Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/Ray.Norris/WGAD/IAUGA2006/WGAD_pg2.pdf Дата изменения: Sat Aug 26 13:47:04 2006 Дата индексирования: Tue Dec 25 23:46:23 2007 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: quasar

Software Patents ­ do we care?
Preben GrosbЬl European Southern Observatory

Content 1 2 3 4 5 6 Patents vs. copyright Some history State in US Situation in EU Patent Infringements Conclusions

Sources:

IAU GA, Com.5 WGAD meeting, 2006-08-16

Wikipedia, ; Bitlaw, ; RedHat Magazine, May 2005, G. DeKoenigsberg; FFII, Enterprise Open Source News Desk, June 30,2006


Patent vs. Copyright
Patent (Latin 'patere' ­ to lay open): Granted to inventions related to:
Processes, machines, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter But not for scientific truths or mathematical expressions of it

Grant exclusive rights for fixed period of time
To prevent other from making, selling ...

In exchange for regulated, public disclosure of details Copyright: Exclusive rights to use a particular expression of an idea or information for limited time Applicable to wide range of creative, intellectual works
Books, plays, movies, music, software, ...

Covers only particular form or manner of manifestation
But not intended to cover actual idea, concepts, facts, ...

Goes to public domain after expiration

Prague, 2006-08-16

IAU GA, Com.5 WGAD, P.Grosbol

2 page


Short History of Patents and Copyrights
Patents: Venetian Statute of 1474, Republic of Venice Statute of Monopolies 1623, King James 1 of England Exclusive rights 1646, Province of Massachusetts Bay Patent Commission 1790, US Paris Convention for Protection of Industrial Property 1883 Convention on grant of European Patents 1973 Copyrights: Became issue with first with movable type Privilege 1491, Republic of Venice Copyright monopoly 1518, England German privilege 1501, Aulic Council Statute of Anne 1710, England Berne Convention 1886 (automatic copyright) Universal Copyright Convention 1952
Prague, 2006-08-16 IAU GA, Com.5 WGAD, P.Grosbol 3 page


Software Patents in US
I n 1 9 7 0 ' s: Computer program viewed as mathematical expressions Software related inventions considered non-statutory I n 1 9 8 0 ' s: Software as part of process was patentable (Supreme Court) I n 1 9 9 0 ' s: Software which only process binary numbers ­ unpreventable If manipulation of real world values patentable (Federal Circuit) State Street decision 1998: State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group Issue on software/algorithm to calculate values of mutual funds Software implementation of business methods is patentable Currently in US: Software and data structures can be considered patentable

Prague, 2006-08-16

IAU GA, Com.5 WGAD, P.Grosbol

4 page


EU Software Patent Situation
European Patent Convention of 1973: Mathematical methods, intellectual methods, business methods, computer program, presentation of information etc. is not inventions in the sense of patent law European Patent Office (EPO) 1998: Step toward patentability of pure software I n 19 99-2000: Trilateral Standards on Computer-Implemented Inventions (CII) Commission and EPO proposed change but was rejected In 2003 (proposal 2002/0047): Inventions patentable except software programs Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) I n 20 05-: EU Parliament reject proposal for software patents Proposal to remove patent system from legislative review
Prague, 2006-08-16 IAU GA, Com.5 WGAD, P.Grosbol 5 page


Software Patent Infringements
Red Hat and Jboss Sued Red Hat acquired Jboss in 2006 FireStar charged Jboss for patent infringements
Hibernate 3.0 is available in J2EE EJB and Jboss Middleware (JEMS) US Patent 6,101,502 on
Interfacing an object-oriented application with a relational database

FireStar has had relationship with Microsoft

Excess of software patents One patents for Viagra by Pfizer Fourteen patents for positioning/movement of cursor by Microsoft Many may not be valid ­ not original inventions Annual patent filling 2000 -> 3000 (Microsoft 2004) More software patents do not necessarily mean more innovation!

Prague, 2006-08-16

IAU GA, Com.5 WGAD, P.Grosbol

6 page


Do We Care?
Difficult to know if you infringe a patent Copyright is written in source code ­ patents not 50% of software patents are invalid But one may need to prove it ( e.g. In court!) Issue may be real (ref. Red Hat case) Concern for Business model software e.g. end-to-end observatory systems Access to databases e.g. Hibernate Utilization of Web interfaces and services Who benefits from software patents? Patent trolls Lawyers Copyrights is adequate ­ not need for software patents Y e s ­ we s h o u ld c a r e !

Prague, 2006-08-16

IAU GA, Com.5 WGAD, P.Grosbol

7 page