I see that despite your recitation on European Patents that patents are still awarded for the innovative and novel internal logic of computer programs where it moves radically from the prior art base. IE a risc or similar program used on a tertiary processor instead of the good old binary would qualify. I think also there is the integration of outside technology to software which is also protected.

The statement “ There’s just some ideas which are not patentable, because they are not regarded as inventions in patent law.” with respect to patent law is absolutely flawed. An invention, whether tangible or intangible, is patentable if it fufills the relevant definition.

The European state as I understand it is merely a guideline which does not prohibit an invention in the form of a computer program rather it prevents programs being patentable because of the results or operations that they can achieve.

This was a policy concern from the beginning because a computer program by its nature within the artificial world can change or manipulate that world by its very function as opposed to physical objects that must do ‘something’ to change its world. The policy is not because software is protected by copyright – give me a break.

As a side point I note that there are currently 567 awarded patents in Europe including software.

In particular I note the various inventions used for ‘switching’ mobile phone networks and automatically and remotely updating software.

Check out these beauties

SOFTWARE APPLICATION, SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE AND METHOD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS, ESPECIALLY FOR MEASURING SYSTEMS
EP1516250 – 2005-03-23 IPC: G06F9/46

MOBILE COMMUNICATION TERMINAL, APPLICATION SOFTWARE INITIATING APPARATUS, APPLICATION SOFTWARE INITIATING SYSTEM, APPLICATION SOFTWARE INITIATING METHOD, AND APPLICATION SOFTWARE INITIATING PROGRAM
Publication info: EP1452961 – 2004-09-01 IPC: G06F9/06 ; G06F9/445

And my personal favourite.

SOFTWARE PROTECTION BY MEANS OF SOFTWARE MODIFICATION
Publication info: EP1386210 – 2004-02-04 IPC: G06F1/00

The code of this software has been provided with the patent description, however, the patent is not made up of the software. That is just one step. Despite this the software remains patentable when considered in the larger steps taken to carry out the invention.

Microsoft have never innovated. Anyone invoking Microsoft when discussing innovation is simply confusing consolidation with creativity

This is stupid and I now am taking an oath to henceforth flame into the ground anyone I see repeating this nonsense. If Microsoft has never “innovated” then neither has Apple nor any of the geek horde behind linux – for it’s all the same stuff – and linux potentially even moreso. KDE and kparts are little different than Explorer and Microsoft’s build tools. and until only recently when the Gnome UG began discouraging the use of nautilus and “folder views” as a generic shell wrapper for any and all file system i/o, Gnome was also in that camp. Ironically, that same desktop (Gnome) is now increasingly under pressure by certain forces to adopt mono – a derivative of Microsoft’s .NET programming environment – as its “standard desktop language!”

What would you consider “innovative?” PHP scripts that colorize others people’s images? An operating system built on BSD? A rap remix of We Are the Champions?

I do not use any Microsoft software in my home right now. My router runs IPcop, my laptop runs ubuntu and so does my desktop, and it’s been this way for quite some time. I’m definitely no Microsoft fanboi, but to say “Microsoft has never innovated” diminishes not just Microsoft, but myself and everyone else who also contributes to the open source community. If you want to demean yourself, feel free – but don’t try to drag the rest of us down with you in your pursuit of a rather dull point.

Mosaic was “free” only for non profits – it was not “Free Software” at all. It was spawn of the NCSA, and the NCSA signed over commerical rights to Spyglass, who then sold the commercial version of Mosaic to Microsoft and about 100 other companies.

Mosaic was never Free Software. I thought I made this point clear in “My bad” but I guess it still wasn’t – so now I try again. It wasn’t “of the BSD type” because NCSA prohibited many uses or resuses of the software except under license.

I was unaware that the competency of trade negotiators should be a determining factor in what tradable goods should be part of these negotiations. Wouldn’t it be handier to select negotiators based on the subject of the negotiations, rather than setting those subjects based on the skills of the negotiators? Next time Joseph Stiglitz is going to argue that the police should not negotiate with hostage takers or with folks that want to jump off a ledge.

BTW, your blog is still broken, in that it doesn’t carry over the captcha to the preview screen; and in that it doesn’t remember my name, even though I tell it to do so.

It has everything to do with intellectual property.

Microsoft have never innovated. Anyone invoking Microsoft when discussing innovation is simply confusing consolidation with creativity.

However, there was a time when Microsoft were expanding. At that time they were less concerned about intellectual property, as it could have been used to prevent their expansion by competitors (as you yourselves argue regarding Netscape).

Now Microsoft are a monopoly (according to the US courts), they are concerned about intellectual property. They wish to use it defensively, to create a territory that excludes competitors (whether hippies or suits). Incidentally, this idea of territory is important, as it shows how regressive “intellectual property” is in terms of economics.

This is why intellectual property’s limited monopoly and Microsoft’s illegal monopoly are a natural fit: the latter can now use the former anti-competitively. Smaller companies cannot get more than a few patents a year Microsoft can get more than a few thousand.

Why create actual products when you can patent entire classes of products and just sue anyone who accidentally creates them for real?

The only people who can afford to produce are then large companies who can afford to cross-license patents. Patent cross-licensing becomes a potlatch economy of insanely expensive and pointless mutual gifts.

(BTW: Mozilla was the copy of Netscape. And both Netscape and IE were copies of the Free Software programme Mosaic. Oh, the evils of the commons! 🙂 )

I dont think we should abandon our learning of patentability generally when we look at software, the same rules apply, albeit to a different environment

Let me quote the European patent convention:
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step.
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
1. discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
2. aesthetic creations;
3. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
4. presentations of information.

So we’re not talking about abandoning. There’s just some ideas which are not patentable, because they are not regarded as inventions in patent law. Often the expression of those ideas are instead protected by copyright. This includes litteracy, music, architecture … and software.

There are good reasons not to allow patents on products which fall under copyright.
Would you like patents on ideas for music too, if they just were “radically” different?

which have been abused to allow all sorts of software and businessmethod patents. “radically alters how the computer is used” seems at least equally abusable.

Its probably not the best explanation but – as you are aware – a patent is awarded if an invention is found to be new and contain an inventive step and be of some general utility. The policy behind ‘radically alter how the computer is used’ is the novelty or inventive step in the technology.

This means that an applicant has to show that the intangible invention – being the software – contains an inventive step in how it makes the computer perform a function and contains novelty in what it makes the computer capable of doing.

It is a very difficult burden if you consider that merely programming in an accepted language is unlikely to result in the necesary leap from the accepted technology.

Anyway – the standard is still harder than the US – trust me on that.

You mean translation? I agree that such a patent probably in it self wouldn’t give many problems, since it would not influence interoperability. But still… it could be infringed upon with a pure software product. How do you define the limit of patentability?

THe limit of patentability of software is the same as the limit of patentability of any invention. THe law does not change becuase the invention becomes an intangible. There remains a single sandard. This is not to say that the interpretation of the law or its effect is viewed through the same eyes. Intangibility is of course taken into account.

Do you mean some kind of hardware 3D display, or a software implementation of 3D graphics, like OpenGL? I’m not sure how this could be an example of a “good” software patent.

Sorry about that but the case is from the mid eighties when hardware/ software for 3d imaging was still new. I think the patent was in terms of displaying three dimensional maps in visual format.

I dont think we should abandon our learning of patentability generally when we look at software, the same rules apply, albeit to a different environment

Is that the official definition? It seems very easily abused.
The European Patent Office operates with something called “technical contribution”, which have been abused to allow all sorts of software and businessmethod patents. “radically alters how the computer is used” seems at least equally abusable.

– eg a program that converted english characters into chinese CCOM v Jiejing

You mean translation? I agree that such a patent probably in it self wouldn’t give many problems, since it would not influence interoperability. But still… it could be infringed upon with a pure software product. How do you define the limit of patentability?

or allowed a computer to display graphics in 3 dimensions IBM v Registrar of Patents.

Do you mean some kind of hardware 3D display, or a software implementation of 3D graphics, like OpenGL? I’m not sure how this could be an example of a “good” software patent.

Once again I have to agree with you. Microsoft is not the bad guy because of Intellectual Property Rights. Most of its nefarious behaviour stems from attempting to exercise a monopoly where it has no right to do so. Competition law cases (Anti-trust for the Americans) are just an example of its many misuses of market power.

Of course, the radical notion of intellectual property rights that distinguishes it from almost every other commerical right is that they are a monopoly right as opposed to an individual and/ or proprietary right attched to a certain physical object or person. The mere definition of these rights may be puzzling and lead to confusion about thier effect on the free capitalist market, however, we can rest assured that there is strong policy consideration supporting thier implementation.

On the other hand, I have to agree with Peter Morgansen – the concept of software patents is a little odd to those outside the States. A patent is so much wider than copyright that gratning a patent monopoly over software could easily stiffle an industry and innovation.

Generally “down under” a software patent is only available if it radically alters how the computer is used – eg a program that converted english characters into chinese CCOM v Jiejing or allowed a computer to display graphics in 3 dimensions IBM v Registrar of Patents. The Australian policy has allowed development of a relatively strong software industry that shares many of our home grown innovations.

Of course, as most new technology comes form the US, with whom we now have an FTA, the party has been ruined. We either take up a loose definition of patent and protect our home grown industry or we continue to have an intellectual property deficit.

The international deficit in Intellectual Property doesnt just occur in relation to Microsoft it also occurs in relation to smaller companies that take up Software Patents in the US.

I think this is the point of Mr Stiglitz; where a market is producing intellectual property in competition with a larger more advanced market and has weaker monopolies over that intellectual property, the weaker market will suffer economically and technologically.

Australia may suffer a little but third world countries wont even get a start under the current regime.

I thought the roots of IE were in a commercial web browser, but I also knew it was based on Mosaic (“Mozilla” was obviously meant as a name competitor to this browser – “it eats Mosaic”) so I hit up google for an answer. Turns out Spyglass Mosaic wasn’t free Mosaic.

So, IE’s roots have always been proprietary – but as I said, IE was never based on Mozilla, clone or otherwise.