EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

09.27.12

Europe and New Zealand Share a Software Patents Problem As Such

Posted in Europe, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 12:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Patent law in New Zealand and in Europe starts showing some resemblance, with similar loopholes being put in place

THE patent law in New Zealand (NZ) has been subverted to enable granting of software patents.

“IBM and Microsoft successfully rewrote NZ software patent law,” says the FFII’s president, Benjamin Henrion, quoting a source about “replacing an exclusion in clause 15(3A) (which relates to computer programs) with new clause 10A. Rather than excluding a computer program from being a patentable invention, new clause 10A clarifies that a computer program is not an invention for the purposes of the
Bill (and that this prevents anything from being an invention only to the extent that a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such). This approach is considered to be more consistent
with New Zealand’s international obligations (the TRIPS agreement, in particular, contains restrictions on the ability to exclude inventions from patentability). This approach is also more consistent with
overseas precedents and makes it clear that it is only computer programs themselves that are ineligible for patent protection. Under the Bill, a patent may still be granted for an invention that meets all of the criteria for patentability (for example, novelty and an inventive step) despite the fact that the relevant invention involves a computer program in some respect…”

“This is a real shame,” he noted.

Here is further commentary on it: “Last week we reported the last minute backtrack by the New Zealand government, deleting a controversial provision in its new Patents Bill stating that ‘a computer program is not a patentable invention’, and replacing it with a controversial provision which still says that ‘a computer program is not an invention’, but only to the extent that it is ‘a computer program as such’. (See NZ Government Backtracks – to Europe – on Software Patents.)

“The basic idea behind this change is to import about 30 years of European and UK jurisprudence on what it means for something to be a computer program ‘as such’, in the expectation that this will allow – amongst other things – inventions implemented using embedded software systems to be patented.”

Clare Curran responded to this abomination in NZ. Prior to it, wrote the FFII’s president: “Patent law in New Zealand will be voted tomorrow, with or without the as such provision, but I was wondering if the exclusion proposed here by opponents was enough to shield software developers from lawsuits:

http://no.softwarepatents.org.nz/

“”10A(2): Subsection (1) does not prevent an invention that makes use of an embedded computer program from being patentable.”

“I find it a bit odd as a clarification.

“Software developers should not care about patent law, even if they develop “embedded software”, whatever that means.

In response, wrote another knowledgeable activist against software patents: “It’s not a great amendment. (I didn’t write it.) But it might still
work.

“Unclear law is a big problem in Europe because it was all written before software became commonplace, so judges can’t be sure if the author (of the EPC for example) really wanted to exclude software patents.

“In NZ the situation will be better because they have a law that allows software patents, and then the politicians said “no software patents”, and now the law is getting changed. When a judge has to interpret it, she should take into account that this law is supposed to have different effects to the previous law, and the intention was to reduce or abolish software patents.

“(That said, I haven’t been able to confirm that this is how NZ judges work.)

“The other good thing is that the petition has helped to get people organised. If the petition is a success and the politicians listen, then it means the anti-swpat camp is in control and maybe some slight changes can still be made, for this reading or for the subsequent reading. Maybe a few words can be added to the end to clarify that it means inventions controlled by an embedded computer.

“But the short answer is yes, the text does contain a loophole, but it’s too late to change it so we have to look for ways to bring the campaign back to the right direction.”

These are the words of Ciarán O’Riordan who worked with FSFE. The FSF highlights similar problems that go on in Europe and the FSFE does the same by noting: “Now the European Parliament is about to decide on setting up a single patent for Europe, known as the “unitary patent”. This is a chance to get rid of software patents. But if we don’t manage to achieve a real change in the current proposal, software patents will become even more entrenched in Europe.”

Glyn Moody says that “MEPs are back at work, and the Unitary Patent rears its misbegotten head again.”

After TomTom gave up in Europe and Microsoft had its FAT patents upheld in Germany we already see the serious consequences of software patents in Europe. Microsoft bans Motorola devices in Germany and to quote Murdoch’s press, “Google has suffered yet another defeat in its overseas patent battle with Microsoft.

“A German court ruled Thursday that a number of tablets and smartphones made by Google’s Motorola Mobility division infringe a Microsoft patent, and granted the software giant a ban on their sales in Germany. Microsoft must pay a bond of $61.4 million if it wants to see the ban implemented.”

There is more coverage of this and some background: “A court in Munich ruled on Thursday that Google-owned Motorola Mobility (MMI) must recall all the Android tablets and smartphones it has shipped in the country which infringe Apple’s “rubber band” scrolling patent, which was key in its billion-dollar lawsuit win against Samsung in the US.

“The dramatic decision, the latest in an escalating war between Apple and the smartphone and set-top box company MMI, follows earlier cases in which Apple had to disable automatic “push” delivery of email to its iPhone and iPads after MMI won a separate patent fight in Germany.”

Microsoft is getting desperate because “HP has already decided to halt development of Windows RT tablet PCs, while Dell reportedly may also back away from the segment, according to sources from the upstream supply chain.”

Moreover, Intel is not impressed by Vista 8, so despite large-scale patent battles we expect Android to carry on thriving.

Thankfully, people across Europe fight back against inane patent laws. April, a French group advocating software freedom, says: “On September, 13th, 2013, over 460 companies from all over Europe got involved to demand the improvement of the proposal for a unitary patent, following the call for action launched by April and by signing the resolution proposed with StopSoftwarePatent.eu and FFII.”

There is more from April [1, 2] and other groups or individuals who say that “a patent does NOT protect the innovator. It protects the one that filed the patent. It’s called the first-to-file doctrine and is used almost everywhere on this planet now.”

In NZ, this has been a subject of much debate. One person writes:
“Queen’s Counsel Andrew Brown has today written an article in which he confirms that the “as such” proviso added to the Patents Bill in its second reading will allow software patents to continue to be granted in New Zealand.”

Chuan-Zheng Lee has been “[r]eading lots of interesting blogs on #NZPatentsBill #swpats “embedded” vs “as such” debate” and Moody writes that “New Zealand capitulates to the #swpats lobby (see second clause) – http://bit.ly/TmW6Lp sad; #NZ will live to regret this” (background here).

There is even a whole new blog about it, called “No Software Patents in NZ“; it is protesting against software patents n NZ.

So the good news is, as was mentioned before, the public is starting to realise what happens and it gets involved.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

A Single Comment

  1. saulgoode said,

    September 28, 2012 at 5:03 am

    Gravatar

    This to me seems somewhat nonsensical from a grammatical standpoint.

    The two clauses:

    (1) A computer program is not an invention for the purposes of this Act.

    (2) Subsection (1) prevents anything from being an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such.

    Could more succinctly be written as (merely by directly incorporating the as such “exception” of the second clause into the first):

    (1) As a computer program, a computer program is not an invention for the purposes of this act.

    Such phrasing is nothing more than tautology; it does not make an “embedded computer program” any more, or less, patentable than a non-embedded computer program.

What Else is New


  1. From the Eastern District of Texas (US) to Australia Patent Quality Remains a Problem

    Patents on anything from thoughts to nature/life (in the US and in Australia, respectively) demonstrate the wildly wide range (or spectrum) of patents nowadays granted irrespective of their impact on innovation



  2. Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101 and PTAB Are Here to Stay and Even Their Critics (Patent Maximalists) Have Come to Accept That

    Taking stock of the latest PTAB news and rants; the latter has become scarce because efforts to undermine PTAB have all failed



  3. Patent Trolls Roundup: Conversant Wireless Licensing (Formerly Core Wireless) and Blackbird 'Technologies' Still Prey on Real Companies

    A quick recap of recent decisions and motions, which serve to show that patent trolls can be beaten, avoided, and sometimes even 'disarmed'



  4. Links 19/8/2018: Skrooge 2.15.0, Wine 3.14, End of Akademy 2018

    Links for the day



  5. David Ruschke, the PTAB's Chief, is Moving So the Patent Maximalists Push Their Anti-PTAB Agenda

    As the chief judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) moves elsewhere at the USPTO there are those who hope that a replacement will undo PTAB inter partes reviews (IPRs), which generally improve the quality of granted patents



  6. If David Chiles Turned the USPTO Into a 'Microsoft Shop' That Might Explain Three Days (or More) of Outages

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is having profound technical issues; some already point their fingers at David Chiles, alleged to have been hired/promoted for the wrong reasons



  7. Links 17/8/2018: GNU/Linux From ASUS, Debian at 25, Lubuntu Plans

    Links for the day



  8. Links 16/8/2018: MAAS 2.4.1, Mesa 18.2 RC3

    Links for the day



  9. USPTO Craziness: Changing Rules to Punish PTAB Petitioners and Reward Microsoft for Corruption at ISO

    The US patent office proposes charging/imposing on applicants that are not customers of Microsoft a penalty; there’s also an overtly and blatantly malicious move whose purpose is to discourage petitions against wrongly-granted (by the USPTO) patents



  10. The Demise of US Software Patents Continues at the Federal Circuit

    Software patents are rotting away in the United States; it remains to be seen when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will truly/fully honour 35 U.S.C. § 101 and stop granting such patents



  11. Almost Two Months After the ILO Ruling Staff Representative Brumme is Finally Back on the Job at EPO

    Ion Brumme gets his position at the EPO back, owing to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO-AT) ruling back in July; things, however, aren't rosy for the Office as a whole



  12. Links 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  13. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  14. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  15. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  16. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  17. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  18. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  19. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  20. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  21. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  22. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  23. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  24. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  25. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  26. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  27. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  28. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  29. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  30. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts