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 Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Fenner Brockway Socialist Party
Status[?]: passed
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: November 2118
Description[?]:
| A bill to abolish software patents. |
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 | 19:34:35, September 28, 2005 CET | From | Fenner Brockway Socialist Party | To | Debating the Software Patents Act |
| Message | Our party believes software can be copyrighted, but not patented. We believe that software patents severely stifle innovation, as well as being difficult to enforce. The notion of "software techniques" is far too broad to be legitimately subject to legal protection. |
| Date | 23:55:52, September 28, 2005 CET | From | Junker Party | To | Debating the Software Patents Act |
| Message | This bill would invite the 'stealing' of our military technology and the such, and consequently, cannot be supported by the Junkers. Furthermore, it would promote the standard civilian computer nerd's legal plagarism of large corporate software, throwing one of the largest markets into turmoil. We will firmly vote no on this issue. |
| Date | 00:34:41, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Fenner Brockway Socialist Party | To | Debating the Software Patents Act |
| Message | We are puzzled by the Junker's response. We have made clear that copyright will remain. It is only software patents that we object to. Software copyright will continue to exist. But software patenting is far more controversial; indeed, the European Parliament recently rejected it by 648 votes to 14, and this despite the fact that the conservatives are the largest party group. It will be interesting to see whether Aldegar is equally progressive. FBSP itself is led by a software developer and our professional opinion, and that of colleagues we have consulted, is unsympathetic to software patenting. |
| Date | 04:56:23, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Junker Party | To | Debating the Software Patents Act |
| Message | Ok, so let us refraine our concern in a more open way, what exactly do you denote as a patent? |
| Date | 08:50:16, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Fenner Brockway Socialist Party | To | Debating the Software Patents Act |
| Message | The legal definition of a patent is vague, but it can only apply to inventions. Wikipedia says that "there are compelling arguments in opposition to patent rights". Nevertheless our party is not proposing an abolition of patent rights in general; we are merely advocating that they are not relevant to software. Computer program content is protected by copyright, and this law doesn't change this. The question is the much broader one of whether the designs and techniques of software should be patentable. A breach of copyright occurs if you copy someone else's work. A breach of patent occurs if you use the same programming technique. A program can be copyrighted, just as a novel or a film can. But why should a programming technique be any more patentable than a narrative technique or a cinematic technique? A campaign website argues, "Programming is similar to writing symphonies. When a programmer writes software, he weaves together thousands of ideas (algorithms or calculation rules) into a copyrighted work. Usually some of the ideas in the programmer's work will be new and non-obvious according to the (inherently low) standards of the patent system. When many such ideas are patented, it becomes impossible to write software without infringing on patents. Software authors are in effect deprived of their copyright assets; they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by holders of large patent portfolios. As a result, less software is written and fewer new ideas appear." (http://swpat.ffii.org/intro/index.en.html) |
| Date | 10:37:13, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Novy Smer Party | To | Debating the Software Patents Act |
| Message | We shall support this bill. |
| Date | 12:27:56, September 29, 2005 CET | From |  Ducal Delegation | To | Debating the Software Patents Act |
| Message | His Grace will lend his support to this, as he is firmly of the opinion that too many of the wrong sort of people have made too much money out of technology software. Percy Waterman (First Minister of Aldegar and Personal Secretary to the Grand Duke of Hikirena) |
| Date | 16:54:48, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Junker Party | To | Debating the Software Patents Act |
| Message | You have persuaded us to support you in this bill. We apologize for the misconception we had on patent rights. |
| Date | 19:06:26, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Fenner Brockway Socialist Party | To | Debating the Software Patents Act |
| Message | No need to apologize - we thank you for your support.q |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 269 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 52 |
| Random fact: It is not allowed to call more than 5 elections in 5 game years in a nation. The default sanction for a player persisting in the early election tactic will be a seat reset. |
| Random quote: "Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction." - Charles R. Magel |