26 Aug 03
I have just come across information about a campaign against the European Patent Office granting patents on software.
This could affect RHP one day, if Russ ever implemented something that infringed a patent.
In any case, it seems to me an important issue. For more info, see:
Online Demonstration Against Software Patents
http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html
26 Aug 03
1 edit
unlikely that it would infring on RHP: retrospective application of law isn't permitted in europe. So outstanding software methods could not apply for patents, while everything here would be prior art, since it is already here.
its worth reading up though: patenting methodology (as software patentability basically boils down to) is a dangerous buisness. I shan't go into the ins and outs, but consider:
Why do patents exist?
Are the costs and patentable periods still applicable to the modern age of technology? Or should patentable durations / cost be geared towards the subject area?
Can a patent actually protect a small inventor vs a large industrial infringer? If not, why not.
Can one patent knowledge (e.g. DNA has already been patented, despite the ideology that knowledge is not meant to be patentable)
Consider the polical use of patents (the usa patent office for example has in the past effectively acted as a measure of protectionism for home-grown buisneses)
Are lawyers taking over the world?
🙂
26 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by ToeNot so simple. British Telecom tried to claim it had a patent on hyperlinking, based on a research paper that pre-dated the internet.
unlikely that it would infring on RHP: retrospective application of law isn't permitted in europe. So outstanding software methods could not apply for patents, while everything here would be prior art, since it is already here.
Maybe five or six years ago someone patented a "mechanism for simulating a game board in a client-server environment by the scripted manipulation of simple bit-mapped images downloaded to the client" or some such concept.
Maybe somone is right now considering a patent on something Russ has already coded for RHP Live (or some other enhancement), but has not released, so it isn't yet published art.
The European Patent Office has already given Amazon a patent on the concept of ordering rdering something from their web site to be sent to someone else as a gift, so the lawyers are well on their way to taking over this part of the world.
26 Aug 03
Originally posted by RolandYoungbased on a previous patent, not a research paper. And they failed anyway.
Not so simple. British Telecom tried to claim it had a patent on hyperlinking, based on a research paper that pre-dated the internet.
see http://www.theregister.com/content/archive/26802.html
26 Aug 03
Originally posted by ToeActually, the US patent office has been granting patents for software for years. Since RHP's servers are located in the US, those are the patents that are most relevant.
unlikely that it would infring on RHP: retrospective application of law isn't permitted in europe. So outstanding software methods could not apply for patents, while everything here would be prior art, since it is already here.
its worth reading up though: patenting methodology (as software patentability basically boils down to) is a dangerous buisness. I sh ...[text shortened]... as a measure of protectionism for home-grown buisneses)
Are lawyers taking over the world?
🙂
I don't mean to quibble, but I should point out a couple of things wrt your questions:
"Can a patent actually protect a small inventor vs a large industrial infringer?"
- Patents don't protect inventors per se, they are used by the patentee to prevent others from doing that which is claimed. As such, a small inventor who has obtained a patent can go to court to stop a large company from infringing the patent and get damages for past infringement. Court can be quite expensive (especially in the US), but there are now some law firms that take patent infringement cases on a contingency basis (i.e. they only get paid if you do), provided you've got a good case.
"Can one patent knowledge (e.g. DNA has already been patented, despite the ideology that knowledge is not meant to be patentable)"
- I don't know alot about genetics, but it is not DNA that has been patented, it is mainly specific isolated genes, as far as I know. Perhaps one of RHP's resident biologists can fill us in on this...
These patents are admittedly questionable, since the subject matter is something existing in nature, but it'll be a while before people get upset enough to change the system. (Currently, the province of Ontario is blatantly infringing a patent for the breast cancer gene owned by Myriad Genetics, hoping that they'll sue and the patent's validity can be tested in court).
26 Aug 03
Originally posted by richjohnsonActually, the US patent office has been granting patents for software for years. Since RHP's servers are located in the US, those are the patents that are most relevant.
Actually, the US patent office has been granting patents for software for years. Since RHP's servers are located in the US, those are the patents that are most relevant.
I don't mean to quibble, but I should point out a couple of things wrt your questions:
"Can a patent actually protect a small inventor vs a large industrial infringer?"
- P ...[text shortened]... ad Genetics, hoping that they'll sue and the patent's validity can be tested in court).
Very true: software has been patentable in the US for a long time. For example, the rather classic 'XOR' cursor function we see on all our PC screens was patented.
...can go to court to stop a large company from infringing the patent and get damages for past infringement. Court can be quite expensive (especially in the US)...
Interestingly, if you are not from the US, to raise an action in the US costs a small fortune. Not refundable unless you win, and only after you win, and not even always then either. So the small non-US patent holder really has little practible method of protecting their IP (intellectual property), particularly as a good bunch of big buisness lawyers can keep you continually trans-continental travelling until you go bankrupt and can no longer proceed with court expenses: refer to the first point: you loose, case over, you scuppered.
This isn't just a US situation though: other legal juristictions are effected in similar manners.
Regarding rhp and the US: the relevant patents would need to be already in effect, in which case RHP would already e in violation within the states.
I'm not sure if RHP is sited in the UK or the US, and quite how that effects US access to RHP (take the french yahoo nonsence for example).
Lawyers will soon rule the world. if they don't already.
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by ToeIt costs a small fortune to go to court in the US regardless of where you are from. I was saying that there are firms that will foot the bill for you if you have a good case (in return for a rather large chunk of the award, of course). It's not cheap in Canada either, but I have heard that patent lawsuits in the Netherlands can be dealt with much more efficiently. Any dutch players out there who've come in contact with the Benelux patent system?
Interestingly, if you are not from the US, to raise an action in the US costs a small fortune. Not refundable unless you win, and only after you win, and not even always then either. So the small non-US patent holder really has little practible method of protecting their IP (intellectual property), particularly as a good bunch of big buisness lawyers can keep y ...[text shortened]... french yahoo nonsence for example).
Lawyers will soon rule the world. if they don't already.