3 ms·

From what I can tell (the translation isn't perfect), one of the patents BlackBerry sued them over is being able to "email entire chat history". Also, "switchin

From what I can tell (the translation isn't perfect), one of the patents BlackBerry sued them over is being able to "email entire chat history". Also, "switching from one chat to another" and "friend proposals". Lmao. This stuff is ridiculous. I'm so glad my country (India) doesn't have software patents. Edit: so I looked it up, and the software patent situation is kinda weird here: > Software Patents in India is granted for an embedded software in a mobile application, and/or software plus hardware combination. However, patent law in India does not allow patent protection for software per se, whereby patenting a computer program is prohibited.

legulere 7y ago
We also don’t have software patents per se in Europe, but that doesn’t keep patent offices granting bullshit patents like this one
- stingraycharles 7y ago
  But in this case it’s not just the patent office granting a patent, but actually winning a case in court as well. How does that work when supposedly software patents are not applicable?
  - rots 7y ago
    https://fsfe.org/campaigns/swpat/swpat.en.html https://fsfe.org/campaigns/swpat/swpat.en.html It's complicated, The European Patent Convention states that software is not patentable. But laws are always interpreted by courts, and in this case interpretations of the law differ.
    - Stiju 7y ago
      I’m not really sure how it works but can’t Facebook take it to the EU court and win this case?
josefx 7y ago
> However, patent law in India does not allow patent protection for software per se, whereby patenting a computer program is prohibited. I think that is similar in Germany, with courts using the "software per se" as excuse to let any patent that mentions a computing device of some sort slip through. Your software runs on actual hardware and has to deal with finite memory, bandwidth and/or processing power? Patent granted/upheld!
userbinator 7y ago
Does that mean things like video codec patents are completely void in India? If so, that's amazing because those are some of the most profitable patents around.
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  That does appear to be the case!
benignslime 7y ago
The inclusion of the Indian view on software patents is interesting. I like the modern understanding; that they would specifically outline the difference between software and hardware is very important. Software patenting is a losers game, and countries should be hesitant when using them. Canada has a weak interpretation of computers. From the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_Canadian_patent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_Canadia...): > Computers, software, or related terms do not appear anywhere in the Patent Act. Therefore, as with any other invention, to be patentable a computer-using invention must meet the general requirements for patentability of any invention as found in the Act. > the "Invention" is defined in Section 2 of the Patent Act as: > "[A]ny new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter".[1] > So, any invention must be new and useful. Inventions must also be non-obvious as provided in section 28.3.[2] Inventions must also fall into one of the five categories of patentable subject matter found in the definition of "invention" above. " I've personally known people who have secured patents in Canada, and always wondered why they could (was a fairly simple media-manipulation task). The wiki article mentions that Amazon was able to secure a patent for their One Click product, while an oil processing company wasn't able to patent a system that would help measure locations for oil drilling. The court argued the math used to calculate locations, would, if extracted, be something a person could be a "mathematical formulae and a series of purely mental operations", and it "fell within the prohibition in the Patent Act[2] against patents for scientific principles or abstract theorems". My point is it's all so grey. It seems that if you argue well enough, the court may just decide on that day to confirm the patent. It shouldn't be necessary to be provided examples, at all times, to deduce if a patent is necessary. Software patents go down the road of patenting script. You don't see people going about patenting poetry. Or even design patents on weird ascii art or the like. It's just not the format.
iudqnolq 7y ago
Not only that, apparently they're claiming that the fact anything can be shared to an email on an iPhone and the fact that WhatsApp allows the user to share their chat history combine to become a violation. > In the proceedings, the lawyers of both parties argued before the judge about complex technical details of the software, such as whether Whatsapp uses a technology on which Blackberry holds a patent when sending the entire "history" of a chat - i.e. the course of the chat - by e-mail to third parties. Or which parts of this process are executed by Whatsapps Software and which by the operating system iOS, for which Apple is responsible, not Facebook, but the manufacturer Apple. From the deepl translation

legulere 7y ago

We also don’t have software patents per se in Europe, but that doesn’t keep patent offices granting bullshit patents like this one

stingraycharles 7y ago
But in this case it’s not just the patent office granting a patent, but actually winning a case in court as well. How does that work when supposedly software patents are not applicable?
- rots 7y ago
  https://fsfe.org/campaigns/swpat/swpat.en.html https://fsfe.org/campaigns/swpat/swpat.en.html It's complicated, The European Patent Convention states that software is not patentable. But laws are always interpreted by courts, and in this case interpretations of the law differ.
  - Stiju 7y ago
    I’m not really sure how it works but can’t Facebook take it to the EU court and win this case?

josefx 7y ago

> However, patent law in India does not allow patent protection for software per se, whereby patenting a computer program is prohibited. I think that is similar in Germany, with courts using the "software per se" as excuse to let any patent that mentions a computing device of some sort slip through. Your software runs on actual hardware and has to deal with finite memory, bandwidth and/or processing power? Patent granted/upheld!

userbinator 7y ago

Does that mean things like video codec patents are completely void in India? If so, that's amazing because those are some of the most profitable patents around.

rahuldottech 7y ago
That does appear to be the case!

benignslime 7y ago

The inclusion of the Indian view on software patents is interesting. I like the modern understanding; that they would specifically outline the difference between software and hardware is very important. Software patenting is a losers game, and countries should be hesitant when using them. Canada has a weak interpretation of computers. From the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_Canadian_patent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_Canadia...): > Computers, software, or related terms do not appear anywhere in the Patent Act. Therefore, as with any other invention, to be patentable a computer-using invention must meet the general requirements for patentability of any invention as found in the Act. > the "Invention" is defined in Section 2 of the Patent Act as: > "[A]ny new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter".[1] > So, any invention must be new and useful. Inventions must also be non-obvious as provided in section 28.3.[2] Inventions must also fall into one of the five categories of patentable subject matter found in the definition of "invention" above. " I've personally known people who have secured patents in Canada, and always wondered why they could (was a fairly simple media-manipulation task). The wiki article mentions that Amazon was able to secure a patent for their One Click product, while an oil processing company wasn't able to patent a system that would help measure locations for oil drilling. The court argued the math used to calculate locations, would, if extracted, be something a person could be a "mathematical formulae and a series of purely mental operations", and it "fell within the prohibition in the Patent Act[2] against patents for scientific principles or abstract theorems". My point is it's all so grey. It seems that if you argue well enough, the court may just decide on that day to confirm the patent. It shouldn't be necessary to be provided examples, at all times, to deduce if a patent is necessary. Software patents go down the road of patenting script. You don't see people going about patenting poetry. Or even design patents on weird ascii art or the like. It's just not the format.

iudqnolq 7y ago

Not only that, apparently they're claiming that the fact anything can be shared to an email on an iPhone and the fact that WhatsApp allows the user to share their chat history combine to become a violation. > In the proceedings, the lawyers of both parties argued before the judge about complex technical details of the software, such as whether Whatsapp uses a technology on which Blackberry holds a patent when sending the entire "history" of a chat - i.e. the course of the chat - by e-mail to third parties. Or which parts of this process are executed by Whatsapps Software and which by the operating system iOS, for which Apple is responsible, not Facebook, but the manufacturer Apple. From the deepl translation