From David Coker
Contrary to Alan Stephenson’s assertion (19 March, p 29) Richard Stallman did not give an example of how a so-called “software patent” impedes development (5 February, p 28). Stallman made that claim, but gave no example of any development that has actually been impeded. He also omitted to point out that, as can readily be established by reference to the European Patent Office website, EP0394160 lapsed in the UK in early 2004, in France in 2002 and in Spain in 1999. The detailed technical information it contains is now freely available for software developers to use, accomplishing the fundamental purpose of the patent system.
In contrast, Alan Stephenson doesn’t tell us how the 1984 “progress bar” display was implemented, or where a copy of the program can be inspected to find out. It isn’t clear from his description that the 1984 system had all the features required by the main claims of EP0394160, so his assertion that it should never have been granted isn’t established. A church poster “progress column” doesn’t possess all those features: it wouldn’t infringe EP0394160 -if that were still in force – but equally it doesn’t invalidate it.
From James Fenton
In the 1960s our then car, an Austin Maxi I think it was, had a progress bar as a speedometer. This would have been “hardware”, but surely the concept was “software”?
Advertisement
Inverness, UK
Reading, Berkshire, UK
