Try to read all that say there, or at less the first paragraphs, what do you think?

"In most countries, software has, like mathematics and other abstract subject matter, been explicitely considered to be outside the scope of patentable inventions."

You know my signature, also patent a idea, a solution that is software is not a good thing..... I dont like this idea.

"patents on algorithms" arggghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is not good!!!!!!!!!!!!, is patenting a way of solution!!!!!, the way that some think... if other think in the same way or near... will be closed by the patent??? it dosent matter that he/she dont know about the patent, but they can claim that is patented!!!!!!.

Free coders will be stoped????, no more little snipets??, they are patentable???, a secuence of instructions is patentable?, then a algorithm is patentable too, you ideas are patentable?.

Personally I say in the past, i like a little more think in ways to solve some than write code, but I code too, and if I think in a "new solution" that have a patent and i downt know (like here:Some times this happend to you? ), This will be bad for me... :(, you dont like to share ideas and have feedback, and a posible retroinspection about the idea????

I dont know much about this, but if some patent how to construct a OS, for example if is redhat, they will close Windows, or if windows get the patent of OS they will close the others?, also Solar OS, Menuet OS, react OS and other will be closed??. If some patent the IDE's and RAD's, akyprian, Ewayne, KetilO will be closed, or need question if they can continue?, etc.....

What do you think?, personally i dont aprove patent a idea, i think that is the software, like the maths, ideas, also remember that the major part of computer cience is made by mathematics in some way, then have a mathematic thing too.

Nice day.
Posted on 2003-08-30 18:08:00 by rea
i hereby patent the "mov" keyword .. and the use of "eax".
Posted on 2003-08-30 19:29:10 by enjoy!
One thing that isn't far away is the patents on gens, it's absurd, I thought patents only could be taken out on "machines/things that are invented" -- genes aren't invernted, they evolve.

I will probably get most american wanting to hunt me down and bring me to american justice for saying this but it's MY PERSONAL OPPINOION* (-prove- me wrong and I'll re-evaluate my oppinion):
It's the American comercialism's fault, and the leaders (including non am.) that seek it's goals, as I see it it's the money that rules - not the political leaders or the people (for those living in democary - what ever democracy ment in ancient Athens).
Let me say that, I like the idea of the american dream - but somewhere during the late night hours it tuned in to a night mare, somebody please wake me up! (I know that money have been a strong leader in the past, but now days it's on a bigger and broader scale. It's not called corupsy/bribes but lobbyism, representational dinners, ... )

To go back to the ePatents, software are algorithms, algoritms are a set of (mathem.) rules for how to solve/deal with a scenario (right?). Soon we'll have bloody patents on algebra/math (things as the soluton to ax^2+bx+c=0 where a = 1 (x=-(b/2)+-sqrt((b/2)^2)-c) ) and thoughts as well! (I'm *not* joking :mad: ).
Perhpaps this is stupid to say but, I'm considering become a cyber-anarchist - I will not let e-patents stop me from inveting, creating and using algorithms only to finds someother jerk wrote it before me and/or had the money to patent it (jerk because (s)he jailed freedome by putting a patent on it).
Why not take it even further ad absurdo, nobody has patented speaking, thinking, living, reproduction, celluar division, duplication of DNA, matter, energy, yet, better hurry I'm sure we can get a patent in the ___ that will span the entire Q-qountinium...

There was a time when the world was an utopia and no patents existed what so ever not even the concept of patents existed, guess when it was, a few nights ago in my dreams...

* since it's my personal oppinon I'm allowed to express it (at least here in Sweden) - if it's a crime in the country where this server is located - inform me and I'll edit my post.
Posted on 2003-08-30 19:33:56 by scientica
I have placed appropiate banners on both:

Nope you can not patent "mov" until you do not pay a huge fee approximative 1milion USD with all expenses and such and not until you do prepare a huge documentation and do not get approved from pattent office,

It is not as cheap as poor man's copyright for intelectual original work,
Only big company's can make this

I can not say what i will do if this law goes by, after all why will it not?,

We are slaves and they are masters and as i have told you before masters can devise any laws needed to keeep slaves down, .... as long as money and competition rule this world we have no chance

It is ironical that we (at least in ROmania) have escaped from the terrorismus of communist goverments just to dive into the terrorismus of the capitalistic governments, ironic and sad

I guess i will be one more steep closer to that edge... and i will have to understand that freedom is more important than my good peacefull life and the good life of others

Posted on 2003-08-30 19:54:15 by BogdanOntanu
Good the site is closed now. I hope same thing happens to the official event.

Important! Visit that site, and go to the site, that page will redirect you to in 20 seconds. It's . There you'll see a "Sign. Support Now" . Click on it, and fill in the 2 fields. You will receive an email to confirm. Confirm. You'll have more to do. Enter your info - make it correct, doing a trick that is easily noticeable will make things worse. Then you'll be given a page, full of links, that is a menu - chose "finalize entry". and after that it's all ok.
This will help us retain our state.
Posted on 2003-08-30 21:41:42 by Ultrano

If I come up with a new way to process rubber and make it into oil I can rightly patent the process. Did I invent rubber ? No, did I have anything to do with the fact that vulcanized rubber has carbon chains in it ? No. The thing that I would patent is the process, in the same way software is a process that yeilds a result and imho the process is patentable. In my rubber to oil example I may not have invented even the machines, chemicals or any particular part of the process but it is still unique and therefore I should be protected from others who would use it for profit without paying a royalty to me.

If you design a radical new database sorting algorithm and do not wish to release it to the public domain, what is protecting your algorithm, nothing. The copyright laws do not cover the algorithm, just the code itself. If somebody decompiles your code and rewrites the algorithm he is probably not violating your copyright. However if you can patent the process, you then own the algorithm and it makes it that much harder to steal your work.

I am not a programmer nor do I work in IT for a living, but in the last year since I became interested in programming I have gained a great deal of respect for the amount of work and knowledge that is required to effectively write a program. There are those here whose insights into code reduction and algorithms border on genius, why should they not be allowed the same protection for their work as the guy who sells George Foreman grills on the tube every night.
Posted on 2003-08-30 21:58:21 by donkey
I generally agree with donkey, but with reservation. As BogdanOntanu mentioned, patent is unlikely to protect people with brilliant ideas but without big money. Also, people at the patent office are less likely to recognize what is worth protecting. How many of you remember Amazon's cookie patent comedy?

Another reservation. Patent is, by definition, supposed to reveal details, if not everything. That is required for normal manufacturing patents. Some small firms do not file patent papers because they don't want to reveal their own trade secret. When it comes to algorithm, I don't know whether that will be imposed for algorithm patent or not. If that is not imposed, then I'm against the patent. If that is not imposed, I can do this absurd thing: I patent string search algorithm. Algorithm details are not disclosed. No one can search string anywhere without paying me royalty. Even Boyer and Moore should pay me royalty. Do you want this to happen?

A loophole (or deadlock): If the patent reveals the algorithm completely, how would that be enforced? Say, Boyer-Moore algorithm is patented. I use that algorithm without paying royalty. But, I distribute only binary files with EULA prohibiting reverse engineering. Then, without violating the copyright, no one is able to find out that I stole Boyer-Moore algorithm. Now, if somebody sues me with patent infringement, I file a countersuit of copyright viloation. Pretty neat. Huh? Now, how does the patent protect the patent holder?
Posted on 2003-08-30 22:48:56 by Starless
In the case of the boyer moore and other algorithms like it, there are datasets that is performs badly on, and ones that it performs well on. A simple comparison of the execution and results using the same datasets would give you enough cause to order the disassembly of the program for verification. You are entitled to a certain degree of latitude when protecting your patent that would not otherwise be allowed, as long as the decompile was only used in order to verify your patent was being infringed upon it is usually allowed as the license agreement would be void anyway.

"If the patent reveals the algorithm completely, how would that be enforced?" well, that has been a problem in all feilds of development since the patent system began. It is not a question that is likely to be answered easily or probably ever. I remember when amorphous technology silicon was first developped it was delayed for years while they worded the patent.

The idea of patents is to provide the means to protect your work, not to actually protect it. The legal system is there for redress if your patent is violated. I have alot of things that I find wrong about the legal system and especially the ability of the little guy to defend his rights. But that is not the question here, the question is simply should we give that little guy the opportunity to have the same rights everyone else has?

I say yes. My only proviso would be that you cannot patent an algorithm that you would otherwise not have the copyright to, and that the patent is void if it is later demonstrated that the copyright was not yours.
Posted on 2003-08-30 23:08:08 by donkey
While patents in origin were a great thing, in these current times I can not support what they've become: a vise for large companies to extort individual developers and smaller firms into 'co?peration'.

Corporations like IBM have tens of thousands of patents and there is no way that you will not infringe on one in a significantly sized application. Here in Europe the concept of an online shop is patented! Such things are insane and should not be allowed.

BTW Donkey, the 3th genome on your left of that hairfollikel is patented, better pay up, infringer :grin:

The original purpose of a patent was exactly to protect the individual developer and small firm from the bigger boys, not to enslave them.
Posted on 2003-08-31 08:24:31 by Hiroshimator
"BTW Donkey, the 3th genome on your left of that hairfollikel is patented, better pay up, infringer"

Damn, and I liked that particular genome !

Actually the race to patent the genome is kind of funny. Just about everybody knows that the patent is not defensible. It's a dirty little secret that everybody is keeping and they just go on writing patents in the hope that they might someday win in court. That is extremely unlikely. There was a bio-engineering firm that went bankrupt in the US a few years back and they tried to convice the receiver that the patents on a few fragments of genome were valid assets and should be considered in the disposal value of the company. The reciever (Ernst-Youhg I think) came to the conclusion that though the patents were registered and had some intrinsic value that value should be set at $375.00 US (The fee for filing the patent). No one has yet challenged the genome patents in any serious way as they have never been defended (not counting engineered genomes) and you can not challenge them unless there is damage to you (i.e. you are being sued for infinging them). The patent law is quite clear however:
If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it has been in public use or on sale in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.

I believe that my hair follicule genome was in use before the patent was issued. Also natural processes are expressly not patentable.
Posted on 2003-08-31 12:18:23 by donkey
stupid patent

here a prime example of the abuse of the current system. MS has been slapped with a 520something million$ fine on this just now. The fact that they're not fighting it is probably to create a precedent for the patentholder so that it can be used to attack the smaller groups like macromedia, sun etc... who do not have such a cash reserve.

frankly, it's insane.

sigh I absolutely hate vbulletin
Posted on 2003-08-31 14:46:07 by Hiroshimator
I agree that it is a stupid patent. But in reality it is the fault of the patent office for granting the patent in direct violation of it's rules. There is a basic misunderstanding of computer technology and software in the patent offices and they have a tendancy to examine only what's on the screen and not the underlying process. In Canada a software patent must pass the scrutiny of the National Research Council before it can be accepted as an invention. The fact that the US patent office seems to be asleep on the job does not negate the usefulness and the rightness of software patents however. The rule involving this type of patent is fairly clear, if the invention is the application of an existing technology that is otherwise an obvious extension of the technology then it cannot be patented. I wonder hwo they managed to slip this one past, probably got it through on the "ordinary skill" loophole.
The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention.
Posted on 2003-08-31 15:11:50 by donkey
Can anyone here imagine a far off future with money? I think not! Money is a major motivational force right now, and those with much money are working to ensure this is so. But the inevitable conclusion is that money will hold no value in the future.

If I had a patentable idea I couldn't afford to patent it: I would have to find investors to profit off my work. This is the way it has been for thousands of years - the wealthy profit off the ideas of the poor. IMHO, this kills the desire to be creative and expressive.

Look at the music industry. :) Oh, do they hate the internet: does any artist need a big music company to promote them? Many middle men are being left out of their comfortable incomes.
Posted on 2003-08-31 16:40:09 by bitRAKE
This is what I think: this is the intro for the people that want see.

And from here:

The software industry must not be confused with the patent industry. Some large software and hardware companies and big associations seem to be asking for software patents, but even there, in many cases these are being hijacked by their patent departments.

80% of software salesmen are against software patents. 80% of patent salesmen are in favor of software patents.

So far, many people in the software business in Europe have had very little experience with patents. Some even confuse patents with copyright. Once more people actually start reading patent claims, the animosity against software patents may rise from 80% to 100%.

FFII has created a large database of European Software Patents. We have exhibited some of these patents in a horror gallery. Among the exhibited specimens are patents on MP3, which have been awarded prizes by the European Commission and are generally considered to relate to "real inventions". The problem is that even real innovative achievements, when formulated as patent claims, tend to become broad and trivial. This is because software is logic, and logic is built of many small steps of reasoning, which have to be claimed individually if there are to be patents in this field.


Behind the software patent problem is a more fundamental one: tolerance toward patenting of logic, often expressed in the form of function claims.

I don't understand completely what was trying to prove here, but I think you can better the idea:

And you can see here another thing :D inner point method of linear programming, , also at the end of the page you can find other link that links to a article of Donald Knuth and Software Patents.

Also really I don't see any name like: The svin algorithm, or bitrake not NaN OOP model there.... also not add-in of donkey. The patents work for the big ones... not for developers

See there how many patents on software are pending ( do you know how many money?), also I will say, software is a solution to a problem, is a freedom for thinking, is a gymnastic like the maths for the mind of the people that practice it, then if this can be patented the solution to ax?+bx+c can be patented too, see that the major part of the programmers... 80% don't want this... and the patents says that he will protect his work?, also I think GPL, LGPL the artistic and many many others cover what the called patents say that do. The patents are not necessary.

Also Like i was reading patent need a physic thing or a specific thing, programs are abstracts in a totally way it doesn't matter the language that you write it. (I can prove this, I was thinking in the past for a post at nasm forum generated by the package of sheroc I protect there the point that abstraction can not by extracted from asm or any other language or a program, also i 'make a model' (in a night at 3 a.m.) a abstract thing on how we think, and I think that implement what I write that night in a future implementation to AI will be fun for test if is true or not or more to see if work or not), also is a algorithm, but i don't want a patent :D I want share it doesn't matter that I don't sleep that night ;) and I don't want that other patent my work and don't let me use before 20 or more years......... If you want I can show you my idea.. or my solution and you can give a little feedback now is more like a process but a process is a program ;), a program is a algorithm, a algorithm is a sequence of things to do to solve a problem and do this is a expresion of the mind not is a patent, (**).

This is covered yet Knuth quote: "It's okay to charge for services and customization and improvement, but don't make the algorithms themselves proprietary. "

** I am thinking in show my idea, is not very complex and I think that is a approximation, I don't know much or near to nothing on AI. But I am thinking if can be in that way and other (a big one) patent what I think in that night, then this thing will don't let me use my idea at less for the next 20 years!!!!, now I really think if share is correct....????, yes share is correct, is a principle for The human kind, the people, communication is that, I communicate with my self and with others and there is the Interaction, the interaction is very important without interaction the laws of physic can not exist, they call interaction (communication) in many different ways, like electromagnetism, gravity, force, mathematics communicate two things by symbols 2+3 = ?, etc, etc I will post my idea ;), let my clean and think a little more about it and I will think that nobody want put a patent on it.......... (maybe some one want it, if is good), I like think, I want think and patents will say that my think is patented, then proivit my logic and my imagination to express a solution to a problem.

Nice day.
Posted on 2003-08-31 22:29:24 by rea
This kills the idea of education... How can I learn something, if I must pay... not for knowledge, but for using of knowledge?
They wanna enforce peple to stop thinking... Why to think? May be some one already have patented this idea?
One thing that sets people apart of animals is thinking...
May be we should return back some time ago when there was tax for the air in some countries?

The Arian Race (current generation of mankind) has left the 3rd Eye, so we can't access the Global Pool of Information, given beyond... Now they are making some obstacles to access to current knowledge base...

One more stupid thing...
IIRC, in Khazakhstan one man patented some kinf of "upgrade of computers". If some one wanna add a sound card & CD-ROM to computer, then he MUST pay fee for him... He really tryed to get some money from computer resellers that sells sound card & CD-ROMs... Just "some mistake" of patent bureau...

And let's imagine: one genious hacker has got a very smart idea, improving some technology like Internet..
And he release this idea for free... And one very smart company patented his idea and starts to get money...
What will this man do? Don't forget about many lowers defending interests of company... And don't forget that hacker is genious... He will find a way to stop this, for sure... And 3rd World War will start from World Wide Web (3WW&WWW)

The problem is not in patenting, the problem is that this fact will be used wrong... Any way ideas will be stolen and used not for authors incoming... We can see a lot of examples when we're using current software, and we'll see more if this will be the law...

Sorry for English, sorry for wasted bytes...
I'm just afraid that some one on this board who teached me, now will say: "hey, you! you have looked at my sources and ideas, now I have some patents and you must pay"
Posted on 2003-09-01 03:11:10 by S.T.A.S.

One thing that sets people apart of animals is thinking...

No patents and stuipid use of it (ie lack of thinking), "to patent or not to patent"...
Posted on 2003-09-01 11:51:38 by scientica
How about putting up a 'say no to software patents' on this site too, like bodgan has done on his site. (you can put a smaller banner if u want)

no point just creating threads. putting a banner will atleast attract a visitor's attention
Posted on 2003-09-01 13:51:27 by clippy

How about putting up a 'say no to software patents' on this site too, like bodgan has done on his site. (you can put a smaller banner if u want)

no point just creating threads. putting a banner will atleast attract a visitor's attention

I agree. :alright: . I'll do that after I can Access my own Site( I forgot the Password, and the Conection still bad).
Posted on 2003-09-04 20:45:50 by realvampire
well I'm sure there are some who have a different opinion on this matter and this is not a political site.
Posted on 2003-09-05 05:05:20 by Hiroshimator