Slashdot Mirror

The whole schebang has to do with "European countries' collective political determination to establish a uniform patent system in Europe." Note, though, that from trawling through Europa earlier today, I get the impression that the final aim - a European Patent - has not yet been reached. So for now, member states signed up to EPO, it may be assumed, will amend their national legislation to match the EPO resolution.

Bernhard Lang writes:

is proposed by EPO, so that it can change the EPC (european patent convention, i.e. the very text under discussion) to put it in agreement with other international treaties. Agreement is of course what the EPO considers as agreement. For example, if EPC 52.2 modification does not pass, but EPC 33 does, EPO could decide that its interpretation of the TRIPS agreement requires to remove EPC 52.2 and allows patenting software, or what else. Given the past record of the EPO, their propensity to bend rules that have been fixed, you can guess what will happen if you give them the right to change the rules according to their own assessment of the situation.

By the way, it is not clear that all countries are aware of what is hidden in the proposed modification of 33. More national lobbying and information has beenshould be done on that issue.

Bernhard Lang writes:

is proposed by EPO, so that it can change the EPC (european patent convention, i.e. the very text under discussion) to put it in agreement with other international treaties. Agreement is of course what the EPO considers as agreement. For example, if EPC 52.2 modification does not pass, but EPC 33 does, EPO could decide that its interpretation of the TRIPS agreement requires to remove EPC 52.2 and allows patenting software, or what else. Given the past record of the EPO, their propensity to bend rules that have been fixed, you can guess what will happen if you give them the right to change the rules according to their own assessment of the situation.

By the way, it is not clear that all countries are aware of what is hidden in the proposed modification of 33. More national lobbying and information has beenshould be done on that issue.

Some days it really pisses me off that there's no "misinformative" option in moderating.

If you are aware of such a treaty, feel free and provide such a citation. If you heard this from your mother's friend's sister's secretary, do a little fact-checking first.

There is a World Intellectual Property Organization which does accept patent applications. However, it does not grant worldwide patents. It merely expedites applying for patents in several countries (or regional organizations, see below), but it's still up to each individual country (or regional organization) whether or not to grant the patent.

There are three regional organizations I know of which grant patents which are applicable across multiple countries: the European Patent Office, the African Regional Industrial Property Organization (covering much of English-speaking Africa), and the Organisation Africaine de la Propriete Intellectuelle (covering much of French-speaking Africa). However, each of these organizations have their own offices for evaluating patents. So you can't just go to the Estonian Patent Office, have your application examined by them, and get a European patent. A European patent application is examined by EPO itself.

On the EPO webpage, you can find a breakdown of the costs of a patent in Europe.
The total cost of an average patent is listed as 29800 Euro or about 25000 USD. While I agree that this is still outside the scope of most open source projects, it's quite a bit less than the 100k you quoted.
And no, these are not only the fees, but 'professional representation before the EPO' is included.

- the reason for collecting the opinions is the conference on 20.-29. november this year, where the european patent offices will make their proposal for changing the european patent treaty. at the moment they want to change article 52 in a way to allow software patents.

- the petition has already 52.000 signatures (pls sign if You haven't done it yet. it hasn't been mentioned on slashdot ever, even i submitted it several times)

- eurolinux is not just against a software patent system similar to the US, but against any patents on software and algorithms.

The German trademark law is a bit complicated, I'm afraid, and there is probably nothing in the Web in English, but here's at least some information in the form of translated headings to get you an idea of how it is structured.

Those out there with some knowledge of German might try the Bundesgesetzblatt (the Federal Law publishing board) or this comprehensive overview of German trademark law with the texts included; I think you can forget the idea of having it babelfished, though, because it's probably a bit too complicated in style to translate properly. Another good resource is the web site of the DPMA (Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt), the German Patent and Trademark Office.

If you know some German and want to go for an entirely different view of the matter, you might have a look at the other side's point of view, in this case in the form of the aforementioned lawyer Günther von Gravenreuth, well known (not to say notorious) for his actions against private and commercial "computer piracy". There even exists an FAQ for people who had legal trouble with him in one specific matter.

The European Union point of view on trademark law is available at the European Patent Office, with loads upon loads of links to various European and other offices and institutions, European law texts, patent databases and other stuff.

Algorithms can't be patented in the UK

Well.. unfortunately it's not that simple any more. Although the European Patent Convention specifically excludes software from being treated as a patentable 'invention', the European Patent Office ruled that this didn't mean what it said, and computer programs can be patented after all. It just goes to show that patent offices will try as hard as they can to increase what is patentable, without concern for whether such patentability is desirable. The EPO seems no more trustworthy than the USPTO. Following the EPO's decision, the UK patent office has revised its practice on software patents.

Anyway, it is still not certain whether such patents granted are actually enforceable. The European Commission are considering changing the law to catch up with the EPO's behaviour, so that software patents will become officially permitted (rather than de facto permitted as at present). Until then it isn't certain whether a lawsuit based on a European software patent would succeed (IANAL); big companies such as IBM are however stocking up on software patents in the hope of one day being able to use them. (Have a look at freepatents.org for more about stopping this from happening.)

Unisys claim to have a patent on LZW in several European countries, including the UK. I don't know whether they've actually tried to shake down British companies for money though. But you may not be as safe as you think.

Algorithms can't be patented in the UK

Well.. unfortunately it's not that simple any more. Although the European Patent Convention specifically excludes software from being treated as a patentable 'invention', the European Patent Office ruled that this didn't mean what it said, and computer programs can be patented after all. It just goes to show that patent offices will try as hard as they can to increase what is patentable, without concern for whether such patentability is desirable. The EPO seems no more trustworthy than the USPTO. Following the EPO's decision, the UK patent office has revised its practice on software patents.

Anyway, it is still not certain whether such patents granted are actually enforceable. The European Commission are considering changing the law to catch up with the EPO's behaviour, so that software patents will become officially permitted (rather than de facto permitted as at present). Until then it isn't certain whether a lawsuit based on a European software patent would succeed (IANAL); big companies such as IBM are however stocking up on software patents in the hope of one day being able to use them. (Have a look at freepatents.org for more about stopping this from happening.)

Unisys claim to have a patent on LZW in several European countries, including the UK. I don't know whether they've actually tried to shake down British companies for money though. But you may not be as safe as you think.

This site lists the web pages of 19 patent agencies.

In particular, here is the Australian site (because I'm Australian), and here is the Eurpoean Union patent office (because it covers patents in all member states)

But this is not longer true. It appears that the European Patent Office does not issue patents not because they believe that "software is inherently unpatentable", but because originally they believed that they did not have the equipment of skills to judge their quality!

IBM (all hail the mighty patent machine) lodged a software patent with the EPO last year and had it turned down (as per their plan one would assume) and then lodged an objection and while the patent was still refused the appeal ruled that the exclusion of software from patents is not valid under all circumstances

Which all means that companies are falling over themselves to get software patents out in the EU as well, left the good times roll

EPO Appeal search engine, search on software
IBM Appeal (PDF)

C.

But this is not longer true. It appears that the European Patent Office does not issue patents not because they believe that "software is inherently unpatentable", but because originally they believed that they did not have the equipment of skills to judge their quality!

IBM (all hail the mighty patent machine) lodged a software patent with the EPO last year and had it turned down (as per their plan one would assume) and then lodged an objection and while the patent was still refused the appeal ruled that the exclusion of software from patents is not valid under all circumstances

Which all means that companies are falling over themselves to get software patents out in the EU as well, left the good times roll

EPO Appeal search engine, search on software
IBM Appeal (PDF)

C.

But this is not longer true. It appears that the European Patent Office does not issue patents not because they believe that "software is inherently unpatentable", but because originally they believed that they did not have the equipment of skills to judge their quality!

IBM (all hail the mighty patent machine) lodged a software patent with the EPO last year and had it turned down (as per their plan one would assume) and then lodged an objection and while the patent was still refused the appeal ruled that the exclusion of software from patents is not valid under all circumstances

Which all means that companies are falling over themselves to get software patents out in the EU as well, left the good times roll

EPO Appeal search engine, search on software
IBM Appeal (PDF)

C.

Title of invention: Method and system in a data processing system windowing environment for displaying previously obscured information

www.freepatents.org reports that European law itself is not fully enforced and that the "exceptions" clause may be interpreted by member countries as basically including or excluding most of the computer programs.

But the problem is, in one month, the member states of the Munchen convention are planning to legalize software patents in Europe. (see freepatents.org).

So soon, the EU will have its share of junk software patents too (as USA and Japan do). We'll join the party :-(