The European Software Patents Directive, which has not yet been finally approved by Europe's politicians, will allow patents for software that can demonstrate a 'technical contribution' and which satisfy the tests of obviousness that other patent applications have to pass. Software that does not demonstrate a technical contribution will not be patentable, say the backers of the directive, which include the UK Patents Office and Lord Sainsbury, who has helped steer the legislation through.
Critics say the directive does not do enough to define what is meant by technical effect, and fear it will lead Europe towards the US situation where software is widely patented.
The laughs from the audience of experienced software developers in the DTI Conference Centre on Tuesday, as representatives of the UK Patent Office tried to in vain to make the distinction, appeared to convince Lord Sainsbury that more work needs to be done here.
Mooting the idea of a seminar on the issue of technical contribution, Lord Sainsbury said: "We will see if we can do some more work on technical contribution. It would be useful for us to get some more views, even if after this legislation is passed, on how we interpret that. This is key to the whole issue."
But Sainsbury stopped short of saying that it would be possible to affect the legislation itself, and hinted that only those who were in Tuesday's meeting would be invited to any further meeting on the issue. The Patent Office restricted places in Tuesday's meeting to those who had written to their MPs on the issue, and even many of those did not receive invites. Any further meeting is likely to be similarly restricted, said attendees.
Tim Jackson, a developer with London-based Premier IT Group, said the problem is that there is no definition of what constitutes technical contribution. "There has been a very low barrier," he said. "This directive will allow software patents."
Talkback
What a complete farce! A bunch of programmers sitting about tring to understand "technical contribution". They wouldn't know it if it slapped them in the face! They're too busy ripping off other people's work and peddling it as they as their own - whcih is of course is why they want to kill off the CII Directive, so they continue to do so.
The fact is that patents protect innovation. they do in IT as they do in every other innovation-based industry. Why is IT any different ? (sorry to puncture your balloon, Geeks, but you're just the same as everyone else). base your views on FACT. Provie evidence that the curent practivce of granting what you call "software patents" is doing harm (and don't give US examples, give European ones. ..... Ah, the sound of silence).
The open source community has whippe3d itself into an hysterical tizz over something that is frankly a non-event. the downside is that they there is a chance, slight, but real, that they will succeed. Which will be great for the US, Japan, China, India, Oz, etc. etc. They're not going to dump their patenting systems. Which is great because it will ensure that the programmers will all have work making code for the inventors in those countries!
P.S. If you happen to be a hapless inventor, pack your bags and move to the States!
Simon, something tells me you're not a programmer. You wouldn't be a patent lawyer, by any chance, would you?
I think everyone was laughing because the UK Patent Offiice was 'patently' incapable of defining a 'technical contribution'.
Does anyone want to call Simon a trator to freedom or shall I!
Anyway, we should be laughing because the goverment has mucked up defineing IT definions again! HA HA HA HA!
The Fight for freedom has scored a high today!
Some more info on Simon Gentry : http://kwiki.ffii.org/SimonGentryEn
Simon Gentry wrote:
<<What a complete farce! A bunch of programmers sitting about tring[sic] to understand "technical contribution". They wouldn't know it if it slapped them in the face! They're too busy ripping off other people's work and peddling it as they as their own - whcih[sic] is of course is why they want to kill off the CII Directive, so they continue to do so.>>
Programmers understand innovation and invention, it is their bread and butter. The UKPO understands neither software nor innovation and is sleepwalking into a US style tar pit of companies using patent portfolio's aggressively to cripple smaller or innovative rivals with court battles, and where it is no longer possible to release software without seeking the advice of an IP lawyer and taking insurance against patent infringement
Programmers who rip off other peoples work are breaking copyright, contract and trade secret laws already. I have never seen this actually happen outside of Microsoft and a handful of large and aggressive american software companies.
Those who do not want software patents rightly fear that they will be unable to do their job with the huge legal burden of avoiding anything already patented. Given how bad this has become in the US and now australia, only a fool would follow this path willingly (or an Intellectual Property lawyer or a large company with a lot of lawyers and deep pockects).
<<The fact is that patents protect innovation. they do in IT as they do in every other innovation-based industry. Why is IT any different ? >>
Software is mathametics and protected more than adequately by copyright, trade secrets and contract law. IT isn't different - patent your new microchip or circuitboard or incredible widget, just so long as it isn't obvious and pushes the boundaries of possibility.
Patents are for the benefit of society, not inventors. They allow an inventor a limited monopoly purely in the interests of society, allowing any risk and expenditure to be rewarde, so long as it balances with the needs of society.
<<(sorry to puncture your balloon, Geeks, but you're just the same as everyone else). base your views on FACT. Provie evidence that the curent practivce of granting what you call "software patents" is doing harm (and don't give US examples, give European ones. ..... Ah, the sound of silence).
>>
Sorry, you are very wrong. Mathematics and business processes are not patentable. They never have been and they never should be. EU and UK law reflect this but the UK patent office has been failing in its duty. They want this directive without amendments to jusifty and legalise their oversight and reward their cronies like Nokia and Microsoft.
Software patents are already doing harm in Europe and the UK - go to the ant-software patent websites and there is a long list. Unlike yourself many of us have a proper job to do and can't waste all out time doing the job of the e Minister for technology and science or patent office properly.
<<The open source community has whippe3d itself into an hysterical tizz over something that is frankly a non-event. the downside is that they there is a chance, slight, but real, that they will succeed. Which will be great for the US, Japan, China, India, Oz, etc. etc. They're not going to dump their patenting systems. Which is great because it will ensure that the programmers will all have work making code for the inventors in those countries!>>
Programmers are the inventors - their work is inventing, this is why we can see and solve problems where the UKPO and the Labout Government sees only opportunities to reward illegal monopolists and cronies.
If the EU and UK accept the amended directive then, we will have a huge advantage. Avoiding software patents will ensure that our developers, designers and technologists are free to innovate, unhindered by aggresive patent-portfolio hoarding mega-corporations and that small businesses can compete with larger businesses
Simon Gentry wrote: "P.S. If you happen to be a hapless inventor, pack your bags and move to the States!"
A hapless inventor? Such a Microsoft who have patented the double-click, or Amazon, who patented one-click shopping?
P.S. If you happen to be a small software company, pack your bags and move to India.
I think the fact remains that no software developer or software development company feels they are being 'hard done by' because they can't patent their ideas, in complete opposition to the fact that most American software companies (except the ones with really big guns) appear to be running scared.
The problem is computers and computer software moves forward at such a rate that patents in their current definition have absolutely no relevance whatsoever and would cause massive harm to most software companies. Incidentally of course, they would be hugely beneficial to patent attorneys and lawyers.
I am a software developer, working for a software development company. We don't need patents and we don't want them. We want to spend our money creating new ideas and improving people's lives, not on court cases.
Mr Simon,
You said that programmers wouldn't recognize real innovation even if it hit them, well then tell me who would recognize inovation? IP campainers, those hit man from the large industries? Sorry but your aruments are fundamentally flawed. I think copyright is the best way to protect software from being copied. Suggest I start building cars that have the look and feel of a more expensive brand Jaguar for example and I bring them to te market as my own. Who would stop me? Those softwarepatents do just threaten innovation instead of helping it, but that's just my opinion and I think I'm not alone in this.
The patenting of software is not only a bad idea it would prevent many ordinary software engineers from practicing their profession and would put many small companies out of business. The meeting at the DTI may have been a joke but it was a joke in very bad taste. It is clear from the transcript of the meeting published by the DTI that the minister was not able to provide a coherent answer to any of the questions raised at the meeting. He complained at one point that only those who were opposed to his policy had turned up - even though the stated purpose was to allay the fears of the opponents.
Having worked as a computer programmer for the past 45 years I cannot understand why patents are necessary now when they were not applicable during the most innovative period in computing history.
I was particularly shocked by the misleading statements and the lack of knowledge of the people from the Patent Office who clearly have a vested interest in extending their sphere of influence. Why is it in the public interest to put yet more money into the hands of lawyers?
I do not believe that this is a proper way to conduct public business.