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 Patent Legalization Act (SPLA)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Solentian Corporate Communist 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: August 2129
Description[?]:
| It is agreed software patents are legal. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The patenting of software techniques.
Old value:: Software designs, techniques, formulae and algorithms cannot be patented.
Current: Software patents can be obtained from the patent office.
Proposed: Software patents can be obtained from the patent office.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:09:57, October 17, 2005 CET | From |  National Socialists | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | We believe this would mean a terrible blow to our already undeveloped high tech series. Patenting will create monopolies and hinder new technologies in all options unless it's based on something completely new. What next? Good thing pythagoras didn't patent his techniques. |
| Date | 01:36:52, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Solentian Corporate Communist Party | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | What is the point of inventing things if you cannot benefit from your own inventions? The Republic must take this step in order to proceed to the top in terms of technology in Terra. |
| Date | 01:48:44, October 18, 2005 CET | From | National Socialists | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | If we patent the little we have, new companies will not have a chance to develop new alternative systems that rely on a same base, technique or even algorithm. This is the competition killer #1 and we believe competition is a primary source of continuous evolving. |
| Date | 05:23:31, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Solentian Corporate Communist Party | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | How can you compete when one company makes the one design because it isn't patented? All new inventions happen to improve on the previous version. However, if anyone can produce the same version with no need to improve on it since anyone can produce it, there is no competition whatsoever. Maybe the NS wants to have one brand of software in all our stores, but the SCCP is about variety and quality. |
| Date | 13:14:14, October 18, 2005 CET | From | National Socialists | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | "Maybe the NS wants to have one brand of software in all our stores" This proves how little the SCCP knows of this matter. You just said the very reason why patents on software DESIGNS, Techniques, Algorithms should not exist. Also, don't confuse this with patents on a final product, that is an entirely different level. Maybe the SCCP should have a dialogue with software developers or programmers first. |
| Date | 16:52:14, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Solentian Corporate Communist Party | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | The NS also shows its inherent incompetence with its reply. Again, with companies not allowed to copy eachother's work, technology will grow at a faster rate and there will be a variety of software products available, not the EXACT same thing with just different names on them. When we talk about different brands of cereal, we are talking about Corn Pops and Wheaties, not your definition of variety like Fruit Loops and Tootie Frooties which are exactly the same. |
| Date | 17:56:53, October 18, 2005 CET | From | National Socialists | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | You talk of incompetence, yet you do not even grasp what your very own proposal includes. There is a clear lack of knowledge on Software Industry. We suggest that the SCCP stops the mudslinging and for once consider the implications. There is a serious difference between final software products, and available development technologies. The comparison of cereal products does not apply to this debate. Instead, consider a construction company that is suddenly allowed to patent the design of a hammer the previously invented. This raises severe complications for other companies. - They should invent a new hammer, is what I hear you thinking. No, because the design is patented. (On the very competitive software market this means the hammer would be algorithms, designs and available techniques to build new software) You can patent finished products all you want, but once again we suggest that the SCCP should gain insight on the software market before walking in the unknown. This logic would create a couple of superior brands while destroying the tools for creativity, derivations and extensions, and that's what software design is all about. |
| Date | 01:23:56, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Solentian Corporate Communist Party | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | And once again, the NS shows its true incompetence, or maybe ignorance, in its misunderstanding, or perhaps the understanding, of the SCCP. What you said is exactly what we propose. We suggest you read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" for what we are talking about. Regardless of the final product, designs should also be copyright permissable since there are multitudes of designs etc. in order to achieve the final product. Yes, you may make the hammer by nailing the head to a stick, but if I make the hammer in a cost effective way such as screwing the head to the stick and thereby making it last longer, then I want that design patented so that other companies cannot copy it. This is EXACTLY what we are proposing and we are glad the NS has finally found it. In the case of software, consider game development techniques, design engines, templates, etc. These can all be copyrighted now so companies will no longer be able to copy each other. If your invention of a new design is so superior, it will flourish amond your perceived monopolies. However, we shouldn't have a bunch of little companies doing the exact same thing when one suffices. |
| Date | 04:15:11, October 19, 2005 CET | From | National Socialists | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | Let's start of by quoting. "Yes, you may make the hammer by nailing the head to a stick, but if I make the hammer in a cost effective way such as screwing the head to the stick and thereby making it last longer, then I want that design patented so that other companies cannot copy it." You consider the hammer as a Final Merchandise Prodict. In the clear example the hammer is a basic element (such as software algorithms), it is a requirement that starters need to make progress. Let's make it even more simple and go back to the infamous grain comparison. What if someone patented the design of planting grain? Nobody else would be allowed to plant it, let alone use it to make final products. You keep insulting in stubborn ignorance, without even thinking twice about the NS' expertise in this industry. Let's take a step back and define things before the entire debate changes to cheap insults. I. Dev. Elements: (your grain) the smallest cornerstone being development languages, functions and formulae (algorithms indeed), techniques (ex: object orientation, top down analysis,etc ). They're completely generic ideas that enable the motion of your mouse pointer, or the autopilot of a space shuttle. II. Final Products: (your popcorn brands) These are releases by software houses, initially constructed using Dev. Elements. These are game engines, design templates, a mouse cursor icon, development platforms to sell to other developers, a text editor, anything that is ready for the market to compete with other products. I hope you now understand better that Patents for Final Products already exist (it is treated like any other product) and that Development Elements should NEVER be patented, this is first class theft from other companies, and makes any further competition impossible. You are completely confusing the two, or fail to distinguish the industry. I have no problems with patented Final Products, since they are just like any other merchanding. Following the impossible logic of this proposal, a musician using 5 notes in a distinct order could patent it, and nobody would be able to use it again in other songs that wouldn't even closely resemble it. It's a foolish thing, this pride. |
| Date | 08:57:14, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Solentian Corporate Communist Party | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | The NS shows its asinine ignorance yet again as they don't even understand what they are debating. If you read the proposal, it is clear those designs, techniques, etc that are invented by the company are copyrighted, not the act themselves. This is why you didn't understand our hammer analogy. Please, have some common sense. Obviously no one can copyright a certain letter or something and I am sure unreasonable requests to do so will be rejected by the patent office. |
| Date | 14:51:18, October 20, 2005 CET | From | National Socialists | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | Put on another song, we've clearly analyzed and explained the point. It's pathetic how you don't keep repeating with identical insult, yet fail to even grasp the slightest definition or consequence of your own proposal. You keep telling how horrible the NS is and clearly that's where your political abilities stop, because you fail to debate,argument or analyze normally. We know our industry, and we'll oppose any form of raw materials claims, yet promote all forms of final product patenting. The current law sets the borders, it is fair and very much needed as explained above. Abolishing it means the destruction of all small software houses. We do not wish to pave the way for some "SolentiSoft" or whatever. |
| Date | 19:48:23, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Solentian Corporate Communist Party | To | Debating the Software Patent Legalization Act (SPLA) |
| Message | This proposal does not establish any such company and will not hurt businesses, yet protect their creations. The NS can pretend it knows its industry and act like we don't debate, yet it is evident that we have addressed your concerns to the point you refuse to counter them. As such, we will proceed to a vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 402 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 102 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 196 |
| Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
| Random quote: "Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetites." - William Ruckelshaus |