Software patent bill thrown out

[Panash]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4655955.stm

[e404pnf]

Big technology firms, such as Philips, Nokia, Microsoft, Siemens, and telecoms firm Ericsson, continued to voice their support for the original bill

I'm surprised that the likes of Micro$oft would want this bill passing. They get just as much protection for their software through copyright law with practically no legal fees. Also, if they were to patent software they would have to publish the whole code.

Incidentally, in UK law they would also only get 20 years protection rather than 100. But I doubt that is a worry - who is still using 20 year old software

- e404pnf

[Raga]

Yes, they get as much protection through copyright law for their current software, but they can't eliminate possible newcomers.

[MikieV]

Also, if they were to patent software they would have to publish the whole code.

I'm not sure that is true.
EDIT: (tip of the hat, to Adam) something more directly-related than the EFF's patent Watch list

From: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/cons0401/index.en.html#publ

"In contrast to the EP version, the council version permits unlimited patentability and patent enforceability. Following the current version, "computer-implemented" algorithms and business methods would be inventions in the sense of patent law, and the publication of a functional description of a patented idea would constitute a patent infringement. Protocols and data formats could be patented and would then not be freely usable even for interoperability purposes."

Deep-pocket companies and organizations (can you say "MPEG LA", I knew that you could) would file suit against small competitors - who couldn't afford to defend themselves.

Algorithms, business methods, protocols, and data formats.

We "dodged a bullet" when they voted this one down.

[MikieV]

they get as much protection through copyright law for their current software, but they can't eliminate possible newcomers.

Agreed, as this lead-in to the mPlayer website makes clear.

"Multimedia is a patent minefield. All important techniques, formats and standards are covered by broad and trivial patents that harm progress and make independent implementations hard or impossible. Thus MPlayer and the other free software multimedia players, like xine, VLC, avifile, gstreamer and especially FFmpeg, which provides the framework all of the above players use, are seriously threatened by software patents. Already companies are succeeding at driving multimedia libraries out of existence with legal threats."

http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/index.html

They will probably remove this, or at least update it, now that the bill was thrown out.

[adam]

Yes, in the US when you get a patent you must completely disclose your invention. Unless they made a specific exception for these new software patents, they would have to release the entire source code which would be ludicrous IMO.

MikieV, the amazon patent is a business method patent as are some of the other ones you linked to. The rest are classic processes that happen to be achieved through software. But none of them are actually patents on the software alone, since that isn't possible to do in the US yet.

As for why software companies want patents, depsite their shorter duration a patent grants you an absolute monopoly over it whereas copyrights merely protect the implementation. In short, someone can make something that looks and functions exactly like copyrighted software and it is not a copyright infringement. If it were possible to patent software then nobody could do that.

[BJ_M]

Yes, in the US when you get a patent you must completely disclose your invention. Unless they made a specific exception for these new software patents, they would have to release the entire source code which would be ludicrous IMO.


<snip>

i thought there was a small group of patents issued that did not completely show the invention due to security reasons, some chemical formulas or other nature of that sort of invention, but the full details is held in trust by a third party .... There are some patents issued I know in science fields which are generalized only and the exact details are not published..

i may be just thinking of source code for some goverment jobs (and some banks and large corporations, etc.) , where they require the source code of all software to be held in trust by special companies that deal with this sort of thing and/or also held by the goverment themselves ...

I have had to do this on a couple of occasions and the 3rd party company audits the source code (or compiled it) to check if correct -- then stores the stuff in big assed vaults buried into a mountain (in my case) ..


This is done to protect the end user if the supplier goes away or can not be found ... the 3rd party only releases the data to the end user upon certain conditions which are agreed upon in advance ..

[SCDVD]

Patent protection offers broader protection than copyright protection. Copyright protection on software protects the code from being copied or substantially copied. Patents can also cover more general techniques, implimentations and the associated standards that are involved. One of the most intimidating times with a patent is while it is still pending. Prior to a patent being granted, the specifics of it are not available for the public to see. Potential patent infringers are intimidated by this because they don't know if they are going to be in violation of a patent or not. One technique that is sometimes used is to file mulitple patents, each substantially later than the previous patent. Each subsequent patent is on different specific claims. This keeps the cloud of uncertainty up for a much longer period of time. Patents are important but the whole process can be manipulated and abused by companies who wish to.

Another technique to intimidate is for a large company to sue a much smaller company over patent infringement and try to overwhelm them by the legal and associated costs. It also intimidates the small company's customers because they fear buying a product from a company who is being sued for patent infringement on that product. There are numerous cases where small companies have been put out of business due to patent infringement claims that weren't even won! But their "win" was too late, the company failed because of the cost of litigation and the loss of business while the suit was underway.

[mbellot]

who is still using 20 year old software

Pretty much anyone running windows. :P

[BJ_M]

actually unix is older (i.e. the basis of linux, os-x , solaris, IRIX, etc . etc .. )

it is a moot point (specially since windows is not 20 years old - but rather a Disk Operating System which is - found in win95/98/me and on DOWN to win1.0 )