Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Stop software patents!!!

Author
Message
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 01:32
Link
Some people may already be aware of this, but this is your last chance to have a say in preventing software patents from killing the European software industry. Check out the main links on http://www.kdevelop.org.

I seriously recommend checking this out as it could may well have long term effects on you, me and the rest of the industry if this goes down!

Paul


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 01:40
Link
I'd suggest you UK lot begin pestering your MP's, if thats how it works, and persuade them to vote "correctly".

Time's almost up

DBP Plugins Latest: MSAccess, SQLServer - July 2005
Back to top
Profile PM
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 02:26
Link
I think this will go through due to the total incompetance of the government. I'm gonna bugger off to some other country that doesn't try to pull this crap on us
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 02:35
Link
I for one agree with software patents. I'm working on a piece of software on the side that is taking most of my free time, and because it is cutting edge, I don't want somebody stealing my work and making money from it. Software should be treated like inventions. Just because you can't hold it in your hand, doesn't mean it didn't take as much work to produce as the next self-cleaning toilet bowl ;-P

The site you posted talks about the trivial patents, which I don't agree with. What they should do, rather than ban all software patents outright, is hire actual computer engineers as patent officers. Then we wouldn't have to worry about any more 1-click ordering laughs.


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Back to top
Profile PM Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 03:31
Link
Quote: "I for one agree with software patents. I'm working on a piece of software on the side that is taking most of my free time, and because it is cutting edge, I don't want somebody stealing my work and making money from it. Software should be treated like inventions. Just because you can't hold it in your hand, doesn't mean it didn't take as much work to produce as the next self-cleaning toilet bowl ;-P
"


I agree with that, but the extent of it is crazy - they have patents on certain types of loading bars for god sake!

Not to mention the 'Similarity' graphics patenting some corp's do. If your textures or 3d models look remotely similar to their's (e.g. a grass texture!) they'll take you down to the good 'ol court house.

[url=www.lightningstudios.co.uk][/url]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 03:36 Edited at: 6th Jul 2005 03:37
Link
... perhaps not ... ?

Back to top
Profile PM
Ace Of Spades
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Mar 2005
Location: Across the ocean
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 03:56
Link
Whoa!, if I understand this correctly, the government wants to allow software patents to PROTECT software developer's work? In that case, i don't see a problem, is there one? What is it? As far as I can tell getting a patent on any inventions never hurt anyone too much, software should not be any different, the company that creates it SHOULD have full rights and protection over it.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:01
Link
I disagree with software patents because the interoperability requirements of software can create huge problems which don't exist in other industries, except presumably the pharmaceutical industries. The difference there are absolutely huge R&D costs in pharmaceutical industries. R&D costs are becomming larger with software, but are nowhere near that level yet.

Rather comically, a saw a letter to the Telegraph the other day, in which the authors demanded protection for ideas so that "innovation by small businesses can be protected." The first three signatures were from representatives at Intel, Phillips and Siemens. Small business indeed. On that note, it is always the larger firms who are best able to afford long patents, as well as defend them against infringement.

Quote: "The site you posted talks about the trivial patents, which I don't agree with. What they should do, rather than ban all software patents outright, is hire actual computer engineers as patent officers. Then we wouldn't have to worry about any more 1-click ordering laughs."


Such a system could never guarantee that trivial patents would never be awarded however. A patent may be granted that is relatively trivial, simply because the Patent Officer / Software Engineer who reviewed it lacked the relevant knowledge.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:03
Link
Jeku,

Sorry to say it mate, but that directly contradicts a very recent conversion we had in the mods forum.

Software creation is an intellectual process, in the same way that writing or mathematics are. I should be free to develop my thoughts in any way that I choose to, and not be restricted from doing so for 20 years by some smart alec waving a patent claim in my face.


Leys,

No. Software does *not* protect the developer. It protects the market share of large companies by forbidding other companies from producing software that may compete with them. Look into the cost of claiming a patent, then the staggering costs of enforcing one, and you'll see exactly what I mean.

Copyright is the correct course for protecting software IMO.

*** Coming soon - Network Plug-in - Check my site for info ***
For free Plug-ins and source code http://www.matrix1.demon.co.uk
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:12 Edited at: 6th Jul 2005 04:17
Link
Even those here who support software patents would probably support most of the compromise ammendments being proposed. These deal with the problem of trivial patents and computer-aided business methods amongst other things:

http://europarl.ffii.org/amendments.en.html

Edit: This article below provides an example of how simple ideas are made to sound complex:

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-05-26-004-04-OP-LF

Google for "IsNot operator patent" for what is arguably the most ridiculous patent application ever.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:15
Link
The problem I saw with the patenting issue is of course the intellectual ownership of an original program concept. Do you agree that if you by some chance, you produced a program that performed a similiar function which could be construde as a violation of an existing patent in someone else's product.

The bigger issue here really is that it puts a dent in the GNU open source market! And of course, small business ventures (ROFL@RobK's quotation). How far will the patent violation claimers willing to go in order to win a case? All because a program was made freely available like Mozzila, yet Microsoft turn around because their patented webbrowser had an almost identical function.

We'll see, but I for one do not agree with software patents. I do agree with copyright though!

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mikey P
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd May 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:15
Link
Quote: "I for one agree with software patents. I'm working on a piece of software on the side that is taking most of my free time, and because it is cutting edge, I don't want somebody stealing my work and making money from it. Software should be treated like inventions. Just because you can't hold it in your hand, doesn't mean it didn't take as much work to produce as the next self-cleaning toilet bowl ;-P

The site you posted talks about the trivial patents, which I don't agree with. What they should do, rather than ban all software patents outright, is hire actual computer engineers as patent officers. Then we wouldn't have to worry about any more 1-click ordering laughs.
"


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't software patents mean you cant use certain techniques, or ways of coding? You're project could be using patented software, and you'd have to pay royalties.

Why not just keep hold of your source code?

Back to top
Profile PM
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:16 Edited at: 6th Jul 2005 04:18
Link
It is a fine line and hard to decide on what should and should not be patented as software goes. I think you should not be able to patent any kind of software as there are 1000 ways to do almost anything with a computer. Just because you done something first does not mean that there isn't an easier or more efficient way. With a patent on it, we would probably never see the easier/ more efficient way

Back to top
Profile PM Email
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:20
Link
unfortunately "patent" and "copyright" are NOT interchangeable. A copyright protects the work itself, a Patent protects the idea and theory.

DBP Plugins Latest: MSAccess, SQLServer - July 2005
Back to top
Profile PM
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:22
Link
Agreed!!


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Eric T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2003
Location: My location is where I am at this time.
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:23
Link
But then how do Copywrites get worked into it???`

(had to be done.)

http://blog.myspace.com/erict An Alternative to Mouse's blog. Now with more lowbrow opinions.** Warning - explicit language**
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:38
Link
Quote: "If your textures or 3d models look remotely similar to their's (e.g. a grass texture!) they'll take you down to the good 'ol court house."


No, a 3D model would be copyrightable. Here's the difference between patents, copyrights, and trademarks:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm

Quote: "A patent may be granted that is relatively trivial, simply because the Patent Officer / Software Engineer who reviewed it lacked the relevant knowledge."


But that could happen with any industry. A self-cleaning toilet patent could be awarded to someone who merely adds soap to the water output. This would be laughable, but could still be awarded a patent by an ignorant officer who lacked the relevant knowledge. So by that logic should we ban cleaning patents?

Quote: "Sorry to say it mate, but that directly contradicts a very recent conversion we had in the mods forum."


Actually I don't think it does at all. If the person we had the conversation about patented his software algorithm, then I would have a problem with somebody else using the exact same algorithm in his software and releasing it for free.

I don't agree with patenting a software idea--- i.e. Windows. However, I agree that Microsoft should be able to patent algorithms within the OS that pertain to certain tasks. I.E. their FAT table patent was a new way of contenting a hard disk, something that was invented by an MS employee.

Quote: "Copyright is the correct course for protecting software IMO."


Copyrighting is what J.R.R. Tolkien would do with his LOTR trilogy. Patenting would be what the original inventor of the book medium would do. There's a vast difference between artistic content and invention.

Quote: "Google for "IsNot operator patent" for what is arguably the most ridiculous patent application ever."


I agree that is an example of a ridiculous software patent. Why MS wastes money on such things is beyond me.

Quote: "Do you agree that if you by some chance, you produced a program that performed a similiar function which could be construde as a violation of an existing patent in someone else's product."


See that's not what a software patent protects. The MP3 encoding scheme can be found on the Internet, but it is patented. If you take that code, and implement it into your product without licensing it, that is what I'm against. It is up to you to use a free alternative.

Much the same way if you invent a no-smell toilet. You hire a lawyer to help determine whether that method of no-smell toilet has already been patented. That's the patent lawyer's job.


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:54
Link
If this goes through there will be all kinds of problems... for example they could patent:

- online databases
- arrays
- The methods of creating and displaying 3d models and images
- A* pathfinding

They are some very greedy morons out there, you KNOW they are going to be lining up to patent things we take for granted. Some of them may just get it...
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 04:58
Link
You can't just patent those things without proof of invention. Anyone with prior use can have it rejected. It's not like you can just patent coffee because nobody else has yet :-P


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Back to top
Profile PM Website
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 05:02 Edited at: 6th Jul 2005 05:03
Link
@Jeku

Quote: "See that's not what a software patent protects. The MP3 encoding scheme can be found on the Internet, but it is patented. If you take that code, and implement it into your product without licensing it, that is what I'm against. It is up to you to use a free alternative."


That's a fair statement which I do agree with. It is this very fine line between the distinction of whether an algorithm, or an implemented idea is patentable or copyrightable. I am curious to know whether, if they do come into effect, whether these rules will effect changes in the opensource market and what it means for all of us.

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 05:09
Link
Quote: "No, a 3D model would be copyrightable. Here's the difference between patents, copyrights, and trademarks:"


No, but that can also attempt legal action, due to the theory behind the creation process of the model/texture is 'similar'

[url=www.lightningstudios.co.uk][/url]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 05:17
Link
Quote: "You can't just patent those things without proof of invention. Anyone with prior use can have it rejected. It's not like you can just patent coffee because nobody else has yet :-P"


Are you sure the people who invented these things don't have proof? What will happen if the guy who made the first polygon to be displayed on a computer turns up and says everyone will have to pay to use them? Or the person who first used splines to make 3d models, or who thought up of UV mapping for 3D models?

Its not as if this technology has been around that long, the guys who say they made this stuff are likely to still be around. If this patent thing goes through as it is now and sooner or later at least one of them will show up and say "Hey you cant use that unless you pay me" for something you use a heck of a lot. Then you are royally screwed.

It WILL be the death of the indi community as we know it, as well as smaller software houses who are not microsoft.
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 05:23
Link
The whole point of receiving a patent is to protect your inventions. AFAIK (and Philip can correct me if I'm wrong) you only have a set amount of time where you can patent something you've created. You can't turn around and patent something you've invented 20 years ago, for example. There's a statute of limitations.


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 07:19 Edited at: 6th Jul 2005 07:20
Link
Quote: "See that's not what a software patent protects. The MP3 encoding scheme can be found on the Internet, but it is patented. If you take that code, and implement it into your product without licensing it, that is what I'm against. It is up to you to use a free alternative."


A believe that is already covered by existing legislation.

Quote: "But that could happen with any industry. A self-cleaning toilet patent could be awarded to someone who merely adds soap to the water output. This would be laughable, but could still be awarded a patent by an ignorant officer who lacked the relevant knowledge. So by that logic should we ban cleaning patents?"


You are assuming that software is just like any other industry. It isn't. The patent fiasco in the US has already more than demonstrated the problems when trying to apply traditional methods of dealing with patents to software.

Quote: "Copyrighting is what J.R.R. Tolkien would do with his LOTR trilogy. Patenting would be what the original inventor of the book medium would do. There's a vast difference between artistic content and invention."


Software is intellectual property - and that is what copyright already exists to cover. The best proof that the industry does not need software patents is the fact that innovation has flourished continually for well over 20 years, despite weak patent protection. The paper below puts forward an economic justification for this:

http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 07:27
Link
I don't think there is exactly a statute of when it was made but there are other time limits such as these:

Quote: "Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent
In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”"


Back to top
Profile PM Email
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 07:27
Link
Quote: " The whole point of receiving a patent is to protect your inventions."


As I already pointed out though, the firms who will benefit the most from this are larger firms who least need the protection. Given the interoperability needs of software, the potential for abusing patent rights in order to further market share is huge.
Supposing Microsoft had invented a new image format, which became very popular and only worked in their browser, and set the licensing costs very high. This would promptly enable them to maximise their market share in the browser market, because rivals could not afford to license the technology, without which their products would be useless.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 07:36
Link
Why don't we just stop software?


My blog Coding Competition
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 07:40
Link
Quote: "Supposing Microsoft had invented a new image format, which became very popular and only worked in their browser, and set the licensing costs very high. This would promptly enable them to maximise their market share in the browser market, because rivals could not afford to license the technology, without which their products would be useless."


And so? What's the problem? I don't recall people making a stink when WMA files used to only work in Windows Media player. If MS feels the need to invent a new image format, then all the power to them. That's the great thing about capitalism--- the sky's the limit. You can only run Flash files in a Macromedia Flash runtime, right? What's the difference?


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Back to top
Profile PM Website
empty
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: 3 boats down from the candy
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 07:42
Link
Quote: "http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf"

Hmm, a very interesting paper.


I agree that copyrights are the way to go for software. The "software industry" is different from many other industries, because even as an individual or small company you can create a product and sell it without having to invest a lot of money (compared to other products). Patents (and licenses) would raise these costs.
A software patent would kill a lot of areas in of shareware development in the long run, reduce the number of products, and make software more expensive.


Play Nice! Play Basic! Version 1.073
Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 07:46 Edited at: 6th Jul 2005 07:53
Link
Quote: "And so? What's the problem? "


The EU gave Microsoft a 500 Million Euro fine last time it asked that question.

Quote: "That's the great thing about capitalism--- the sky's the limit."


Patents are not in-keeping with the US or EU's basic economic model (free market), since they distort market forces and thereby reduce consumer welfare. I really do suggest you read the above paper, since it explains the differences in the nature of innovation in the software industry which changes the effects of patents or lack thereof.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MiR
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2003
Location: Spain
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 08:29
Link
Is it me or does this patent thing mean the end of open source? What protection de we get. We can hardly afford patents.


¿Como estas you el dia de today?
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Philip
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 08:34 Edited at: 6th Jul 2005 08:36
Link
Any lawyer with half a brain would say that software should continue to be protected by copyright. Its not even a debate. Theres simply no good argument to the contrary.

Anyway, I care little what the EU Parliament says. My understanding of how the EU makes law (and I admit I can't be bothered to understand it because EU law is invariably a joke) is that only the Commission has power to make a directive or regulation. My understanding is that the EU Parliament is a gigantic talking shop whose sole power is the ability to sack the whole Commission (famously used once but the entire Commission stayed in place for months afterwards) and the ability to "recommend" law to the Commission.

Pointless. Time we ripped up these stupid Hegelian institutions and started afresh with something sensible.

Philip

Cheer if you like bears! Cheer if you like jam sandwiches!
P3.2ghz / 1 gig / GeForce FX 5900 128meg / WinXP home
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 08:36
Link
Quote: " Is it me or does this patent thing mean the end of open source? What protection de we get. We can hardly afford patents."


Not quite, but it could make life much more complicated for the free-software movement. "Patent mindfield" is a popular phrase to describe this. The inability to license patents for both economic and legal reasons is a significant problem as well.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Keaz
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere in south Texas
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 09:01
Link
Patents wouldn't stop free software as long as they had the idea first and printed a dated copy of the source. They do prevent making free "clones" of software. (not P-) just redoing it exactly the same.) Copyrights are already used for this and for good reason. To protect the developer (no matter how large or small). However clones do exist every FPS is a clone of the first one with better graphics, but it's same for just about every genre. Copyrights should protect intelectual "brand recognition" property (aka trademarks). Patents should protect inventors. Something like an alogrythm in an intellectual invention.
That being said both are bad for the little guy and the consumer but must exist to prevent unscrupulous business practices. Preventing that does raise prices for the consumer. Perfect capitolism doesn't exist becuase of immoral businesses.
As to what should and should not be patentable that should be up to governments and their patent office. If you want it to go one way or the other write your officials, that is the beauty of democracy(I wonder if anyone every thought to patent it).

Breaking Stuff=Fun!,Bug Testing<>Fun!, Bug Testing=Breaking Stuff, so...
Bug Testing=Fun! Hmmmm....
DOES NOT COMPUTE! SYSTEM MALFUNTION!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
the_winch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 09:10
Link
Quote: " Patents wouldn't stop free software as long as they had the idea first and printed a dated copy of the source."


How exactly would that help? Most developers don't have the resources to take big companies to court.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 09:29
Link
Rob K - I read your link. Interesting. Did you read mine, where it points out the difference between patents and copyrights?

I agree with Philip in that software should be copyrightable. But I also don't want somebody hacking my executable, grabbing the secret algorithms, and releasing them for free.

Quote: "I agree that copyrights are the way to go for software. The "software industry" is different from many other industries, because even as an individual or small company you can create a product and sell it without having to invest a lot of money (compared to other products). Patents (and licenses) would raise these costs."


But is that the fault of the patent system? It also costs a lot of money to get a business license, a lease on an office, and a weekly ad in the city newspaper. Businesses cost money, plain and simple.

The algorithms that should be patentable are ones like the one I've been researching and developing over a number of months now. The project will not be ready for at least a couple of more years. There's no way in hell that it is any less of an invention than a physical object which has a patent.

Obviously I'm not the only one with this point of view as there are many worthy software patents granted.


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Back to top
Profile PM Website
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 12:22
Link
Quote: "Obviously I'm not the only one with this point of view as there are many worthy software patents granted."


Yeah, but the time it takes to scan through the thousands of potentially similiar patents will eventually become unmanagable if large companies do get powers to patent software designs. Assuming that alot of those patents share similiar prerequisites. If patent pending cases get stacked up, where will it leave the industry, waiting for a company to release their product but cannot because of the delays. So it will no long take 3 years to release a product, but will take possibly 5 years and double the cost.

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mnemonix
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: Skaro
Posted: 6th Jul 2005 23:31
Link
the bill has been





REJECTED !

WE SHALL BECOME ALL POWERFUL! CRUSH THE LESSER RACES! CONQUER THE GALAXY! UNIMAGINABLE POWER! UNLIMITED RICE PUDDING ! ! ! ETC. ! ! ! ETC.! ! !
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
mm0zct
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Nov 2003
Location: scotland-uk
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 00:25
Link
since you can't patent a mathematical formula i don't see why it is fair to patent an algorithm, just as with formula it is perfectly feasable for someone that has never heard of the other algorithm could develop it independantly.
if you introduce patents then everyone starts worrying as they are writing their program: "has someone patented my way of doing this?"
there are a limit to the number of ways you acn do something, patents will lead to inneficient and hard to read/understand code as people srtive to produce different ways around patented algorithms.

http://www.larinar.tk
AMD athlon 64 3000+, 512mb ddr400, abit kv8, 160gb hdd, gigabit lan, ati radeon 9800se 128mb.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 01:18
Link
Its been rejected


Atomz is at http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~nickk
http://spaces.msn.com/members/BouncyBrick/
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 01:50
Link
w00000t!!

Thanks for the replies guys


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mikey P
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd May 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 02:56
Link
So... It's the thing for Software Patents today, isn't it. When do we find out the results?

Back to top
Profile PM
Three Score
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Jun 2004
Location: behind you
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 03:06
Link
i hate software patents i dont see how they can exist i mean what if microsoft patented the fat12 format(whats used on nearly all floppies), a lot of people would get sued quick

n00bs will be shot on spot...
i need some more ammo there are just too many of them better call in the moderators to help
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 03:41
Link
You can only patent something you invented yourself.


"Lets migrate like bricks" - Me
Back to top
Profile PM Email
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 04:53
Link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4655955.stm


Atomz is at http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~nickk
http://spaces.msn.com/members/BouncyBrick/
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mikey P
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd May 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 06:43
Link
Awesome The large majority of 'Against' votes was obviously due to the huge campaign on the internet... Nice!

Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 07:22 Edited at: 7th Jul 2005 07:23
Link
Quote: " i hate software patents i dont see how they can exist i mean what if microsoft patented the fat12 format(whats used on nearly all floppies), a lot of people would get sued quick"


Microsoft DID invent the FAT technology and they DO have a patent on it. Did you see them suing everybody? Let's have some common sense here, peoples!


--[R.O.B.O.I. and FireTris Coming Soon]--
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Philip
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 07:58
Link
Quote: "I agree with Philip in that software should be copyrightable. But I also don't want somebody hacking my executable, grabbing the secret algorithms, and releasing them for free. "


Copyright protects the author of software from "hacking the executable, grabbing the secret algorithim and releasing them for free".

Cheer if you like bears! Cheer if you like jam sandwiches!
P3.2ghz / 1 gig / GeForce FX 5900 128meg / WinXP home
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Three Score
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Jun 2004
Location: behind you
Posted: 7th Jul 2005 08:43
Link
@Jeku
hmm didnt realize that
hope i dont get sued for my filesystem im making as it is almost like a variant of fat it works almost just like it except things are stored a bit differently but the same thing is done

although it is probably different enough to not get sued

maybe i should check this though

n00bs will be shot on spot...
i need some more ammo there are just too many of them better call in the moderators to help
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 8th Jul 2005 04:37
Link
That's good news

@Philip, are you saying that patent lawyers in the EU patent office have less than half a brain?

Quote: "Microsoft DID invent the FAT technology and they DO have a patent on it"


Yes, they did, but it was based on prior art from IBM and Xerox, and it was also suggested that the claim was contrary to the public good ... something that the patent office agreed with, when the patent was suspended on appeal. That's why MS cannot sue anyone over the Fat patent.

If you use Fat in the states, then you might have something to worry about in the future. If not, then just point and laugh at the american patent system that can't (currently) touch us

*** Coming soon - Network Plug-in - Check my site for info ***
For free Plug-ins and source code http://www.matrix1.demon.co.uk
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-27 19:38:42
Your offset time is: 2024-11-27 19:38:42