I've always though trying to discriminate against "software" patents was particularly stupid.<p>First: it simply encourages patents where the entire computer is included in a description of the software, turning it into a product/apparatus patent.<p>Second: the problem most people have with software patents is not the fact that software is being protected. The problem is that software patents are rife with "inventions" that are merely a low-effort merging of existing ideas – usually ideas that are well established and the context is changed slightly.<p>This second point applies to <i>any</i> industry, not just software. Biotech industries are continually trying to patent drugs and genes using the same pattern. Fix the stupid determination of novelty, rather than discriminating against certain kinds of invention.
How is it different from Europe?
According to Wikipedia [0]: "Under the EPC, and in particular its Article 52, "programs for computers" are not regarded as inventions for the purpose of granting European patents"<p>[0]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...</a>
This is awesome. India is doing the correct hung these days. First they show Zuckerberg the door and then this. Kudos to whoever is in charge of this change.
<i>"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"</i><p>Software patents are currently a drag on innovation. The benefits of giving a company a monopoly in exchange for sharing their software "invention" isn't a good bargain - especially when their "invention" will be, and has been, independently invented over and over again 99.9% of the time.<p>Patents may be OK for some things but they cause more harm than good in the software field.
The US equivalent of this ruling would be the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Very similar ruling by the US Supreme Court, urging the USPTO to stop endorsing process patents in general because of their claims to abstraction.<p>This ruling is reverberating throughout the legal community.<p>It's great, and we can make real strides in the medical, business, and software fields without being hindered by trolls and monopolies.
I'm really liking this trend. The US's version of this is Alice v CLS Bank case. Very similar rulings, and the effect is reverberating throughout the legal community.<p>I think it's great that process patents in general are going bye-bye. Now we can make some real strides in the medical, business, and software fields without being deterred by trolls and monopolies.
Turkish Patent Institute also explicitly states <i>no software patents</i>.<p>Search for <i>programs</i>:
<a href="http://www.tpe.gov.tr/TurkPatentEnstitusu/resources/temp/FCF70E4B-ABEE-49E3-A769-5D1343953E85.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.tpe.gov.tr/TurkPatentEnstitusu/resources/temp/FCF...</a>
Right, all Linux distribution move their patent encumbered software to a special Indian-based repo server. Or someone else does it with donations from Westeners to keep the servers running.<p>I can dream. But should this work, then that's the end of the U.S. and European hegemony on abstract ideas like business processes, patents based on processes "that use a computer" and any mathematical concept - which puts paid to patents on most network protocols and compression algorithms.<p>And what a great world that will be. The first grand step in killing all patent trolls.
Uhm, this sounds a lot like: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr</a><p>Which is essential the beginning of patents, in the US. Basically, the software has to run on a hardware device.<p>How is it different? (IANAL)
Because a computer program is just a set of instructions, you could argue if we even need copyrights!? Personally I think software copyrights is a nice middle way.<p>Software pattens is just silly, you want to have comments in your code? Pay Microsoft! You want to make object oriented code? Pay Oracle. Need networking? Pay Facebook.
I also find this distinction stupid. Just abolish all patents and make your business plan accordingly (High quality products, Trade secrets, Saturating the market, Early entry advantage, etc.) I have yet to see a compelling argument against this.
Right. Go from like 20 years to 0 years.<p>Does anyone ever think that maybe they should go to 5 years for software patents instead? Why go from one extreme to another?
Honestly I would not give much important to Indian Patent Office. It can be appealed in High Court and Supreme Court which may take our lifetimes to arrive at any conclusion