Hi Rob A belated follow up to your "patents are a silly idea" ...
The European Parliament agrees with you ... sort of ... as stated at: http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-inventions/software.html "... an invention that works by using a computer, a computer network or other programmable apparatus [termed a CII]. Accordingly, CIIs can be patented if: 1) They have technical character and solve a technical problem. 2) They are new. 3) They involve an inventive technical contribution to the prior art. With this definition as a basis, the patenting process for CIIs at the EPO is very restrictive as it puts emphasis on new technical solutions. The most striking consequence of this definition is that computer programs, which do not solve a technical problem, are NOT patentable in Europe. Why are such programs not patentable in Europe? The EPO does not grant patents for computer programs or computer- implemented business methods that make no technical contribution. Programs for computers as such are excluded from patentability ... On the other hand, a CII (even in the form of a computer program) that can provide this further technical effect can be patentable, subject to the other patentability requirements, such as novelty and inventive step. In this case, it would be recognised as providing a technical solution to a technical problem. What does this mean in practice? ... A patent application for an Internet auction system was NOT granted because the system used conventional computer technology and computer networks - which meant it made no inventive technical contribution to the level of existing technology ... On the flip side, the problem of improving signal strengths between mobile phones is a technical problem, even if it is solved by modifications to the phone software rather than its hardware. Such an invention would obtain a patent, provided that the solution is also novel and inventive. In this respect, [EUROPE] ... differs significantly from that of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) [& Australia], where patent protection for software is granted, even if it does not solve a technical problem." "... obfuscation and traditional copyright protection are simpler, cheaper and more effective" I agree that they are cheaper but NOT more effective - a patent can protect the function, system, device and/or method. Patent protection is independent as to whether the code is visible or not (reading code in RAM etc via VMs) will reveal code; however, copyright protects from copying direct code and/or layout - a functional outcome can be coded in so many ways. Obfuscation of code from my experience is a mere delay method, and does not provide any real protection. If you had code obfuscated and I wanted to build something similar to you code's output then I would build in a clean room environment. In this situation yopu would have very little protection using "... obfuscation and traditional copyright protection". In contrast, a well drafted patent would give you protection in the jurisdictions were software inventions are patentable. I hope this helps Michael On Aug 5, 10:31 am, Rob Manson <rob...@mobusiness.com.au> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > software patents are a silly idea. > > NOTE: I admit I have applied for software patents in the past, but only > out of internal investor pressure which was simply poorly informed. > > If the software is a truly unique and expensive innovation then > obfuscation and traditional copyright protection are simpler, cheaper > and more effective. > > However for most software I've found GPL/CC/etc. is a much better form > of protection. This means that nobody can take this code or the > credibility from having created it away from me or my company. Nobody > can prevent us from using or exploiting it as we see fit in the future. > And if anybody else uses it then they have a "right" to see our > attribution as well as see the good work that we have done. It also > allows these people the opportunity to contribute alongside us. > > The type of "control based mindset" exemplified by "software patents" is > what has gotten the IP industry into the mess it's in. (insert numerous > examples like podcasting, etc. here). > > -- > Rob Manson > Managing Director > > MOB - Start something! > Innovative mobile & online businesshttp://MOBusiness.com.au > > m: +61423215731 > e: rob...@mobusiness.com.au > l:http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertmanson > t:http://twitter.com/nambor > s:http://slideshare.net/robman > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Don't miss our presentation on Pervasive Computing > and Business Strategy at Web Directions South > 2009http://south09.webdirections.org/program/business#pervasive-computing > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 16:51 -0700, 1_Place wrote: > > Hi All > > > The issue of government funding is that the OpenSource/Startup/ > > Whatever community becomes less self reliant. > > This reliance on government funding often detracts from self > > determinism, and the benefit from government funding often does NOT > > outweigh the time and effort involved in seeking the funding. > > > One possible technique is to increase the open source community'(s) > > skill base in IP protection area. Putting the equivalent resources of > > time and effort into drafting your own patents may bring greater > > benefit. Further, IP Protection would ensure that the community is > > acknowledged for its inventive input. > > > How: IP Protection can be implemented using tools that are available > > and then an income can be generated by offering services around the > > technology (not a new idea; however, the IP Protection in the form of > > patents is often not put into place, so the input from the Open source > > community is often not acknowledged): > > > Use the following tools: > > 1) Agreement Generators– Confidentiality & Contract Generator – > > a. http://www.iptoolbox.gov.au/default.asp?action=article&ID=249– > > Innovic.com.au > > b. http://innovic.com.au/resources/confidentiality_agreement.html > > > 2) Do your own patent searches utilising the major world wide > > databases: > > a. http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/structured.cgi > > > 3) Trade Mark Search: For Australia only - IP Australia: > > a. > > http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/Falcon.Search_Screen?p_sear... > > Perform company Search > > > 4) ASIC (company & business names) > > a. http://www.search.asic.gov.au/gns001.html > > > 5) How to lodge your own Patent: > > a. > > https://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/ecentre/content/olsProvPatent... > > > 6) How to lodge your own patent – what should / can I do? > > 1.Draft a detailed description of your invention > > 2.Include the problem your invention overcomes > > 3.Lodge this with IP Australia as a Provisional Patent > > 4.Pay $80 filing fee > > 5.Announce that you have a Patent Pending > > 6.When you have more money (& within 12 months) lodge a > > complete specification via a Patent Attorney > > > 7) How to lodge your own Trade Mark: Trade mark Registration for > > Australia only: TM HeadStart (registration only) > > > a. http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/tmhs_start.shtml > > > 8) Slides from a recent talk: > > a. http://www.slideshare.net/1Place/boot-up-ip > > > Hope this helps. > > > Michael > >www.1p.com.au --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Guidelines on discussion: http://tr.im/ujKF No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself: http://tr.im/ujMm To post to this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
