Slashdot Mirror
Domain: ffii.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to ffii.org.
Comments · 1,131
-
Re:A Question
But if someone does come up with something truly unique that is expressed in software, how can this be legally protected so someone else doesn't steal your work after one or one-half year?
People cannot steal something which is not your property (intellectual or otherwise). The question is not what you or someone else as an individual wants or feels he/she deserves, but about what is best for the economy and innovation.Study after study shows that software innovation does not happen because people want to get a monopoly, but because they have since otherwise the competition will catch up to them. The industry needs cheap, fast and narrow protections (similar to copyright), because patents are inherently so broad they are clogging up the system with thickets. The big companies aren't all cross licensing their patents just for fun.
Perhaps there should be no software patents at all, just some sort of legal copyright protection for 5 years or so. But how is that uniqueness defined anyway? At what point does a subsection of code become unique enough to be protected?
There is already copyright which provides for a protection until 75 years after the author's death. However, it only covers direct copying (partial or entirely), or plagiarizing (this can include reverse engineering and writing your own version based on the gained knowledge, if you don't take proper precautions)Independent writing of a similar program (which simply does the same, but otherwise is in no way based on the original program) is not covered by copyright. That's a feature of copyright, not a bug. As such, copyright does give you a short time span on which you are alone on the market with that feature.
It definitely won't be 5 years in general, but even 5 years is an eternity in terms of software development.
-
It's a dead patent lawThe BBC article is a bit vague (although perfectly accurate). As Zonk says, this basically means that the Conference of Presidents has ratified the JURI decision to throw out the directive as explained better by the FFII.
However there is a chance that the €C could, nonetheless, defy the Conference of Presidents, but it is very unlikely (and will cause even more backlash and probably eventually get the €C sacked).
Also see details of the MEPs press conference and info. about the recent FFII demo by the €C HQ in Brussels which no doubt helped.
I think this probably (you can't be sure of anything in Brussels) means the directive really is as dead as a dodo, so here's my dead patent-law sketch (apologies to Monty Python):
The Cast:
- Mr. Gates
- A European Commissioner
A `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The commisioner does not respond.)
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?
Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this patent law what I purchased not two years ago from this very office.
Commissioner: Oh yes, the, uh, the computer-implemented inventions one...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Gates: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Commissioner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Gates: Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Commissioner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable law, idn'it, ay? Beautiful sophistory and ambiguity!
Mr. Gates: The anbiguity don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Commissioner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Gates: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
...
Mr. Gates: You let the European Parliament kill 'im, didn't you!
Commissioner: I never!!
Mr. Gates: Yes, you did!
Commissioner: I never, never did anything...
(Mr. Gates takes patent law out of briefcase and thumps it on the desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
contd...(due to limit on post size)
-
It's a dead patent lawThe BBC article is a bit vague (although perfectly accurate). As Zonk says, this basically means that the Conference of Presidents has ratified the JURI decision to throw out the directive as explained better by the FFII.
However there is a chance that the €C could, nonetheless, defy the Conference of Presidents, but it is very unlikely (and will cause even more backlash and probably eventually get the €C sacked).
Also see details of the MEPs press conference and info. about the recent FFII demo by the €C HQ in Brussels which no doubt helped.
I think this probably (you can't be sure of anything in Brussels) means the directive really is as dead as a dodo, so here's my dead patent-law sketch (apologies to Monty Python):
The Cast:
- Mr. Gates
- A European Commissioner
A `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The commisioner does not respond.)
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?
Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this patent law what I purchased not two years ago from this very office.
Commissioner: Oh yes, the, uh, the computer-implemented inventions one...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Gates: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Commissioner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Gates: Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Commissioner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable law, idn'it, ay? Beautiful sophistory and ambiguity!
Mr. Gates: The anbiguity don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Commissioner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Gates: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
...
Mr. Gates: You let the European Parliament kill 'im, didn't you!
Commissioner: I never!!
Mr. Gates: Yes, you did!
Commissioner: I never, never did anything...
(Mr. Gates takes patent law out of briefcase and thumps it on the desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
contd...(due to limit on post size)
-
It's a dead patent lawThe BBC article is a bit vague (although perfectly accurate). As Zonk says, this basically means that the Conference of Presidents has ratified the JURI decision to throw out the directive as explained better by the FFII.
However there is a chance that the €C could, nonetheless, defy the Conference of Presidents, but it is very unlikely (and will cause even more backlash and probably eventually get the €C sacked).
Also see details of the MEPs press conference and info. about the recent FFII demo by the €C HQ in Brussels which no doubt helped.
I think this probably (you can't be sure of anything in Brussels) means the directive really is as dead as a dodo, so here's my dead patent-law sketch (apologies to Monty Python):
The Cast:
- Mr. Gates
- A European Commissioner
A `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The commisioner does not respond.)
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?
Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this patent law what I purchased not two years ago from this very office.
Commissioner: Oh yes, the, uh, the computer-implemented inventions one...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Gates: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Commissioner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Gates: Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Commissioner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable law, idn'it, ay? Beautiful sophistory and ambiguity!
Mr. Gates: The anbiguity don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Commissioner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Gates: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
...
Mr. Gates: You let the European Parliament kill 'im, didn't you!
Commissioner: I never!!
Mr. Gates: Yes, you did!
Commissioner: I never, never did anything...
(Mr. Gates takes patent law out of briefcase and thumps it on the desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
contd...(due to limit on post size)
-
Re:So why s this bill such a bad thing
The doctrine of 'technical effect' is a bizarre example of how a patent office, left to its own devices, will reinterpret the law in increasingly creative ways to expand its own powers.
As the thread http://www.aful.org/wws/arc/patents/2000-06/msg000 65.html explains, first of all the EPO made a ruling that although programs for computers are explicitly excluded under the European Patent Convention, this did not apply when the computer program could be shown to have a 'technical effect'. This 'technical effect' is nowhere mentioned in the EPC's exclusion; it is an invention by the patent office to have some reason to grant patents on software.
So for a few years you could get software patents in Europe if you could include some reasoning in your application to say that your program has a 'technical effect' when loaded onto a computer. Since the idea of technical effect is so vague, this allows through any software patent.
Then a few years later the EPO decided that they might as well drop the pretence, and made another ruling which assumes that all computer programs have a 'technical effect'. So the explicit exclusion in the EPC is being ignored.
Now, patents granted under this dubious reasoning are not very enforceable. National courts tend to interpret the law as it is written, and not the EPO's creative interpretation. However, if the directive is passed then the already-granted software patents in Europe (which are just as silly as those in the US, see the FFII horror gallery) will become legal.
The European law on patentability of software does not need 'clarifying', it is already quite explicit. We need to make the patent office follow the law as it stands. -
YES!
Faith in human kind is restored.
Now, we should double our efforts to inform everybody Why software patents are a bad idea, and Who is really backing the proposals for it. Particularly, EU should be wary of software patents. With the minefield of US software patents, EU should really rethink being a follower anymore. -
Re:The Commission and new legislationIt is interesting, but: All economic research seems to indicate that allowing software patents is bad for the software industry.
There are really only three parties who get any advantage from software patents:
- Very large software companies. They can use software patents defensively to stop new innovative software companies from entering the market and taking over market share.
- Patent offices. They get extra income from the software patents.
- Patent lawyers. They also get extra income from the software patents.
Empirical research of the US patent system has actually shown that software patents lead to less innovation.
-
Re:The Commission and new legislationIt is interesting, but: All economic research seems to indicate that allowing software patents is bad for the software industry.
There are really only three parties who get any advantage from software patents:
- Very large software companies. They can use software patents defensively to stop new innovative software companies from entering the market and taking over market share.
- Patent offices. They get extra income from the software patents.
- Patent lawyers. They also get extra income from the software patents.
Empirical research of the US patent system has actually shown that software patents lead to less innovation.
-
Re:Check your facts!I'll give you a full apology if and only if the Danish People's Party actually opposes the VK government on this issue.
How about "they have been opposing the VK government for a long time" ? I suppose I can take it in danish since we're the only ones in this discussion:
DF var modstandere i EU-parlamentet i '03. Tjek FFII's scorecard efter 1.-behandlingen i Europarl i september '03. Sammenlign Camre (DF) med Riis-Jørgensen (V).
DF var modstandere før EU-valget i sommers:
Kenneth Kristensen (DF) udtaler: "DF er imod softwarepatenter" her (Fra juni '04, tjek også Camre og Messerschmidt)DF er modstandere i Folketinget:
Den danske regering har ikke længere opbakning i Folketinget til støtte for patenter på software.
Det er situationen, efter Socialdemokraterne på grund af valgkampen har trukket sin støtte tilbage. [...] Alternativet for regeringen ville være at støtte sig op ad Dansk Folkeparti, som man gør i en lang række andre sager, men her er ingen hjælp at hente.
- Vi er modstandere af patenter på software, og det er vi stadigvæk uanset, hvad Socialdemokraterne gør. her (24/5 '05)Denne seneste afstemning i Europa-udvalget har været med til at forhindre at kommissionens såkaldte "kompromis-forslag" blev vedtaget i Ministerrådet. Dermed har EU-parlamentet fået tid til at kræve processen genstartet, et stort skridt fremad ift. at skulle ændre i det meget ensidige forslag med absolut flertal ved en 2.-behandling.
Du kan jo give en øl hjemme - der kommer jeg jo alligevel.
-
Re:In fairness to M$FT...I was going to tell you that it was quite simple to parse, as it was in ASCII date order; YYMMDD
That would have made it the 5th of December, 2000.
However, following the link, and then into the advogato article which it comes from, I found this:Microsoft patents ASF media file format, stops reverse engineering
Posted 5 Jun 2000 by atai
5/12/2000: VirtualDub 1.3d released; ASF support removed at request of Microsoft
5/13/2000: VirtualDub and ASF further explained
So I guess that makes it 12th of May, 2000...
Stupid things happen when people try to mess with date formats...
-
Re:In fairness to M$FT...
From the second weblink:
See this link, or:
Avery Lee 00-12-05: ASF support removed at request of Microsoft
Avery Lee, author of http://www.geocities.com/virtualdub/, a free software tool for converting multimedia file formats, reports sad news:
Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media group. He informed me that Microsoft has intellectual property rights on the ASF format and told me that, although the implementation was still illegal since it infringed on Microsoft patents. I have asked for the specific patent numbers, since I find patenting a file format a bit strange. At his request, and much to my own sadness, I have removed support for ASF in VirtualDub 1.3d, since I cannot risk a legal confrontation.)
--From the above-cited link
They didn't need to file a lawsuit, they eliminated competition just by THREATENING one. That's the whole problem here. This is not a "defensive" use of their patent, the creator of VirtualDub had not made a threat to MS that they were responding defensively to.
-
Backfired!
The danish Social Democrats just denounced Gates' threats in a press release. The social democrats control whether software patents have a majority or not in the danish parliament.
-
Re:We the people ...
We are going to get ruled more and more by corporations, rather than governments.
Well.. not if you compare to good old days of the Hanseatic league.
And since politicians can always be blackmailed with the prospect of lost jobs (Siemens did that in Germany, and lots of other comapnies too),
They can always try to blackmail them with the prospect of lost jobs. That doesn't mean that the politicians always give in. You don't think a politician who hears this every day won't get wise to the scheme?
I think the FFII is correct in their statement, it's not a very good lobbying technique.
But it does work sometimes, mostly in those cases where states can be played out against eachother.
(Like how GM just played out Germany and Sweden, threatening to move their factories in one to the other. End result is no factory is currently going to be moving and both are getting some nice presents from the respective governments.) -
Re:Here's another article...
A clickable link this time
-
Re:Not blackmail
Whatever it is, it's ludicrously transparent. According to the FFII's translation of the original Danish story, included in their statement on this, Bill said:
"If I'm to keep my development center in Denmark, then it's a
requirement that the question of rights becomes resolved. Otherwise, I
will move it to the USA where I can protect my rights"
In fact, the location that development takes place has nothing to do with patent validity. Software developed in Denmark can be patented in the USA regardless of Danish or EU laws. Software developed in the USA cannot be patented in countries that don't recognise software patents, ragardless of US laws.
There's no way that Billis misinformed enough to think otherwise. If he showed occasional signs of honesty or integrity then he might get more respect. -
Re:You know what they say
According to this site, Denmark was responsible for taking software patents off of the A-list for the 17th, somewhat unexpectedly. Not entirely clear what their motivation is, since there are a number of issues now, from software patents to the balance of power between the EU Parliament and Council to the procedures involved. But I expect a Slashdot story on Thursday praising Denmark for this move.
-
Wikinews
A good example of "open source" or "free as in speech" journalism is Wikinews. Granted, organisations like the AP and Reuters provide on their wires every news story Wikinews will (probably) cover, but that's beside the point. The point is that there exists a news source that licences it's content under the GFDL which means that anyone can take the stories on Wikinews and do whatever they like with them that springs to mind.
One might want to write a tool that analyses news sites and not want to worry about whether or not scraping the news content is legal or not!
Of course, many detractors will say that there is no way that a wiki news source could ever be accurate. The same thing was said for a wiki encyclopaedia. It turns out that mass-collaboration can sometimes be a more accurate form of editing than traditional forms. I don't want to mention Rathergate so I wont
In any case I think the whole argument about Wikipedia/Wikinews 's accuracy is pretty much irrelivant. This is a free information source that exists and if people don't want to rely on it they are more than free to do so. In any case there is a big push happening right now to improve the validation of articles within wikipedia. Check the comments of an article i wrote on this subject for more information.
P.S. If you live in Europe anywhere near Brussels or Berlin at all please try to make it to the protests against software patents! I'll be travelling from Amsterdam to Brussels on the day.. if anyone wants to catch the train with me please reply here and we'll get in touch! -
Wikinews
A good example of "open source" or "free as in speech" journalism is Wikinews. Granted, organisations like the AP and Reuters provide on their wires every news story Wikinews will (probably) cover, but that's beside the point. The point is that there exists a news source that licences it's content under the GFDL which means that anyone can take the stories on Wikinews and do whatever they like with them that springs to mind.
One might want to write a tool that analyses news sites and not want to worry about whether or not scraping the news content is legal or not!
Of course, many detractors will say that there is no way that a wiki news source could ever be accurate. The same thing was said for a wiki encyclopaedia. It turns out that mass-collaboration can sometimes be a more accurate form of editing than traditional forms. I don't want to mention Rathergate so I wont
In any case I think the whole argument about Wikipedia/Wikinews 's accuracy is pretty much irrelivant. This is a free information source that exists and if people don't want to rely on it they are more than free to do so. In any case there is a big push happening right now to improve the validation of articles within wikipedia. Check the comments of an article i wrote on this subject for more information.
P.S. If you live in Europe anywhere near Brussels or Berlin at all please try to make it to the protests against software patents! I'll be travelling from Amsterdam to Brussels on the day.. if anyone wants to catch the train with me please reply here and we'll get in touch! -
MEPs on the warpath
Some MEPs are really angry about the Commission's actions. MEP Michel Rocard (France/"Socialists") pronounced a speech before the JURI (juridical affairs) committee of the European Parliament, in which he accuses the commissionner who pushed the project of sneaky actions. I think that Rocard and others are decided to shoot down the proposal by whatever means.
-
PolandOr look at Poland: first voted for it, then decided to be against it, and now in a status of "oh, in case we're the only ones against we'd also vote for it".
What's your source for the claim that Poland ever voted for it? I recall reading a claim somewhere on the FFII website that their position was incorrectly recorded after they had not even been asked for a clear statement on their position about that "political agreement" because at that time it was thought that the agreement has enough supporters that Poland's position doesn't matter.
Concerning the "oh, in case we're the only ones against we'd also vote for it" point, that is clearly a misrepresentation of the situation. They didn't say anything about "voting for it". They just said that they don't want to be alone in requesting again that it should be taken of the agenda.
-
Software is differentThere is wide consensus even in the patent community that patents work most successfully in chemical and pharmaceutical industry, less well in mechanical industries (Kingston 1997, "Patent protection for modern technologies", Mansfield 1986 "Imitation costs and patents".).
Recent empiricial research suggests patents are even less successful in software. This is because software is different. Or search for "while statement" here. To illustrate cumulative innovation complexity-wise, the 2.6.8 kernel has 300,000+ IF statements, a BMW sedan car has a complexity of "only" 15,000-18,000 pieces (Mr Blabst BMW press department), a typical drug consists of 10-100 atoms.
In other words, the position that there are fields of human activity that the patent system is not so well tailored for is well-defensible even without killing the entire patent system.
Sidenote: there have been a lot of quirks and surprises in the past with the Software Patent Directive, so get prepared to the thought that next week's Brussels/Berlin demos are still needed and useful politically (only one scenario of total fiasco has hopefully been avoided, there is not yet a renewed referral in Parliament nor B-iten in council).
-
Donate today!
I'll say it again.
Don't want to see software patents in EU? Want to do something about it?
Donate money to FFII today:
http://ffii.org/money/account/index.en.html -
Background information from FFII
-
Background information from FFII
-
A common question for you
Carl,You have claimed, based on your experience as a patent lawyer, that software patents can help even small commercial enterprises. Could you please explain why software patents are not harmful both to society and to freedom of expression given the case of an open-source developer who, as a result of working unpaid on his/her project as a hobby giving his/her inventions away freely for the benefit of society, i.e. without any project income, without any corporate project sponsor to pay legal fees, without sufficient personal savings or income to pay for even a brief consultation with a "cheap" patent lawyer, and without a patent lawyer prepared to work pro bono, is threatened with a patent lawsuit by a corporation demanding he/she removes the allegedly infringing software from the project's website, leaving the impoverished developer with no real choice but to comply with the demand and close the project?
One recent unresolved case, which is not unique, is that of the German mathematician and open-source software developer Helmut Dersch who had no financial choice but to remove his software from his project website. He had no money to pay for a patent application at the time of his own invention, which pre-dates the patent application of the IPX company.
Here is a summary of the case history.
I hope you will take the time to reply at moderate length for the sake of explaining to the open-source developer community why software patents are not a threat to completely unfunded open-source projects.
Thank you for reading this.
-
Donate today!
Do you want to do something about this?
Donate money to FFII today:
http://ffii.org/money/account/index.en.html -
Re:They just don't give up...
Japan, Australia already have software patents. AFAIK, India, New Zealand, most of Mercosur do not have them, though some laws are under discussion too (IN, NZ). Here you find a (somewhat Euro-biased) list of FFII regional groups, join and take the initiative (not all mailing lists are very active) Thanks.
-
Re:Political pressure from whom?
No, because of Occam's razor. We have seen tons of lobbying documents from that club of companies. There was also a fax sent by the "Mission of the United States of America to the European Union", and of course there could be a lot of behind-the-scenes lobbying we don't know about, but I really doubt that the US government is a major reason for the fact that the Council and Commission are so stubborn.
-
Re:Political pressure from whom?I don't believe in a US conspiracy, especially not in a US political conspiracy. The pressure mainly comes from Nokia, Ericsson, Alcatel, Siemens, Philips and indeed also US companies such as IBM and Microsoft.
These companies claim to represent "the" European IT industry and that they need patents on "computer-implemented inventions" (which generally are pretty much the same as what would be called software patents in the US). In reality, SMEs represent a much larger part of the European economy (both IT and non-IT, and software patentability obviously goes much further than just IT), they are heavily opposed (see e.g. UEAPME and CEA-PME).
The larger companies are of course much better organised regarding lobbying, so it's mainly their voice which is heard at the top levels. Slowly, we are changing this though.
-
Demonstration
As a result, we're organising a demonstration next Tuesday in Brussels. Everyone's welcome!
-
Oppose that rethink.
-
Re:Somebody celebrating is news?
Yes, the reason for the celebration is the news. Bloody important news for us Europeans indeed.
http://www.ffii.org/
-
Re:Square -1Thanks for the info. Sorry if I came over a bit strong; your statement about law-stretching ticked me off but I didn't mean to attack you personally.
I chose the one-click patent because it is an easy example, but I know of a great many others that are just as silly; some examples are here. I have also been asking for "good" software patents on slashdot for a while now, and so far have heard of one that might be good (some people disagree strongly): the RSA patent. Some compression-related patents might also apply in this category (and I suspect the same people would have the same problem with it, being that it is too much a mathematical technique). Actually this might make a good "ask slashdot": name a 'reasonable' software patent. Although it would probably end in flames anyway...
With "patent office" I do indeed mean the american one. We don't hear as much from the EPO, which could simply be down to the americanocentricity of slashdot in general, or maybe it is because the EPO does a better job, I do not appreciate their "stretching" of patents to now also include software patents though, and since they did that I distrust them.
A law comes with an explanation why it is there. An yes, that is the point. Logic sense tells you the same: If it takes me 100k to develop a product and you can copy mine for 10k, you can sell your product way cheaper than I can. I may go broke, while you get a profit.
Actually that is not quite the same thing (sharing knowledge is not the same as protecting investment). So which is it? Do we hand out patents to share knowledge (with limited protection being the reward for doing so?) Or do we reward investment as a principle, with sharing of knowledge as an unintended side effect?
This is a serious question. The way things are going, many people now believe there is some God-given right for some people to own abstract ideas without having to share at all. Consider, for example, ringtones: artists now consider themselves owner of not only their own songs (which is fair enough), but also fairly significant variations on those songs, such as monophonic renditions of just a handful of measures. If we allow this to continue the road is open to argue for unlimited copyright, patentability, etc.
Speaking of copyrights: to my shame I must admit I know the purpose of american copyright (to promote the progress of science and useful art), but not of european copyright. Is it actually the same? Or is there some other notion behind european copyright (which wouldn't surprise me at all, considering the historic reasons for copyrights...)?
There are other factors here too: If some software is available for one platform only (and patents can ensure that), that is something that really can kill platforms.
That is my biggest fear regarding software patents: that there would be a very direct effort by Microsoft to destroy the softwarebase that makes Linux worthwhile (i.e. Samba, Apache, Open Office Mozilla,
If politics decides to extend copyrights, let the copyright holder pay for it with an anual fee. At least here in the Netherlands, the annual maintenance fee for patents increases for each year you keep the patent in force longer.
Agreed. Seems I've misjudged you, sorry about that.
As you may have guessed from my username, I'm in the Netherlands as well. I didn't know about the increasing fee though. I assume the patent runs out (fee or no fee) after 20 years anyway? And earlier, if the patent holder chooses to stop payment?
-
More linksSee these links (that I didn't put in original story) for more info:
- Full details on FFII's wiki (with links to articles, JURI speeches, &c--good starting point)
- The story on the European Parliament's news site
- Infoworld article
- More stories on Google News
- FFII transcript of the JURI meeting (in progress--help out)
- FFII: more details of recent JURI happenings (before this decision)
And here is the EP's Rule 55 (for those wondering whether the €C will argue that it is not bound by the it):
The President shall, at the request of the committee responsible, ask the Commission to refer its proposal again to Parliament
- where the Commission withdraws its initial proposal after Parliament has adopted its position in order to replace it with another text, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
- where the Commission substantially amends or intends to amend its initial proposal, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
- where, through the passage of time or changes in circumstances, the nature of the problem with which the proposal is concerned substantially changes; or
- where new elections to Parliament have taken place since it adopted its position, and the Conference of Presidents considers it desirable.
Also, see FFII's (interesting but hopefully no longer needed) explanation about reversing council decsions
-
More linksSee these links (that I didn't put in original story) for more info:
- Full details on FFII's wiki (with links to articles, JURI speeches, &c--good starting point)
- The story on the European Parliament's news site
- Infoworld article
- More stories on Google News
- FFII transcript of the JURI meeting (in progress--help out)
- FFII: more details of recent JURI happenings (before this decision)
And here is the EP's Rule 55 (for those wondering whether the €C will argue that it is not bound by the it):
The President shall, at the request of the committee responsible, ask the Commission to refer its proposal again to Parliament
- where the Commission withdraws its initial proposal after Parliament has adopted its position in order to replace it with another text, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
- where the Commission substantially amends or intends to amend its initial proposal, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
- where, through the passage of time or changes in circumstances, the nature of the problem with which the proposal is concerned substantially changes; or
- where new elections to Parliament have taken place since it adopted its position, and the Conference of Presidents considers it desirable.
Also, see FFII's (interesting but hopefully no longer needed) explanation about reversing council decsions
-
More linksSee these links (that I didn't put in original story) for more info:
- Full details on FFII's wiki (with links to articles, JURI speeches, &c--good starting point)
- The story on the European Parliament's news site
- Infoworld article
- More stories on Google News
- FFII transcript of the JURI meeting (in progress--help out)
- FFII: more details of recent JURI happenings (before this decision)
And here is the EP's Rule 55 (for those wondering whether the €C will argue that it is not bound by the it):
The President shall, at the request of the committee responsible, ask the Commission to refer its proposal again to Parliament
- where the Commission withdraws its initial proposal after Parliament has adopted its position in order to replace it with another text, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
- where the Commission substantially amends or intends to amend its initial proposal, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
- where, through the passage of time or changes in circumstances, the nature of the problem with which the proposal is concerned substantially changes; or
- where new elections to Parliament have taken place since it adopted its position, and the Conference of Presidents considers it desirable.
Also, see FFII's (interesting but hopefully no longer needed) explanation about reversing council decsions
-
More linksSee these links (that I didn't put in original story) for more info:
- Full details on FFII's wiki (with links to articles, JURI speeches, &c--good starting point)
- The story on the European Parliament's news site
- Infoworld article
- More stories on Google News
- FFII transcript of the JURI meeting (in progress--help out)
- FFII: more details of recent JURI happenings (before this decision)
And here is the EP's Rule 55 (for those wondering whether the €C will argue that it is not bound by the it):
The President shall, at the request of the committee responsible, ask the Commission to refer its proposal again to Parliament
- where the Commission withdraws its initial proposal after Parliament has adopted its position in order to replace it with another text, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
- where the Commission substantially amends or intends to amend its initial proposal, except where this is done in order to incorporate Parliament's amendments; or
- where, through the passage of time or changes in circumstances, the nature of the problem with which the proposal is concerned substantially changes; or
- where new elections to Parliament have taken place since it adopted its position, and the Conference of Presidents considers it desirable.
Also, see FFII's (interesting but hopefully no longer needed) explanation about reversing council decsions
-
Re:great victory
Let's call a spade a spade. Patents on software, patents on mechanics, patents on business models, patents on tools, patents on architecture, patents on nature -- no matter what type of patent, the core concept is that it is not only possible, but moral and just, to own an idea.
Patents have nothing to do with morality or justice, they're a purely economic tool which can be used by the government where it deems them to be beneficial. Look e.g. here, page 8 of the pdf document near the top.I'm not convinced that software patents are any more counter-productive and unjust than any other type of patent.
Then you might want to read some economic studies and opinions on the subject.Like prohibition, patent law did not arise because human nature demanded it -- it arose because the powerful elite demanded it.
I'm not sure how you can both argue that they're "moral and just" and they are here "because the powerful elite demanded it". As if the powerful elite only asks for things because they are moral and just. -
Physics of Abstraction (Abstraction Physics)...
...Why Software Patents are not patentable
But you really already know this... Don'tcha?! -
Re:So, how many patents has he registered?
so given your statement would you say the patents in this list are innovations? can you innovate upon the ' invention ' of "Watching Video in a Browser"?.. perhaps "Watch Video in a Car"... hmm
-
Its about intellectual property claims that...
... well that aren't valid in the first placed.
It like a bunch of people have pursued some man made rules or laws that rely on the earth being flat. But now that the earth really isn't flat, these rules, these laws are having a problem holding up. A lack of integrity of the rules/laws of which so many have beeing following.
So yeah, its really not supprising the exposure of the web of distortion that has spread thru out the industry.
Imagine what it would be like to see from the POV of one having clairity of the issue. Imagine how those following and supporting such distortion would be preceived by such a POV.
Perhaps this is such a view!?
-
3000 times loss
Offering insurance against softwarepatents is difficult. Ian Lewis of Miller Insurance company said at the Brussels' FFII conference that a company lost 3000 times the premium. For every pound premium it received, it had to pay out 3000 pounds.(74th minute)
-
Software in general is not patentable, but...
...there is a reason or two why this is not yet common knowledge amoung the public and probably a large percentage of software developers, proprietary and Open Source alike.
-
= $4 million USD in litigation to kill a patent
Pro-patent lobbiest and apologists will argue that you can always go to court to overturn the patent with prior art if it is truly illegitamate (thereby neatly avoiding the entire point of how terrible patents are for anyone who cares about technological and human progress), and that's true as far as it goes
The figures mentioned at the FFII Software Patent Conference, Brussels 9-10 Nov 2004 were more in the ballpark of 4 million USD to shoot down an illegitimate patent. I'm not sure what the real figures are, but 1 million USD sounds cheap. However, whatever the cost, it will be neither cheap nor affordable for small or medium sized businesses. Unfortunately, in Europe, the large majority of revenue is generated from small and medium businesses.One thing that most articles miss is that software patents really screw anyone who even uses a computer, not just developers.
-
What Jef is not considering.....
... is the fact that people think differently, using differ methods of thinking. Someone who can visualize things will tend to use that in thinking, where a person who thinks in terms of abstraction (words) will use that, etc...
What is real, is abstraction physics. The understanding of abstraction creation and use, knowing that you can attach what ever interface you find useful to you....
Jefs direction of commands sets acting upon content is the right direction but what about the users ability to create such???
BTW, there are three primary UIs. Jef got the first two right, the third he apparently doesn't mention, but must know about in order to make his system work. (the side door port to functionality access)
There is another work being done regarding Abstraction Physics. Yeah, I need to spend some more money on hiring a coder. -
Re:Council of Agriculture and Fisheries ???????
Actually, the dutch parliament told the dutch minister of economic affairs to vote against software patents. Brinkhorst, the dutch minister of economic affairs, then voted for software patents, because he doesn't give a shit about the democratic process. Dutch parliament then told him to change his vote in "against," he didn' t want to because that would mean losing face so instead he abstained.
No. Before the Council meeting in May, Brinkhorst told the Dutch Parliament that there was no problem with supporting the Council text, because it was a compromise between the Council and European Parliament and everyone was happy about it.Afterwards, it became clear that this was wrong, and Brinkhorst claimed this was due to "an error in the word processing". Next, two motions were proposed: one to change the yes-vote into a no-vote, and another one to change it into an abstention. Only managed to get a majority in the Parliament.
-
Re:Council of Agriculture and Fisheries ???????
Actually, the dutch parliament told the dutch minister of economic affairs to vote against software patents. Brinkhorst, the dutch minister of economic affairs, then voted for software patents, because he doesn't give a shit about the democratic process. Dutch parliament then told him to change his vote in "against," he didn' t want to because that would mean losing face so instead he abstained.
No. Before the Council meeting in May, Brinkhorst told the Dutch Parliament that there was no problem with supporting the Council text, because it was a compromise between the Council and European Parliament and everyone was happy about it.Afterwards, it became clear that this was wrong, and Brinkhorst claimed this was due to "an error in the word processing". Next, two motions were proposed: one to change the yes-vote into a no-vote, and another one to change it into an abstention. Only managed to get a majority in the Parliament.
-
Re:My MEP's response... UK Labour Party line
Try not to get too angry
-
Re:no surprise
they patented their algorithm
They patented a ton of high level algorithms in fact, including compressing (using any compression algorithm) a sample in a loop until it can be represented in the desired number of bits, as long as you use spectral analysis up front and huffman coding (or another entropic encoder) inside the loop.That's not specific to mp3 at all, that's more like a patent on constant bit rate encoding (if you use an entropic encoder inside the loop). The mp3 patent holders initially couldn't even believe themselves that ogg did not infringe on any of their (broad) patents.
-
Re:Council of Agriculture and Fisheries ???????It's because in May, the responsible ministers reached a political agreement on this text (sort of, anyway). Such a political agreement has no legal value however, and must still be turned into a "common position".
Normally, turning a political agreement in a common position is just a formality. That's the reason why it can be done by any kind of Council formation.
Of course, in this case we have the fact that Poland really abstained in May (although they were recorded as voting in favour) and that since November change of voting weights there no longer is a qualified majority because of this, the fact that the Dutch parliament asked its government to change the pro-vote into an abstention, a similar motion by the German Bundestag etc.
Diplomatic inertia is a powerful force to fight, however: political agreements are "always" turned into a common position, so they want to do it this time as well, even though it's completely against democratic principles.