tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8894406293288686953..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Advocate General says forget the functionality, look at the codeVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88295696461507756572011-12-02T22:22:15.904+00:002011-12-02T22:22:15.904+00:00The colorful SAS/Graph manual inspired me to repro...The colorful SAS/Graph manual inspired me to reproduce some of that system's functionality, namely the interpolation of irregularly spaced data for the production of contour plots. (Cranking out JCL for executing SAS under MVS wasn't an universal skill, the SAS syntax and dataset format were not excessively intuitive, and, IIRC, not everyone at the university had the permission to run SAS).<br /><br />I guess I must have been infringing someone's IP rights, although I mostly looked up and implemented the references provided in the SAS book, including a paper from Japan - so the folks in Cary NC did owe something to others too.<br /><br />I hope I've kept this manual somewhere, it was really beautiful. It had the slenderness of a finger, where the other SAS books were about as thick as your fist. But it, too, started putting on weight with the passing of years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75758854220061454562011-12-02T11:03:06.926+00:002011-12-02T11:03:06.926+00:00Re George, my university was certainly using 80 co...Re George, my university was certainly using 80 column cards for ALGOL in 1968: I still have some old ones that bear the legend ALGOL PROGRAM CARD [scrap cards were ideal raw material for making dart flights!]. I never used FORTRAN but later used 9 hole paper tape for BASIC programming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45709531799644465972011-12-01T00:58:54.534+00:002011-12-01T00:58:54.534+00:00@Anonymous "ALGOL": where I came from, A...@Anonymous "ALGOL": where I came from, ALGOL used punched tape, never punched cards, which were used for FORTRAN. Anyway, it meant ALGOrithmic Language, and that is how computer programmes were understood: algorithms, i.e. ways to do things. Not mere description. We call ways to do things "methods", and such are patentable, provided all the usual requirements are fulfilled. The product obtained is also protectable by the patent, unless it can be proven that it was obtained by another method. What is so difficult to reconcile?<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />George Brock-NannestadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15315189241867336442011-11-29T22:35:57.298+00:002011-11-29T22:35:57.298+00:00Dear Gibus,
I actually agree that patent law shou...Dear Gibus,<br /><br />I actually agree that patent law should never exist in isolation. The objections that others make to the CJEU's involvement appear to be twofold: Firstly, people are afraid that it can make patent litigation even more expensive and lengthy that it already is. Secondly, if you have a look at the IPKat's archives, you'll see that the CJEU's record in trademark matters, not to mention copyright, is, to say the least, somewhat controversial.<br /><br />Personally, I'm quite agnostic regarding referrals of substantive patent law to the CJEU. As a matter of fact, the CJEU has already ruled in matters of substantive patent law, notably, most recently, in Brüstle vs. Greenpeace...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58474348388096553852011-11-29T20:46:38.912+00:002011-11-29T20:46:38.912+00:00Hey dear anonymous, it seems you haven't got t...Hey dear anonymous, it seems you haven't got the point: our views are irreconcilable. You think you are arguing in good faith from your understanding of patent law. But I'm in no less good faith from my knowledge on computer science. I could argue that software is a self-describing entity but that would lead to a deeper endless disagreement So what I'm proposing, in relation with the post we are commenting, is just: OK we disagree, why not ask to CJEU to decide between our point of view?<br /><br />Would you agree? And if you would, would you therefore agree to allow referrals on substantive patent law to CJEU?Gibushttps://www.unitary-patent.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2432366601803617832011-11-29T18:21:12.645+00:002011-11-29T18:21:12.645+00:00Software is a mathematical description of a functi...<i>Software is a mathematical description of a functionality.</i><br /><br />No. First of all, software isn't just a description. Software is a set of instructions suitable to be carried out by a computer. A formula on a textbook is a "mathematical description", but it isn't software.<br /><br />Secondly, software doesn't just describe a "functionality". It actually sets out how this functionality is to be achieved by the computer.<br /><br />You can't patent a result to be achieved. I can't patent "a cancer cure", "a more efficient engine", or "a process for cleaning exhaust fumes", even if I've actually invented one. I can however patent "a cancer drug with components A, B and C", "an engine with components D, E and F, arranged so-and-so for higher efficiency" or "a process for cleaning exhaust fumes, comprising steps G, H and I".<br /><br />My whole point is that if, by "functionality", we understand the result to be achieved by an invention, well, that can't be patented anyway, regardless of the sort of invention we may be talking about, so that the AG's point is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of the patentability of software.<br /><br />I personally get tired of people in the FOSS microcosm dismissing as "patent legalese blurb" any good faith attempt by people who actually understand the patent system to explain how it works. The requirement of a "technical effect" is actually a <i>restriction</i> of what may be considered a patentable invention. And please note that the AG himself used the dreaded "as such" in the sentence that you quote yourself...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87414120501035889052011-11-29T16:17:11.920+00:002011-11-29T16:17:11.920+00:00Anonymous, I'm just tired of this patent legal...Anonymous, I'm just tired of this patent legalese blurb. Once for all, there is no technical vs non-technical software, no software "as such" vs software not-as such.<br /><br />Software is a mathematical description of a functionality. People in the patent microcosm do not understand this or do not want to understand.<br /><br />Hopefully, ordinary people and among them judges and advocates in CJEU do understand.<br /><br />So if you wanna tell to somebody your sophistry about "technical" software, please ask for European substantive patent law to be included in EU law (for eg. via the unitary patent, which is anyway unavoidable), and refer the question to CJEU.Gibushttps://www.unitary-patent.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-50108312929152895632011-11-29T15:29:03.633+00:002011-11-29T15:29:03.633+00:00In the early days of computing, the justification ...In the early days of computing, the justification for computer programs falling under the "literary work" heading was easier to appreciate: before VDU terminals became available, programs were written in alphanumeric characters on paper before being coded into machine -readable form such as paper tape or punched cards. The fundamental original version of the program was therefore clearly seen to be alphanumeric characters printed on paper, just like any other literary work. <br /><br />I recall writing programs in "ALGOL" using coding sheets consisting of lines of 80-character boxes to match the 80 column punched cards that I would have to punch to run the program. The stack of punched cards was the program, and bore both printed representations of the alphanumeric chaacrters as well as the machine-readable punched characters. In the days before cover disks, magazines used to print listings of programs that users could type in themselves. Nowadays few computer users actually write programs themselves, and the underlying structure of a program is invisible to anyone other than an expert having the neccessary tools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17772226229485609712011-11-29T15:06:20.362+00:002011-11-29T15:06:20.362+00:00Gibus, a functionality of a machine or of a proces...<b>Gibus</b>, a functionality of a machine or of a process aren't patentable either. How this functionality is achieved may however be patentable.<br /><br />Likewise, for a computer program or a computer-implemented process, the result to be achieved by this software should not in any case be patentable. However, how this functionality, if technical, is achieved, should be patentable and it seems indeed only fair that, when there is an invention, it can be protected in broader terms than those of the literal code. Mind you, not in such broad terms that it results in protecting the result to be achieved, just as you can't claim protection to any cancer drug, just because you have invented a specific formulation.<br /><br />As a previous AnonyMouse has pointed out, the very concept of copyright protection for computer programs is more questionable, as copyright was intended for artistic and literary works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46274779527421559892011-11-29T14:39:18.836+00:002011-11-29T14:39:18.836+00:00Also worthly to note:
"57. To accept that a...Also worthly to note: <br /><br />"57. To accept that a functionality of a computer program can be protected as such would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development."<br /><br />And since the AG does not mention the way to protect, we can therefore conclude that sofwtare functionnalities shall not be pretected by anything (including copyright nor patents).<br /><br />Now it is clear why patent microcosm (see https://www.unitary-patent.eu/content/inside-view-patent-microcosm) insist that CJEU does not pick its nose into patent litigations.Gibushttps://www.unitary-patent.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3034700379331199422011-11-29T13:04:30.102+00:002011-11-29T13:04:30.102+00:00Unless I am mistaken, the - in my view deplorable ...Unless I am mistaken, the - in my view deplorable - idea of copyright protection for the technical medium software arose because sequences of instructions as written down were considered literary works, nothing more, nothing less. And if I correctly recall my lessons on copyright of many years ago, what is protected in the case of literary works is the manner in which ideas are expressed, not the ideas themselves. Why then should it be any different in the case of the literary genre "software". Yes, the A-G got it right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com