Slashdot Mirror

One of the most important difference of software compared other tangible products is, it doesn't cost to duplicate once a software product is developed. The other major difference is, it doesn't even cost to distribute even if to the whole world thanks to peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.

A minor, student or single person can easily infringe one or many software patents by writing a small computer program. That is, you don't have to be a company to violate Software Patents.

Software Patents are the single most danger faced today by the students, end users, software developers, scientists, companies especially small ones, etc.

Therefore, Software Patents strongly discourage if not completely stop innovation and advancement of science and technology.

Software Patents allow few big companies to earn money with following two dangers to the public:
1. Software Patents holder has no obligation to give a license to others.

2. Even if Software Patents holder agrees to give a license to others, there is no obligation for them to give at price affordable for others.

By using either or both above points they can simply cutoff others from implementing a technology or advancement of a technology. Please note, the technique used is cutoff, not compete.

Today I'm sitting on a product that I developed by advancing the technology using innovative ideas, but I cannot release it to the world either free or at fee unless I violate one single patent owned by a large company.

I wrote to that company asking how much royalty do I have to pay, there is no reply from them. They want us to violate the law and sue us later. They do not want to compete with us, they simply want to cutoff us from competition.

By being a victim of Software Patents, my suggestion is software should be managed by Copyright laws, not by Patent laws. If somebody does not want to given me a license for a software product, I can still sit and develop a functionally equivalent one as if I'm writing a new book without violating law.

This is how major industries such as music, movie, book publishing operates.

Sagara W

Following links may give you a better understanding of this Software Patents issue:
1. Public Patent Foundation ( http://www.pubpat.org/ )
2. http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
3. Software Patents vs Parliamentary Democracy ( http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html )
4. Petition for a Software Patent Free Europe ( http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html )
5. Software Patents Gone Bad ( http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1666755,00.as p )

They just have to word the laws right. Something along the lines of under no circumstances whatsoever shall patents be granted software, algorithms, business methods, or mathematical expressions, techniques or constructs.

The law already pretty much says that (barring the words "circumstances", "whatsoever"). But the patent lawyers and the EPO bend the rules anyway. See here.

What about one-click? That could be a business process. Are those patentable in the EU?

According to the European patent convention, neither software nor business methods can be patented. But the patent lawyers work with the Patent Office to bend the rules and grant the patents anyway. So this is an established praxis. Now they want the politicians to turn this praxis into law so that the patents that are already granted gets a firmer foundation.

About the Amazon patents in Europe

About the EPC (European Patent Convention)

from that site:

The European parliament will now be taking the last stand against software patents in a voting for which an absolute majority is needed. Such a majority is hard to come by in a parliament with a low attendance level.

But not all is lost yet as long as you decide it is time to make a difference and take action. This is our last opportunity to fend off software patents worldwide, there will be no second chance for the foreseeable future.

Signing petitions will not suffice. Contact your local EU representatives and educate them why software patents are a bad idea in the first place and why they must attend that parliament session to vote against them. Make it clear that they need to stop the machinations of the EU council and reaffirm the power of the EU parliament, the only democratically elected EU institution. For in-depth information and starting points to get active visit the software patent page of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and NoSoftwarePatents.com.

http://petition.eurolinux.org/

Two and a half years ago, in June 2002, European heads of state adopted the eEurope Action Plan 2005 at the Seville summit. It calls on the European Commission "to issue an agreed interoperability framework to support the delivery of pan-European eGovernment services to citizens and enterprises". This framework would address information content and recommend technical policies and specifications to help connect public administration information systems across the EU. The Action Plan also stipulated that the Framework would "be based on open standards and encourage the use of open source software".

The blurb goes on:
To attain interoperability in the context of pan-European eGovernment services, guidance needs to focus on open standards. The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard:
- The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
- The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
- The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis.

This approach was adopted by the parliament in April 2004 (nearly 11 months ago). And only now are BSA making noises?

Seems to me, that as the BSA is a front for software patent pressure that they have released this letter to muddy the waters after the (almost) non-software-patent decision taken by the EU Thursday.

The preample to the directive talks about support for legalizing software patents: "Thus although the responses in this category were numerically much fewer that those supporting the open source approach, there seems little doubt that the balance of economic weight taking into account total jobs and investment involved is in favour of harmonisation along the lines suggested in the paper."

So the proposed directive text admits that it is hard to find a normal majority and instead tries to invent an "economic majority".

This really tells what the drafters of this directive think about democracy: Fuck the voters and let big business have it like they want.

But then, it turns out that the directive was really drafted by BSA.

OVERstating? See this anti software patents online petition. The counter currently stands at 381,846 people/organisations who thought it was important enough to sign their name in protest. There are some more (smaller) online petitions like this. I haven't yet seen ANY online petitions seeking support for software patents.

Then when Poland helped shoot down the proposed directive, a special "Thank you, Poland!" site was started. Last thing I heard, another 25,000 people bothered to put their names on that list.

So 'a huge public concern' is hardly an overstatement.

As least the US has people passionately campaigning for freedoms

Microsoft are by many considered the driving force behind the BSA, who seems to have co-authored the software patents directive of the European Commission.

Read how you can help here...

http://swpat.ffii.org/group/todo/index.en.html

Sign a petition here...

http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html?LANG=en

When I signed the number of signatures was 322888, A MILLION ARE NEEDED!!!!

Best Regards,

#322889

Nokia is actively campaigning pro software patents in Europe, and spreading misinformation doing this.

Software patents are bad. They do not protect huge investments in research, they protect trivial ideas. The European Parliament reached a good compromise. The parliament's decision to limit software patentability has the support of more than 300.000 citizens, 2.000.000 SMEs and dozens of economists and scientists.

For consumers, software patents lead to higher prices, less choice. For (Open Source) developers, investors and users alike, software patents would mean legal uncertainty: a patent minefield. With the current flood of trivial patents legalized, software innovation would become a dangerous enterprise in Europe.

More info on software patents at FFII.

The Council of Ministers is pushing for unlimited patentability of software, heavily lobbied by patent lawyers. Here Nokia is very active, campaining pro software patents, and spreading misinformation doing so. Nokia's behavior is irresponsible. Do you want to buy products from a company that is untrustworthy? I would say no.

I call upon everyone around the world not to buy Nokia products.

You may copy this page.

Imagine many copies of this call for action against Nokia on the web. Nokia makes much more money selling phones than it can from software patents. Nokia is vulnerable: it needs to be hip. It is not hip. It needs to choose. Pro phones, against software patents.

For Nerds only: unite!
Nerds are often in an advising role. Advise against Nokia. Be proud. Use legal ways. And win. Don't let the dinosaurs win. Is this the information age, or not? Defend your freedom. After the Boston Tea party, the Brussels Tea party. Stand up. Make this a revenge of the nerds.

Nokia is out.
Spread the word.

Take a look at this demo of things to come w/ software patents:

http://webshop.ffii.org/

And if you're an European citizen, please sign the petition:

http://petition.eurolinux.org/

Don't forget to look at this demo of things to come w/ software patents:

http://webshop.ffii.org/

And if you're an European citizen, please sign the petition:

http://petition.eurolinux.org/

Granted, there probably are patents which should not be granted...or maybe there is actually some validity for such patents being granted, i.e. the technology behind 1-click shopping perhaps..regardless, the patent examiners are human and statistically will make mistakes. That is a given. Especially when there are new technological areas that patents are being sought.

The last thing needed is any Congressional tinkering. The PTO and patents in general are not broken...granted, it may need some improvements. So let's not indict the whole PTO for a few patents that "seem" to be "bad"

A Good example is the movement against EU software patents. A similar style is used as in huge open source development projects. Different sites such as FFII.org, the AEL Wiki, Vrijschrift, Eurolinux Petition are used. There are many core activists that contribute to email communication on different lists, monitor the net, take part in events, speakers for events and many supportes 8around 50 000 registered of FFII or 300 000 Eurolinux signatures). Registered supporters can be contacted in cases of urgent action. There is no strict organisation structure, contributions count and create a personal karma. Participants in the debate act as individuals, not as objects of an organisational ideology. If you don't like something, contribute. If you are not pleased with the organisation or action of FFII join another group in the debate and contribute in a different style.

Participants were able to convince the EU parliament by massive protests. FFII and the other groups of the network created a kind of watchgroup for IP policy issues. They were able to put light in dark backyard where patent attorneys and servants of the DoJ decide what may be beneficial for the information society.

I think in europe we were able to show: "Hacking politics works."

It is now time for the USA to organise a strong movement similar to Eurolinux and FFII. We can provide you with assistence.

The World Summit on the Information Society may be used as a plattform as well.

Get organized and put pressure on politicians and administration.

I have e-mailed two Dutch MEPs on the issue. One didn't respond, but later on I found on her personal web page that she was not in favour of the proposals (Elly Plooij-van Gorsel, VVD), the other responded within hours of my mail stating his position (Lambert Doorn, CDA). Both seemed to be aware of the issues and appeared to care. My remark about Google was aimed at the original poster who seemed unaware who his or her MEP was. That bit you can find with Google easily and from then on it is a matter of finding party websites.

On this particular issue it was even more easy since some browsing on Eurolinux would have brought you up to date.

Bottom line: don't attribute to a lack of transparancy and/or a democratic deficit that what can be adequately explained by ignorance.

I actually think that Linus's and Alan's letter was a bit lacking. As two important people in the field, I had expected them to be a bit more elaborate; they could have come up with some cases to back up their claims, for example. The EuroLinux petition does a much better job at this.

Anti software patent petition

Yes, replied to this parent because it's the top-level one when it comes to its score, but hey, we really need to sign this petition! ;-)

Details of the campaign against software patents can be found at http://swpat.ffii.org/group/todo/index.en.html

Right here http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html

petition.eurolinux.org

It's completely free and GPL'd

Not quite, you have to remember to send your payment to the MPEG LA group for a "Patent Portfolio License". There are a ton of patents in MPEG4. Here's an interesting link about a "per stream" fee MPEG LA is even considering

Ogg Theora also has patents on the VP3 video codec but the license agreement makes it clear there are no royalties due for using or repackaging VP3. One of the key reasons why it's "fringe" is because it's hasn't been released as anything other than developer builds on Linux as of yet so there are no tools other than proofs of concept for creating and playing Ogg Theora streams yet.

Help out the http://www.ffii.org/en by direct support or just by donation of money.

Sign the Eurolinux anti patents petition

Write to your member of the European Parliament, emails usually can be found at the homepages of the political parties of your country.

And please don't just do the usual british anti eu rants here, the main proponent of software patents is from britain. Everybody knows whom I'm talking about.

If you don't like this - which you should:P, please sign this petition.

...of the absurd U.S. patent system. And now we here in EU are gonna get something similar. Great indeed.

Slightly offtopic but IMHO very important: the juridical department of the EU has approved a new proposal for allowing software patents in the EU just this week. If it's up to the person responsible for preparing the decision making - Arlene McCarthy from british labour - this will be decided on in the the europarliament on the 30th of june. Please sign this petition to help stop this nonsense. I unfortunately only have a dutch link to the story (here).

I don't think you have to expect much from the EU. Just this week the juridical department of the europarliament approved the new proposal for allowing software patents (and therefore . The woman responsible for preparing the final decision-making - a british labour member of the europarliament: Arlene McCarty somehow is in a lot of hurry to force this through by 30 june already. I think she has a hidden agenda.

Anyway - all pro-Open Source talk from the EU IMHO is just a lot of nice words and no action while at the same time they really don't understand what they're talking about and give more and more away to big multinationals...

Unfortunately I've only got a link about the news in dutch, but there's a petition to cut this crap over here. If you agree with what it states, please sign it.

Typically very few such patents are struck out as obvious, unless there is an *actual suggestion* in the prior art, in the same application context, that a particular approach should be used.

As for "technical", I think there are two main heads of reasoning for continuing to believe that patents for computer programs should continue to be ruled out, along with patents for "mathematical methods; presentation of information; schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business" (European Patent Convention, 1973), provided that the patent application is directed to these objects as such (and not a combination invention, e.g. a chemical process whose input parameters are calculated according to a mathematical formula).

The first is that, unlike patents on a new chemical compound or a new machine, patents in the abstract world of information go further and restrict self-expression: they restrict what you can say, what you can discuss, and how you can analyse information. That has traditionally been a step too far, and it should still be a step too far.

Secondly, economically: both argument in principle, and the US experiment in practice suggest that the effects of allowing software patents are overwhelmingly negative. Patents work best when one product = one patent (as in certain parts of the pharma and chemical industries), and huge R&D required to develop each idea into a patentable product. Software on the other hand is right at the other extreme, with each software product typically depending on thousands or tens of thousands of different atomic ideas; and almost no R&D between "idea" and patent. In such an environment, patents (1) do not reward innovation, they turn it into a minefield; (2) they reward investment in lawyers and strategic patent thickets, rather than investment in development (see eg the recent study by Bessen and Hunt); and (3) they take an industry with an inbuilt tendency to oligopolistic domination through network effects, and set those dominances in unassailable patent-protected concrete.

The major cost in software is the development and debugging, not the basic ideas. This is a good indicator for protection by copyright on the expression of the idea, rather than patent protection covering all possible expressions of the idea. There is no sign that software development *needs* patents. On the contrary, software patents threaten to slow down progress in the entire industry.

So where to draw a line in the sand ?

In view of the first argument, I think the fundamental line *should* be to try to separate the world of abstract information from that of concrete reality. And so, although language purists may complain that it makes for a particularly technical definition of the word "technical", I do think that the amendment you are so critical of *does* make the right distinction:

"The processing, handling and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field."

(note that "technical field" is being given a specialised normative legal meaning, to delineate what should and should not be patentable).

Without such a definition, over the years the EPO has ruled almost every measure by which a software element could possibly be useful would be "technical" and therefore patentable: effectively, unlimited patentability. Unamended, this directive is an attempt to force that reasoning onto all the national courts.

At the moment the decision is in the balance, with the crucial recommendation of the parliament's legal affairs (JURI) committee due to be decided on June 16th. This is the moment when letters and phone calls to MEPs are most needed to make a decis

The petition itself is a good example of a letter for an MEP and there is a page that will tell you everything you should know on software patents in 15 minutes.

CEASE AND DESIST, BY ORDER OF THE HUMAN RACE

Chuck your software patent in the bin!

Then you could benefit the human race instead of owning a monopoly in order to kill off any competition and to sue unsuspecting users/developers for some "pocket money".

At this point, I must refer you and anyone else reading this to some more detailed information:

The EuroLinux File on Software Patents

> I think the danger here is if microsoft buys SCO. Now they own the patents. They wont really
> care about enforcibility. Actually, They wont even want to test it in court.

the danger here is that ever damn idiot sees the spook coming from around the corner and no one is thinkin "get rid of patent law".
whats so appealing about patents anyway - they just ruin the fun for all of opensource every now and then.
see http://petition.eurolinux.org/index.html
or http://www.ffii.org/index.en.html
and sign the petition. there`s no good whining over spilled milk or given patents in this case.
stop patents before you spill your guts !

WAKE UP FOLKS !

> all they have to do is go to Spain, or venuzuela or Mexico or any govenrnment thinking about converting to Linux and point out the possible complications
>if this ever did go to trial. Maybe the linux distro you are thinking about will have an accident, see...

yeah, right. everyone please dance to the noodles.
i gotta love the M$/U$ view of the world -
love it, leave it or send them into submission with ca$h.

> It would be the cheapest way for MS to subvert Linux. Even sheaper than buying the Sony DRM
> patents that are in the news lately. (Buy DRM patents, dont let GNU use them. Eventually enough
> music/movies is out in DRM that without liscenced DRM enabled players linux desktops suck.
> end of linux withou microsoft having to compete at all).

while you whine about it - have you already complained with your local politician ?
if they aint getting no fire under the darn bottoms, they`re gonna sit by and watch shit happening. start complaining about people sitting by and have hitler happen, and you can complain about people sitting by letting gates happen -
DRM, TCPA, patents - call it what you want, its the SS Mindpolice of the fragging century we live in. welcome to the 21st century, digital boy.

GO OUT AND BE POLITICAL ABOUT IT, STOP COMPLAINING THAT IT HAPPENS, BE POLITICAL !!!!

sorry for the rantlike tone, but people need to wake up. and whoever has modded up the entire junk in here, get a life and start modding up real information again. if i read at +4/+5 and keep getting junk, its not what i expect at that level.
or should we petition for a +6 / +7 ... ?

The EU is at risk of allowing software patents.

So our American friends are becoming mad?

I really wonder why Germanys Government has no problem to fund the GPL hosting company Berlios and KGroupware, GnuPG and Aegypten.
Will Europe be set under pressure to follow American anti-Free Software intellectual property laws? Sign Eurolinux petition

The examiner? with his limited time to examine a patent application and a limited library or resource materials to work from?
I admid, there may be cases, where the prior art is really hard to find. Here an examiner may be excused. Anyway, I suspect, the examiner has at least brain enough, to see obviousness. A patent like the discussed one, or "one-click", or the "y2k-window" patent shouldn't really pass the test.

The commissionier? who must deal with a Congress that already takes fees paid to the Patent Office and uses them to fund non-PTO matters?
Does he sign the patent claim to become a true patent? - If this is the case, see above.

The citizen?
We pay anyway.

such as yourself who only criticizes rather than calls his congressman ...
There is no such thing as my congressman. Yesterday I voted "void", because non of the available candidates represented a position that I share.

to complain about quality and states a willingness to be taxed more if that is what it takes?
I am quite sure, if we can keep the EU from adapting patents on software and business methods, there will be no need to increase taxes.
sign here

Don't confuse patents with copyright - programs can and are copyrighted automatically by the author(s). However, in most countries you can't patent a software method. So for example, the one-click patent wouldn't stand outside of the US.

However, certain large corporations are lobbying the EU to introduce software patents. And guess who would be the only ones to benefit from this ? Yes, that's right, those same large corporations.

For more information. check out eurolinux.org

If you are in Europe, you could contact eurolinux.org. They run an extensive campaign against software patents.

Sotfware patent are not legal (yet ?) in Europe. Yes, EPO can give you a patent for a "computer-implemented" invention, proven that there is a "further technical effect" (whatever this means, if it is really much simpler than "as such". See the FFII web site for discussion about it). But for now, every times a software patent has been brought in front of a (national) court, it has been judged as illegal (decisions are here). So, yes, EPO grants software patent, but no, they are not legal in front of a national court.

So, we, european developer, could develop open-source project without caring about software patent. At least until we put the executable on the web. You can be judged as infringing a software patent if you distribute an executable. And severals judgment have set that "putting on the web" is like "distributing for the world". Finally, the Sklyarov stuff have shown that if you are found guilty of something in the us that is still absolutely legal in your country, it's not a good idea to go to the US. So, for now, the solution is to put a kind of message on the web page, like "sorry, if you are in the US, you don't have the right to download the software".

Fine. But in fact, in front of a court, this could be judged as not enought. A court could ask you to put a real filtering on your web page (see the Yahoo stuff). But if the filtering itself is patented in US ? Do we have to put a pre-filtering for US citizen ? Or does this means that wherever you are, if you put something on your web page, then you are bound by the US patent laws, even if you have different laws in your country ? At least the Yahoo case required only the filtering for French citizen...

Boy there is a lot to respond to in this one, but here goes ...

Oops, I think I just did it again, sorry. Hope you're not getting too bored.

However, if you recall that patents protect functionality and that a good (and valid) patent must disclose the functionality in sufficient detail so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can make the invention by reading the patent,

I do recall that, but I am yet to see a patent that is both comprehensible, and not for something blindingly obvious.

That is from the point of view of someone with a Computing Science degree (including a minor module on UK IP law) with 16 years subsequent professional experience as a programmer.

I'm yet to see a good software patent. That being the case, it's difficult to be sympathetic with arguments that assume that good patents are the norm, or even likely.

An example of a "good" software patent would be really helpful, to contrast with the legion of bad patents that have been widely aired.

The point I was trying to make about non-patenting territories is that if I live in such a territory (which I sort of do, but probably not for much longer), and if I don't care if people use my ideas, as long as they don't try to stop me using theirs (which I may or may not have arrived at independently) then I've got no reason to be interested in the patent system, have I?

Let's say I come up with something very clever, and I don't bother to patent it. Someone in the US downloads my implementation of my idea, writes it up as a patent, and applies for it, and then starts enforcing it, possibly even pursuing people that are using my implementation. Is that a realistic scenario? What should I then do to rectify the situation? Attempt to overturn the patent, by showing prior art? Am I right in thinking that overturning a bad patent costs about $1.5M these days? Don't you think that scenario highlights some fundamental problems with the US patent system?

But -- think of the possibility of a closed-source company liking an Open Source idea so much that they put resources into implementing the patented idea. The OPL would require them to then release the source.

You're thinking like a Patent Lawyer, while I'm thinking like a Computer Scientist. I don't think anyone should have the right to stop me using the best solution to a problem that I can think of, even if they thought of it first, because I consider algorithms to be equivalent to mathematical formulae, and as such discoveries, not inventions. Equally, I don't care if I thought of something first, I don't feel I have the right to stop other people using that idea. I certainly don't want to think of something only to discover I'm not allowed to use it because some government decided to issue a patent on it. I REALLY don't want to have to cross-check every idea I have and then have to choose between licensing the patent or producing a (possibly technically inferior) alternative solution, just because someone else thinks like me, but was quicker at getting to the patent office.

The current law in Europe states something like "programs for computers are not patenable as such", which the folks at the EPO cheerfully ignore and go ahead and issue software patents all the same (BTW, you couldn't explain what "as such" actually means there could you?). What nobody has succeeded in explaining to me is why we should contemplate allowing Software Patents at all. Obviously some (but not all) Lawyers like the idea, but the patent system is supposed to be for the benefit of society, or the industry, or something, but we Eurpean computer scientists have been cheerfully innovating without them, so why burden us with them now?

Patents on software are a moronic idea.

As a lawyer, how would you like to have to check each tactic you were planing to use in defending one of your clients, before actually using it, in order to check that it had not been patented by another lawyer?

That what the patent industry is trying to do to us. They (you?) pretend they're are doing us a favour (chanting "Innovation", "Protection of Property" etc), but in fact you are burdening us with the extra workload of (if anyone could be bothered) having to check every line of code against a patent database, or in the absence of that, getting sued for thinking of an idea after (of sometimes several years before) someone else.

Not only that, but the patents are worded to ensure that they provide almost no information whatsoever to someone interested in the technique they describe, so the claimed goal of driving forward the state of the art is total nonsense (can you cite a single instance of a Computer Scientist referring to patents in order to learn a novel technique? I doubt it).

Software patents are a government authorised tax on the software industry to make monopolistic corporations and patent lawyers rich. They have no positive effect on the state of the art in the field of computing whatsoever.

Unfortunately the patent lawyers are in charge of the patent offices, and those arms of government that are supposed to regulate them, so we're likely to end up as thoroughly shafted in Europe as is the current situation in the USA.

Having said all that, patents on other, material inventions seem totally fine to me, so I'm not saying patents or patent lawyers are evil per se, just the ones that try to take my (software) toolbox away, when I made my toolbox myself.

We dislike software patents because we do not see software as a product. We do not pay for the software that we use, and we do not charge for the software that we write.

Patents make (some) sense when a product is involved: if you want to produce my invention as a product, then you have to share some of profits with me. If the product is a physical thing, then it is produced and sold in a market, so there is always money involved. Since our software is not sold (many of us (see other posts) don't even believe it makes sense to treat information as something that can be sold) there is never any money involved: none for us, and none to share with the patent holder.

In essence, there are two different ways of looking at software: as product that can be sold, and as community developed and Free. These two dichotic attitudes can coexist right now because for the most part there is little intersection: my computer does not run a single proprietary program, and I have no need to. I don't bother people who do sell software, and they don't bother me. But software patents break this boundary: they are legal invasions by those who view software as a product into the world of us who don't. If an algorithm that we need for that program is patented - that does not compell us to play fair with the patent holder, that restricts us completely from having anything to do with it.

Ask us what we feel about software patents if they affected only proprietary software and left free software alone, and I think most of us wouldn't really care. The business people can play there little games ad infinum for all I care.

Also, you ask for "CONSTRUCTIVE" criticism against software patents - but the person in support of patents is the one asking for proactive legislation. Why don't you give "CONSTRUCTIVE" reasons why software patents are needed? Most studies have found that they are not economically beneficial at all, and there are many examples of how software patents hold entire fields back (look at encryption - modern encryption was invented in the late 70s, yet it was nearly unused when the patents expired in the late nineties, only to have become an everyday thing today).

Alternatively, it might be that humans have bred cats to meow, subconsciously favouring the more 'appealing' animals when pairing mates.

The domestic cat is quite far removed from anything natural.

You don't need to be fit for a 'natural' purpose to survive, providing the environment is suitably artificial.

A Petition to the European Parliament. After you read all about it, of course, as the site provides.

I also do live in europa (austria) and I'm afraight I have to inform you we _do_ have software patents.

See http//www.eurolinux.org for further information.

(for example I signed the anti software patent petition a year ago..) but nevertheless the are already thousends of sw patents granted, and future is not looking to bright, if you have some time left on your hand I would encourage you alse to follow the site and help when you can..

You did not answer the question.

"So what does the exclusion exclude?"

The EPO answer and practice says "nothing". An EPO technical problem is not about controlling natural forces, but about describing any rule of organisation as technical. To solve that problem you must be a lawyer, not an inventor.

The most inventive lawyer in EPO filing history is perhaps Fritz Teufel, IBM. He was the one that invented the difference between programs for computers and programs for computers as such.

A remarcable invention (since there is no such difference) that has led to a completly new branch of IP-technology.

This technology evolves along what in 1976 was described as "a forbidden path" and will probably soon embrace all logical functionality outside the individual human brain.

If you like that, stay in darkness. If you don't, join your brothers in VOSN or FENIT and sign the petition.

//Erik Josefsson

The prime source of information about software patents in Europe is the patents mailing list on the AFUL web site (french free unix user group).

Some information is also available on the APRIL web site (french association for research in free software).

In particular, to date, all the big (poll-wise) candidates to the french presidential election have expressed their opposition to software patents, see in french Haro sur les brevets and Tous les candidats dans l'opposition.

And of course the EuroLinux web site and FFII web site (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure ) have links to a lot of ressources and interesting readings.

We, european citizens, are seeking ways to get other european countries take position against the current proposed european law that opens the gates of unrestricted software and ideas patenting.If you're willing to help the cause, please contact your local free software association and try to get some activism in place together with the established assiociations like the FSF Europe. If you are French or German you can even make a tax-deducible donation, it may help the cause too.

--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

It's just a proposal, which may not pass at all if the politicians have any braincells left from their champagne brunches etc. well who am I kidding here..

Just sign the petition if you haven't done this :
petition agains European software patents

>US "patent" policies *very* brain-damaged.
That's what it says: Unbelivable Stupid patent policy ...

nopatents