This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2008/04/20/sofwtare-patents-epo-uk/.
Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Patents at 1:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
‘Soft’[ware] IP = “You didn’t steal my code, but logically our programsachieve something similar, so you owe me some money.”
Mathematics-related patents in Europe seem to be silently percolating into the EPO’s mind if the following curious page is something to judge by. [via Digital Majority]
=> ↺ curious page | ↺ Digital Majority
Chiariglione’s video codecs evaluate the amount of data that needs to be actually digitised and the amount that can be “predicted” mathematically. Samples of the current frame are compared line-by-line with those of the preceding frame, and only the samples considered “sufficiently different” are being stored. Today, all commercial applications of digital video encoding are based on such predictive coding systems to save storage space.
Manipulation of matrices that involves no physical product or byproduct must never be patentable, or else we might see a comeback of modern-age middle ages (the feudal system) where only those sufficiently wealthy are allowed to practise and to share things such as algorithms, i.e. recipes of logic, thoughts. Why need any system devolve like this by choice? Clues are appended as individual links at the bottom.
=> must never be patentable | the feudal system
Pieter seems to have just launched an aptly-named new site called IPocracy and Digital Majority links to a another new article about the confusing situation in the United Kingdom.
=> ↺ IPocracy | ↺ the confusing situation in the United Kingdom
Confusion reigns on software patents
A row is brewing over the lack of consistency surrounding the protection of software rights, and it needs to be resolved if the UK is to stay in step with European law, say experts.
There is a fair deal of corruption here in the UK. We wrote about it previously, even yesterday. Be sure to read it if you haven’t, if only just to realise how corrupt the whole system has become. Groklaw’s comment on the same news from London is: “You may remember Newham, because when they announced they’d go with Microsoft instead of Open Source, they said it was because Microsoft’s software was cheaper and more secure, this at a press conference in 2004, and the room full of journalists spontaneously burst out laughing. I wonder how they feel now about the CapGemini study that told them that was so, which they said persuaded them to choose Microsoft?” █
Related readings (external):
[Microsoft Lobbying Arm] CompTIA Adds New Intellectual Property Rights Depth to Its Advocacy TeamSlovenia, France build pressure for Community Patent [with Microsoft shill Jonathan Zuck's endoresement]The confusing case of software patents in the UK gets more confusingA Patent LiePlaying Microsoft Patent PokerOpen Source Foes In Bed With AbramoffReport Says Nonprofits Sold Influence to AbramoffStudy: open source needs official support; Lobbyist disagrees with “flawed” conclusionsLeaked letter warns of open source ‘threat to eco-system’Years of deadlock on EU patent bring some new thinkingBig businesses boast of patent benefits, for small businessesTech Group Expands State Lobby EffortsMEPs debate tightening up lobbying rulesEnding software patents: Has the time come?
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).