On Wednesday 11 August 2010 13:50:57 Venkatesh Hariharan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:05 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 August 2010 16:09:33 Krithika wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > > > The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is filing a pre-grant > > > opposition to a software patent application by Microsoft. > > > > As an adhoc measure too it will wind up as agreeing in principle > > to software patents. The patent law is explicit in not allowing > > software patents. The "per se" term is (imo) a qualifier to the > > next parts which state that a programmable machine with software > > does not qualify. > > Hence we should be opposing software patents not on terms of prior > art > > > or obviousness, but merely on the grounds of being bad practice > > by the patent office. > > Dear JTD, > > It is a bit of a complex issue. There are some people in the patent > office who agree that this is bad practice, but the question is, > who is will bell the cat?
CIS could (should) follow a dual track. > I see the oppositions proposed by CIS as > valuable because it makes use of the remedial measures made > available to Indian citizens under the Patent Act. I am only voicing concern about a "fight with one hand" approach. Without opposing all software patents as a whole, you inevitably wind up legitimising software patents and reducing the whole argument to good and not good patents. The US is an example, where they are now debating the patentability of software and business methods - after screwing themselves thoroughly. In our case the legislation has provided a clear statement on the non patentability of software, yet we choose to take the more slippery route for a defense. The final result is that disproportionately large resources have to be deployed in a thoroughly useless activity, by groups most vulnerable and with the least resources. > It is this kind > of vigilance that can help us weed out bad patents from the system. IMO (and in the opinion of everyone who knows the patent system) ALL software patents are horrendous, including the so called "defensive pools". It's only a matter of time before business get takeover by monetising firms and they start using such patents against whoever. > I agree with you 100 percent when you say, "we should be opposing > software patents not on terms of prior art or obviousness, but > merely on the grounds of being bad practice by > the patent office." We must point this out to the patent office. If it is an argument lets get them to argue about software being not patentable on a general purpose programmable machine, which would then become an argument about general purpose and programmable and machine. All of which is well settled as far as computers with ANY media go. And would automatically shift the onus to the patent application on proving the uniqueness of his machines non general purposeness and non programmability. > I > am also assuming that, if efforts like that of CIS are successful > in invalidating bad patents, it will eventually change the > evaluation procedures followed by the patent office and reduce the > chances of bad patents being granted. I doubt we have the resources to even scratch the surface on grounds of quality. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
