and tie software developers up in knots.
  Many politicians may be voting blindly - not being programmers, they don't understand what software patents do. They often think patents are similar to copyright law (except for some details), which is not the case.
  
  For example, when I publicly asked Patrick Devedjian, then the minister for industry, how France would vote on the issue of software patents, he responded with an impassioned defence of copyright law, praising Victor Hugo for his role in the adoption of copyright.
  
  Those who imagine effects like those of copyright law cannot grasp the real effects of software patents. We can use Hugo as an example to illustrate the difference between the two.
  
  A novel and a modern complex programme have certain points in common: each is large and implements many ideas. Suppose patent law had been applied to novels in the 1800s; suppose states such as France had permitted the patenting of literary ideas. How would this have affected Hugo's writing? How would the effects of literary patents compare with the effects of literary copyright?
  
  Consider the novel Les Misérables, written by Hugo. Because he wrote it, the copyright belonged only to him. He did not have to fear that some stranger could sue him for copyright infringement and win. That was impossible, because copyright covers only the details of a work of authorship, and only restricts copying. Hugo had not copied Les Misérables, so he was not in danger.
  
  Patents work differently. They cover ideas - each patent is a monopoly on practising some idea, which is described in the patent itself.
  
  Here's one example of a hypothetical literary patent:
  
  Claim 1: a communication process that represents, in the mind of a reader, the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long time and becomes bitter towards society and humankind.
  
  Claim 2: a communication process according to claim 1, wherein said character subsequently finds moral redemption through the kindness of another.
  
  Claim 3: a communication process according to claims 1 and 2, wherein said character changes his name during the story.
  
  
  If such a patent had existed in 1862 when Les Misérables was published, the novel would have infringed all three claims - all these things happened to Jean Valjean in the novel. Hugo could have been sued, and would have lost. The novel could have been prohibited - in effect, censored - by the patent holder.
  
  
  ...
  Complete story, click here
• BillyBong

  12 Oct 05, 15:55

  The issue of patents have been an economic quagmire since its inception.
  
  Only now do we see an increased number of lawsuits over copyright infringement.
  
  When first introduced, patent laws were designed to protect the inventor/creator who designed a new idea and wanted to keep it proprietary.
  
  The irony of it was that he was required to publish documentation of the entire design and ensure its clarity to viewership erase rival claims to its authenticity, which in turn could raise the issue of doubt as to whether rival designs from competitors had indeed 'copied' the invention.
  
  With the design in the open (hey! look! it's on google!) , however protected by law, there would be no stopping others from learning from the design and modifying it to suit their products etc and then publish another patent. In short, the hard work was done by the inventor, leaving a few tweaks and adjustments for rivals to perform before marketing their so-called 'brilliant innovation'.
  
  This would have surely drawn the wrath of true innovators and raise questions over the actual proprietary and preceived originality of their developed products.
  
  In fact, this is genuinely practiced in the open market. It is called technopreneurship (not entrepreneurship).
  
  Wiser conglomerates have chosen the impart secrets to select individuals to ensure confidentiality.
  
  Coca-Cola for example is rumoured to have split the complete formula of coke into 5 segments, 1 of each is handed down to 5 different people within the company. At any time, all 5 are required to present their data separately for the full formula to be utilised. None of the 5 know the other person or what the other 4 formula segements comprise.
  
  That is perhaps one alternative instead of raising a patent.
• stellazio

  12 Oct 05, 15:55

  patent sucks..trademarks are better..
• launtpc

  12 Oct 05, 16:07

  Copyrights apply to piracy,
  
  Patents apply to ideas...
  
  Lockdowns apply to human downfall.
• LazerLordz

  12 Oct 05, 17:15

  Originally posted by launtpc:

  Copyrights apply to piracy,
  
  Patents apply to ideas...
  
  Lockdowns apply to human downfall.

  Support the Electronic Frontier Foundation and lobby those nitwits who are dumb as a doorknob.
• NuLife

  12 Oct 05, 18:33

  my view is tat the patent law is badly flawed
  and discourage innovations rather than promote.
  
  it only encourage those well-versed in the law to play with it to make money.
  
  other times, ideas had already been implemented by
  others b4 the one who got the patent.
  but somehow, the inventor did not apply for it.
  and there it goes...boom.
  
  An example is Creative recent mp3 related patent.
  Its such a common sense idea thats is used in all mp3 players.
  Anyone buiding an mp3 player would have thought of it.
  Its only becos every1 else did not apply or applied for patent too late.