[Sussex] Patents

[Geoff Teale]

Domonic wrote:
--------------
<snip>
> I think his views on Software Patents are noble, but impractical.
> 
> Anyone else have any knowledge in this field?
<snip>

The best "logical" arguement here comes from  Knuth:

http://www.pluto.linux.it/meeting/meeting1999/atti/no-patents/brevetti/docs/
knuth_letter_en.html

(be careful not to split the link above if you're using MS Lookout..).

The problem here is that the law has been abused by those with an interest
in destroying competition.  Patents are granted as a mechanism to encourage
investment in R&D where the costs would otherwise be prohibitively high.
This is all well and good (and is considered essential to the development of
drugs, for instance, in a free market economy).

The problem comes when the patent office do not understand what they are
patenting.  You would find it very hard to get a patent for " a method of
painting objects by forcing paint through a nozzle under pressure" - however
software companies have discovered that they can blind the patent office
with science and get patents for anything they do.

One key point in (English and Welsh law at least) is that the computer on
your desktop already has the mechanism in place to perform any action that
can be executed upon it as software - the root processes already exist and
software is just a way of activating those processes.  With this in mind it
can be argued (and this is indeed the view of the Law Society (effectively
the lawyers union)) that software of any kind is not legally patentable.  

Copyright on the other hand is perfectly applicable to software.  

The best analogy is that software is like music - you use some basic
building blocks to create something new - that new creation is your
copyrighted material, but it is not patentable because you have not created
any new processes.

Unfortunately within Europe and the USA we have some very wealthy
organisations lobbying politicians (who again know not of what they speak)
to support the concept of software patenting.

The good news is that many of this "stupid" patents do not stand up when
bought to trial.

The important fact to remember - a company applying for a patent on a
process is asking to be handed a monopoly of the sale of that process for a
number of years - in the software world they are asking to have a monopoly
that extends beyond the useful life of the software.  Ask yourself what
value there is in handing monopolies to companies, think about the economics
and consider how that works in the context of a free market economy.

Fundementally software patents are in direct opposition to both the spirit
and letter of the law in the UK, and the moral standing implied
decentralised economy - contrary to popular belief the USA is not a
free-market economy, nor is the UK - infact the USA and EU are among the
most centralised economies on the planet (bar Cuba (no pun intended for the
East Grinsteadians) and North Korea). 

-- 
GJT
geoff.teale at claybrook.co.uk




The above information is confidential to the addressee and may be privileged.  Unauthorised access and use is prohibited.
 
Internet communications are not secure and therefore this Company does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
Claybrook Computing Limited is a subsidiary of Claybrook Computing (Holdings) Limited
Registered Office: Abbey House. 282 Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7NJ
Registered in England and Wales No 1287205
 
A Hogg Robinson plc company