This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Software patent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lchanrasmi.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Older (2004-2008) comments are archived, because this page reached 100K. If you want to contribute to these discussions just copy and paste the section here, and remove it from the archive.
Please add new entries at the bottom of the page, you can use the [+] or [New section] button. Don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~ or similar, thanks.
In my perception, the designation "software patent" is informal. Yes, imho there must be a Wikipedia artice under that name, simply because this (informal) designation is widely used. But at the same time, due to its informal nature, there is no reason to attempt a definition. The scope of the issue is best defined as: what patent applications may be affected by the exclusion in art. 52 EPC? For America, this definition may not be satisfactory, but then again in American patent law, software patentability never was an issue, at least not under this name. The Americans rather objected the patentability of "mathematical algorithms" for several decades.
There is reason to argue that "software patent" is not just informal, but even incorrect terminology at an "ontological" level. Because patent law basically only covers "tricks", not the resulting realisations, conceivably a patent may be implementable both in hardware and software. Rbakels ( talk) 13:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Should we make a section that describes patent law in New Zealand and how software patents are illegal there by a recent law passed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
citations
http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/40451-new-zealand-says-no-to-software-patents
http://www.geekosystem.com/new-zealand-bans-software-patents/
http://www.cpaglobal.com/newlegalreview/4617/south_pacific_cousins_part_way
http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/50667-new-zealand-bans-software-patents —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122589423KM (
talk •
contribs) 12:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
From the Why software patents are a joke, literally article by Ed Burnette, it says that: A former Sun/Oracle employee admits that developers created patents in a contest to see who could get the goofiest patent through the system. Now Oracle is using patents from the same folks as the basis for its lawsuit against Google. How much that the software patent has a "knee-jerking" history. Perhaps there is a need to address this. Komitsuki ( talk) 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think (my POV) that software patents are important -- that a patent in and of itself constitutes a valid secondary source since it's validation by a second (impartial) entity -- a government agency charged with saying that a method or process is new. If you are a software writer, patent attorney, or work in the computer industry or otherwise have a view on this, I urge you to weigh in on the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Killian.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 17:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
@GDallimore, RE: (→Overlap with copyright: "very" limited protection? POV and not correct - it's just less protection than patents, but that point is already being made in a more neutral way in the rest of this section. Discuss before adding these materials back). I have 3 points I ask you to reply to:
1) Instead of wholesale deletion, may I suggest that you correct what you believe to be biased? For example omit the word "very", that would still be satisfactory to this contributor.
2) Under copyright law, when a work is modified to a sufficient degree, for example symbol renaming and flow change, please clarify if it is your belief that the original author will have little or no difficulty proving the derivative work was their own.
3) In the contributions I made, and points you feel were redundant, please cite where in the topic those points were already made (
a) comparison to other copyright; b) ease of obfuscation to circumvent copyright; 3) advantages if any that patents offer given #b; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensystem ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
@GDallimore,
I also suggest that the inclusion of Music and other copyright expressions, is appropriate as it highlights to lay readers why Patents are generally applied to to technical creations, whereas Copyright may be sufficient for Music etc where non-specialist can determine if there is sufficient resemblance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensystem ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/30/54 pages 24-30 contains references to cases and also terms that address how software specifically is analyzed for copyright violation, and specific methods to determine to what degree "copied work" must be "substantially altered" before an infringer to claim separate authorship. Specifically:
Abstraction Filtration Comparison, Literal vs. Nonliteral Copying, Merger Exception. See also "Nimmer warns of the pitfalls in use of a 'look and feel' type of test"
Kensystem ( talk) 16:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Kensystem ( talk) 05:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Kensystem ( talk) 17:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Every computer professional but only few patent attorney know that overlapping concurrent property rights are a threat to innovation. This is very clear since Samuelsonss Manifesto http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/NQuinn/COEN288/Manifesto.pdf . If you read Kensystems sources in that light, no one needs to search for the literal words "patent" in these sources to reallize that these are examples for a concurrency that hurts. Swen ( talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/08/yahoo-facebook-patent-dispute/ Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There are many more software patent cases in Germany than tin the UK. Presently I do no have the time to write an article myself (and to risk that it will be removed because someone found "original research" or whatever). Rbakels ( talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bcbronline\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The hopeless Patent Commons stub needs a home, not necessarily here. – Be..anyone ( talk) 03:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Without a separate article on each of mass peer review and patent bounty, it is going to be very difficult to describe what Peer to Patent means relative to software patents, nor how the risk of software patent ambiguity and applicability is managed by real attorneys.
Do some web searches and you'll realize very quickly that these are very widely used terms and at least need to be redirects to whatever article. Neither term is going away and both are fundamental to modern software patent practice, and not only in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.57.99 ( talk) 21:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
In the section on Japan, a purported example is given of a software patent that was successfully enforced. However, the enforcement was overturned on appeal. I would hardly call that a "successful" enforcement! Are there any other examples? Hairy Dude ( talk) 23:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Software patent. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
At Arrow information paradox (should that page and/or this paper and/or the other, be linked from this WP article, maybe in "See also" (or from similar articles and/or the debate-one?)?), I came across:
That paper is this one: "The (Relatively) Easy Case for Patents on Inventions" [1] that says:
"This article shows that, as to a market for technological ideas or information generally, those suspicions are likely correct, yet, the narrative introduced here focuses on something narrower: the voluntary market exchange of inventions. Inventions are special packages of information coupling technological and economic parameters into a modular thing that interfaces with the overall price system. This article shows that a patent system that supports such a market in inventions can be economically justified relatively unambiguously."
I still haven't read much further, just search for software patent, found noting except for software (only really this footnote): "14 See JAMES BOYLE, SHAMANS, SOFTWARE, AND SPLEENS 253 (1996) (describing support for the “current system” as “an article of religious faith”); see also BESSEN & MEURER, supra note 3 at 74(quoting James Boyle as discussing IP policy not on empirical evidence but instead on “faith-based” reasoning)." comp.arch ( talk) 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
When searched for in a Wikipedia search bar, the small blurb for this article reads "concept introduced to create an undue monopoly." Unsure where this content can be changed but I think it's clear it should be. 66.175.245.1 ( talk) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Especially the Apache mpl and gpl licenses now including patent grants to what are essentially only computer software in copyright only Slinkyw ( talk) 18:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The Armenia paragraph does not make sense to me. I checked the source article, and the paragraph appears to quote the exact wording of the source article. I suspect a translation issue. Scott McNay ( talk) 19:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)