Community news: Topic on software patent

[Pyree]

Just read this article on ZDnet Australia:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/australias-software-future-patently-unclear-339325470.htm

I think Pirate Party Australia does raise some valid point, especially "software algorithms were mathematics, which was unpatentable."

I am going to see if I can get a copy of their submission to the review from Pirate Party Australia and post a link here after I contact them.

So what is your thought on this matter?

Edit: I thank Brendan from Party Party Australia for the quick response. More details of the submission can be found on the links to the party's website.

The press release:
http://pirateparty.org.au/innovation-patent-system-submission

The complete submission in pdf:
http://pirateparty.org.au/documents/submissions/PPAUPatentIssuesPaperSubmission.pdf

Also

An issue paper on the review by the Australian Government Advisory Council on Intellectual Property:
http://www.acip.gov.au/library/Innovation%20Patent%20Issues%20Paper_Final_v2.pdf <quite a bit of reading

Let the discussion begin.

 

[PhilFrisbie]

Anyone who has taken an introductory programming class knows that program algorithms are mathematics.

 

[Pyree]

But sadly law legislator doesn't. They spend time on boring law books studying laws.

What I found really unfair is that you can just patent stuff but they never come up with a product in the patent's life. That is the completely opposite to what this world needs: innovation and productivity.

I think during the patent period, there should be review paper that must be submitted to the patent office to show effort of development every 3 years or so, or else the patent expire. The submission made the same point on "require patent to be used" part.

But what else can be done to improve that patent law? Any ideas?

I know this is not software, but I do feel strongly about this- gene patent. I agree that genes cannot be patented because novel gene is discovered. So unless the sequence is complete man made, it shouldn't be patentable.

Also drug patent. That is just immoral. High price for new drugs and poor people cannot afford it die. Then secondly, the designer don't make most of the profit. The comapny they work for and hold the patent makes the most money.

 

[PhilFrisbie]

Concerning patenting genes: In the US you cannot patent natural things, and our genes are natural things. Enough said!

 

[Pyree]

But if it is engineered, then it is patentable. I think the outcome gene sequence shouldn't be patentable. But the process of making it should be.

 

[PhilFrisbie]

True, but most gene sequence patents are for detecting inherited diseases. The patents do not cover the process, they actually cover the sequence you must find, which means no other company can create a way to test for that sequence without violating the patent.

 

[Pyree]

So, if you loosely translate this to a software, that would mean the function of the software is patentable, but the code of how to achieve that function is not. Therefore you can have different software with the same function.

Impose this on the slide to unlock patent, that means the slide to unlock patent is totally meaningless, if such system of patent is applied.