[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Help please: I'm searching for a form of words that confines an invention to a specific set of groups. If a program is to be patented on Windows, I believe that the implementation of a compatible or equivalent program on a different architecture, operating system, platform or subsystem cannot infringe the patent because the process of creating a ported program to an unsupported architecture itself involves a new inventive step. In essence: "Implementation of a software solution on a platform or architecture NOT itself supported by the claimed invention is a separate contribution and is excluded from the claimed invention." It is both a new inventive step and a declaration of prior art against any subsequent implementation on that platform or architecture. It is still incomplete though because it does not protect against a cynical non-free release on a GNU platform. It wouldn't have to be accepted, it would just have to show that the platform is supported. What I want to avoid is a patent on a program written in VB or C# on WinXP being used to pursue developers of a program written in Python, C or Lua on GNU. I've seen some terrible patents where the software used to control the buttons in a hotel lift can be used against the OK button in an application window! Or implementing a print manager in a printhouse environment impacts on people printing their own documents on their own paper with ink purchased from their own pocket! This cross-platform, cross-language stuff is ridiculous and completely contrary to how software is developed. The other feature of this is that it requires the software to be READY (or at least written) when the patent is filed - it should reduce 'blocking' patents where a company patents the invention but lacks the desire to develop it. The company then sites on the patent, hoping that someone with more cash will stumble into their bear trap. Hey presto, the big company either licences their software under the patent or buys the patent - either way, the patent holder is quids in. It's a costly version of domain-sitting and should be prevented. Anyone got ideas on improving it? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.dcglug.org.uk/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/ http://www.neil.williamsleesmill.me.uk/ http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3
Attachment:
pgp00018.pgp
Description: PGP signature