Intellectual property Toolkit
Story: BT accused of GPL violation
BT's attitude is unsurprising
Its apparent lack of respect for the copyrights of the authors of the FLOSS software it takes advantage of is just the tip of a very dirty iceberg. In its submission to the Gowers Review, BT made clear its support for the economically unjustifiable and recklessly expansionist practices of the EPO:
"We have not encountered particular barriers obtaining IPRs in the UK because of system complexity, although we would welcome greater alignment of UK Patent Office (UKPO) practice with that of the European Patent Office (EPO) on issues such as patentability of computer implemented inventions and inventions rejected as mental acts...
...BT’s innovation is increasingly being implemented through software-based technologies. The ability to be able to protect our heavy investment in this innovation is of vital importance to us, and we take the view that patent law and practice should accommodate advances in this field, just as has happened in other areas of technology. The political debate in the European Parliament on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions last year was, in our view, ill-informed and based on myths about the patent system and its impact on the economy and innovation."
It was indeed ill-informed and based on myths. Myths and misinformation which the IPR Directors of companies such as BT seem keen to promulgate, despite the economic facts and arguments of which they can hardly still credibly claim ignorance:
http://www.researchineurope.org/policy/patentdirltr.htm etc.
"Equally, we are supportive of all efforts by Patent Offices to improve the rigour of their searching and examination of patent applications, to ensure a strong system that precludes users from obtaining patents of dubious validity in any area of technology. Such dubious patents can hinder the development of competing products and damage the interest of all companies large and small. We look forward to contributing to the recently announced Patent Office consultation on inventive step requirements for patentability."
Welcome sentiments from the company notorious not only for its singularly dubious hyperlink patent but for its attempts to actually enforce it. Fortunately BT did not prevail but it is hard to imagine a potentially more damaging and innovation hindering wielding of a patent.
Full Talkback thread
