We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Software Patents cancellation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertarian Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2585
Description[?]:
| Software is not the industrial design, software is ones and zeroes, mathematical symbolic language. Where would be the mathematics if the mathematical algorithms have been patented in past? We must immediately ban future software patents whatsoever. *Software patents hurt innovation!* |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The patenting of software techniques.
Old value:: Software patents can be obtained from the patent office.
Current: Software patents can be obtained from the patent office.
Proposed: Software designs, techniques, formulae and algorithms cannot be patented.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:24:06, May 28, 2008 CET | From | Democratic Rationalists (PrCoa) | To | Debating the Software Patents cancellation |
| Message | We'd like to see discussion by people with technical expertise, if anyone can. In my understanding, the question is whether software is properly the domain of copyright law or patent law. The argument for copyright law is that it is text. The argument for patent law is that it is unlike most text: it is text that does something. What it comes down to me is whether or not there's a reasonable IP protection for creative endeavors that doesn't infringe too strongly on consumer rights. From what I understand, patent protection is significantly weaker than copyright protection. So really, under that assumption, and under the further assumption that if software isn't patented it will be copyrighted, this law would actually somewhat strengthen IP protection for software. The main issue, I suppose, where, consumers get screwed under software patents is with the issue of scope. Under a *copyright,* yes, the programming for Windows is copyrighted, but only that specific programming. I know less about the scope of patents. I know that the fact that you have a pharmaceutical drug which treats depression doesn't prevent other people from making a drug which treats depression. Only your particular chemical structure is protected. I dunno. I'm going to have to ask for Parliamentary testimony from experts in IP law and computers. The ultimate question is "will consumers benefit?" And right now I don't know the answer to that. |
| Date | 23:51:20, May 28, 2008 CET | From | Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Software Patents cancellation |
| Message | well, what do the experts say? at the hearing i visited, experts said software algos should not be patented ever. |
| Date | 00:24:40, June 01, 2008 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Software Patents cancellation |
| Message | How vague. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 94 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 577 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 79 |
| Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure their "Bills under debate" section is kept in good order. Bills which are irrelevant or have become irrelevant should be deleted. Deletion can be requested for bills proposed by inactive parties on the Bill Clearout Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "Envy is the cause of political division." - Democritus |