[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Friday 11 February 2005 1:01 am, Jon Lawrence wrote:
On Thursday 10 February 2005 17:36, Simon Waters wrote:Jon Lawrence wrote: | It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone with enough money | made a case against them. What for? There is nothing wrong with having a patent for something that was invented before, you just can't enforce it. If you tried to enforce it, you might open yourself up to being sued for bringing pointless legals actions, but if you never try and enforce it you just have an expensive piece of paper.Hmmm, I thought it was fraud to Following that logic, it doesn't matter what a patent says. If there's prior art, then the patent is unenforceable. If this is the case, what are we all so bothered about.
Prior art does always disqualify a patent, but there is more to this: 1. A patent can only be disqualified by a court. If you win in a (cheap) county court, the litigator can appeal and push it to a higher (expensive) court and then again to the House of Lords (in UK) or Strasbourg for the EU. Now the costs get extremely serious - but the patent is STILL valid until the final appeal is quashed. Funds may be available to do this once or twice, but each decision is separate and every single patent would have to be defeated in court. There are already thousands of software patents. 2. The courts don't see prior art or patents as we see them. There is good reason to believe the Patent Office see software and a technical invention expressed in software as two separate things. The technical contribution makes software into an invention, not "just" software. The software contains an expression of the underlying patentable idea and as such, any software that expresses the same idea is infringing that patent. 2a: Example: In code, if you are to compare two objects, you can sum or hash their contents and compare the sum or hash. We do this all the time with checksums - however the two objects remain the same type. In law, when they compare two pieces of software, if one contains a technical contribution, they change the *nature* of the object! Essentially, they allocate a higher priority to 'technical contribution' than to the method of expression, i.e. the software. Software is not meant to *be* patentable in the EU - the patent laws were specifically written to exclude software - yet the UKPO and the EPO have interpreted UK case law to twist that definition. They say, in effect, that once software expresses a technical contribution, it ceases to BE "just" software and so cannot be excluded from what is deemed patentable. (UKPO: UK Patent Office: EPO European ..) Their main weapon in this is summarised as: Imagine company A, call it ACME, that has a superb idea which they want to patent. This is a technical idea, it is tested as a proof of concept on a printed circuit board in-house. They claim the patent on the idea and describe it's implementation in hardware. Now imagine developer B, who has a superb idea for enhancing his own software and expresses that in, say, Java. He releases the software and gets lots of praise and acclaim. Company A thinks that developer B has expressed their idea in software - i.e. they allege that the program is a software version of the same conversion or processing that they put onto their circuit board. Note that company A never had to sell a single circuit board to get a valid patent. Who wins? The argument comes down to the nature of the object. If you believe developer B, software is not patentable and this overrides any expression of the technical contribution in his code. In effect, you are rating 'software' higher than 'technical contribution'. The Patent Office and the law courts currently disagree with you - 'technical contribution' has a higher priority in law than 'software'. Therefore the case by company A is proved because even though pure software is not patentable, it expressed a patented idea. Developer B is guilty of patent infringement and company A is granted punitive damages. From our perspective, the courts have taken an orange and changed it into a lemon. Note: this is the CURRENT position, without the controversial Directive. It has been the current position since the Fujitsu case (below). The status quo is NOT acceptable.
Who gives a monkey's if someone wants to patent something that's already been done - if they can't enforce the patent then as you say, it's just an expensive piece of paper.
That takes a small fortune to prove and if you simply argue that it is software, you WILL lose.
If it's a new invention then they can patent it and extract license fees or whatever for using that invention - fair enough, they invented it - whether or not software code can be classed as an invention is another matter.
In UK law, software has been classed as an invention - it was done when Fujitsu appealed a patent infringement in 1997, I'm trying to get the full reference. The Lord Justice at the time has been quoted as saying that anything technical is patentable, no matter how the idea is expressed. The current directive originally tried to 'clarify' the resulting legal position by encasing the situation after this decision in law - that is what the fight is all about. -- 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:
pgp00026.pgp
Description: PGP signature