On Friday 28 August 2009, Venkatesh Hariharan wrote: > > I am speaking at this event. In the 15 minutes or so that I have as > speaker, I intend to broadly cover the evidence against software > patents. My blog entry on this subject will give a more detailed idea.
> It is well known that the U.S. has the most permissive patent system > in the world. However, even in the US, there are signs that the > pendulum may be swinging the other way. In the recent Bilski case, > which dealt with a method of hedging risks in commodities, the US > courts ruled that abstract ideas which are not tethered to a device > cannot be patented. The decision reversed the 1998 State Street > decision that opened the floodgates for software patents. > > Under copyright law, if software developers write code that is similar > to that of another, they can defend themselves on the grounds of > independent invention because copyright protects the expression of an > idea. In the printed (books manuscripts) form or in the case of music in rendered form. Thus you can copyright a drawing for a mouse trap. > However, the same defense is not possible under a software > patent regime because a patent is a monopoly on the idea itself. The original intent was to protect the expression of an idea in PHYSICAL form, not the idea itself. Thus one could not patent the drawing for a mouse trap. One had to BUILD a mouse trap as expressed in the drawing. The need for physical form is so that the invention can be seen to affect another physical or energy form as per the desired intention. Which the drawing wont do. > Thus, > even if software developers independently create a program, they may > be liable for infringement of one of the more than 200,000 software > patents in existence in the U.S. Even end-users who use software for > routine, everyday activities may be liable for infringement. For > example, McDonalds and 400 other entities were served notices for > violating DataCard's patent on “Method for processing debit purchase > transactions using a counter-top terminal system.” In another case, a > company (ironically) called Beneficial Innovations, sued the New York > Times, You Tube and many other media organizations for allegedly > violating its patent on “Method and system for playing games on a > network.” Therefore the problem of software patents is not one that is > confined to the software development industry alone and ends up > increasing the cost of software for society as a whole. the cost of goods and services for society as a whole. The article is a business argument against patents. Which imo can be counteracted by even more arguments. In short a shouting match of exactly the type that happened at the Bombay meet. Given the distinct shortage of our numbers, shouting may not be the best strategy. Where is the technical argument. Which is that software is an abstract expression of mathematics that does not exists without a physical general purpose programming machine. Software does not affect nature when it sits on paper or tape or any other medium. It needs a programmable machine to execute it's expression. Separating the two results in a drawing (or writing) of symbols which does nothing and a machine which (by design) does nothing. Fancy a patent for a device which does nothing. Or a tome of symbols. An analogy would be a wind musical instrument (a programmabel computer for producing sounds) and blow air into it as per your note sheet (software program) and then take the note sheet and patent that. If you create a new wind music instrument you can patent that. But you cant patent your note sheet. Or your note sheet with new wind music instrument. After all it is obvious that the music instrument is supposed to accept air as per note sheet to produce sound. You ofcourse have protection for the note sheet and it's expression in a wind (whatever) instrument in the form of copyright. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
