Slashdot Mirror

-- Even more unconvincing if you look at some of the patents the UK PO has granted.

Copyright and patents were intended to encourage people to make stuff that otherwise wouldn't be done. When people and organizations are willing to create an entire operating system and a collection of thousands of programs (GNU/Linux and the thousands of associated programs), the basic premise of copyright and patents is nullified.

Next, Open Source and Free software do need copyright. They're built on it just as much as closed source software is.

The 'technical effect' is a weasel phrase that allows any form of software patent. The FFII has shown how ridiculous this is by assuming a 'book implemented invention':

"Imagine a book, so the technical effect of a book would occur when your hands get lame from changing the pages or the eye movement tires you. Therefore we had proven that a reduction of letters causes a technical effect. Book-implemented inventions that contribute to more efficient use of letter space thus involve a technical effect and can get patented. The mere handling and displaying of information as such however cannot get patented."

And there's plenty more to show what nonsense a 'technical effect' is. I've seen it argued that 'technical effect' will have the same effect as 'reasonable doubt' and that arguments on both sides will be heard. Oh, come on, get real. Who's got the money and the motivation to argue slowly and surely, building case law on their side such that 'technical effect' can mean whatever they like. Yep, those generous and humanitarian souls at the corporate legal department.

And as for those who argue that the software for a device driver should be subject to patent, I ask why? If the hardware doesn't change, but a new release of s/w occurs what's patently new? Nothing, switches are flipped, memory is updated elsewhere or whatever, which is how the hardware was designed to function. Why isn't the hardware capable of being subject to a good patent on its own? If it is, then the s/w does not need to be patented. It's like a car and the (human) driver. Patenting the driver is like patenting software. I bet even the USPTO might think twice about patenting a NY taxi cab driver...

Newsflash: ALL patents are algorithms. Stop acting like this unique to computers. Chemical process patents, for example, are structurally and functionally indistinguishable and very obviously map into the same space as "software algorithms" and yet those are not considered controversial.

his is not an argument against anything. Everything machine is reducible to software, and every software is reducible to machine.

And that may exactly be the FTC report concluded that patents in the computer hardware industry and semi-conductors are generally considered to be not very efficient either.

Further, even though the intellectual achievement is quite similar (the routine and layout of the chips may require some extra time), in practice you often need either a chip fabrication line, or have to buy stock of those chips with someone else. In case of software development, almost the only investment that really counts is human capital. You don't have to setup a new assembly line for each program.

Quibbling over meaningless distinctions between identical classes of things is completely missing the point

... and write to your minister of agriculture, if you're a EU citizen!

Let them know that software patents are important enough to deserve a proper discussion in the parliament. Add why *you* think they are important (and wrong).

For the Belgians and the Dutch: http://www.softwarepatenten.be/landbouwraad.
For the rest of us: http://ffii.org/.

Please, take this 5 minutes, it's worth it.

Chris.

Your link is just about as shady as it gets. Look, it doesn't matter what patents IBM files.

It does matter that IBM is actively trying to expand the borders of patentable subject matter, and actively lobbying (both at patent offices and with politicians) to get the broken US system introduced in Europe.

Has IBM (in recent times) used it's patent portfolio to squash competition or to do generally evil things? No.

How many small European software companies do you think can play the patent game? Do you think IBM does not know this? IBM knows that no-one else can compete with them in the patent race, and even if someone else has a patent, they can get access to a cheap/free license because of the tons of patents they have.

See the remark at the top of page 4 of this testimony to the European Commission. That reference dates back to 1990, but there is no reason to assume that they stopped leveraging this competitive advantage while at the same time obtaining more and more patents, and starting to enforce their patents more actively from 1993 onwards (see slide 13, the curve does not flatten because R&D spending declines, but because patent license income goes up).

IBM has invented a good chunk of the technology out there today. The article mentions pursuing patent claims against Oracle, well, IBM invented the relational database!

Yes, and IBM tried to claim it invented case conversion using a lookup table (click on the patent number to get the pdf). Fortunately, there was prior art.

You also seem to assume that because someone did something first, they have a natural right to a monopoly on doing that. They don't. Patent law is a purely economical law which introduces artificial monopolies in the market. You only do that if you find out the market is running completely haywire due to the absence of such monopolies. IBM's early software work was not patented either, simply because there were no software patents. Did IBM suffer because of that? Of course not, they benefited a lot from he fact that the creators of VisiCalc hadn't patented "the database", even though they "invented" it.

Software patents are not necessary to keep the software market at large innovating or functioning correctly. Even enquiries by pro-swpat institutes like Max Planck and Fraunhofer show that competition is the main driving force to keep innovating. If you don't innovate, your competitor will and you lose.

Time to market and copyright give you a small lead time advantage, and the fact that the resulting monopolies are either fairly narrow but long (copyright) or broad but short (trade secret) means that the industry can keep moving at a high pace and does not require the high transaction costs associated with patents (and without requiring huge cross licensing deals between large companies).

A lot of companies exist and make lots of money based on technologies that IBM invented but did not pursue.

And IBM makes a lot of money on innovations from other people. Additionally, you don't hear about the individual cases where companies like IBM press other companies into paying for licenses, unless they go to court (which is only a very small fraction, who can fight IBM in court?). Companies also do not publicise that kind of things, since the fact that they have to pay 1% to 5% of their revenue on a product to IBM (or anyone else) is not good publicity.

Exactly because such cases are not publicised by anyone, there are

Many of the companies listed (IBM, etc.) actually DO innovate,

and use the patent system the way it was intended

At least the software patents from IBM are generally not particularly better than anyone else's. And unless you consider "patent everything you can so you can afterwards extract licensing money from everyone else" (and apart from that use the patents you have to force everyone else to give you access to their patents, so their patents become worthless in so far competing with you is concerned) as the way the patent system was intended to work, IBM is definitely not (only) using it as intended.

One article from 8 years ago is hardly the most convincing rebuttal.

• 18 November 1998: IBM kills study on software patents by the Whitehouse
• 1 July 1998: IBM manages to push through patents on "computer programs that have a further technical effect beyond the normal physical interaction between a computer and a computer program" at the EPO (represented by Fritz Teufel, their head patent lawyer in Europe). An example of such a further technical effect is reducing the number of mouse clicks (as in Amazon One Click).
• 8 September 2000: Pension Benefits case: IBM manages to push through "program claims" (claims on computer programs on a carrier) at the EPO.
• 30 October 2000: Fritz Teufel, IBM head patent lawyer, takes part in a German debate representing the pro software patents side (German article)
• IBM: $1.6 billion revenue from patent licensing in 2000.

And is IBM using it's portfolio to do negatively? Nope.

Patents are a necessary evil. Any large company has to file patents to protect itself.

Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?

Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)

In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.

Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of software the foundation upon which software is created must be supported the same. Free Software development community doesn't want to do this anymore than proprietary software campanies.

For its always about money based upon some mode of elitism. With Free Software its the service oriented products/applications and complexity out of teh reach of most customers, with proprietary software its exclusive use.

But if the arguement that software is not patentable due to its abstract ideas status, that anyone is capable of abstract logical thought and ideas, then that status has to be supported by making software obviously easy enough that the "free software" label will be because software is easy enough to create that its free in the sense that anyone can create it or cause the machine to, regardless of their knowledge resource. (you don't need to know how a calculator works to use it to calculate an equasion you input or hit the key that does some equasion for you - ie pi)

How do I know this? In a email to various participants of Edos, (Of which experience tells me not to expect any support for honesty about abstraction physics. Or any indication they got the email, as avoidance seems to be thought to be proof against something the thing being avoided), I wrote:

RE: press release "Major European research institutions and Open Source software companies today announced the launch of EDOS, a project dealing with complexity management in the field of Open Source software. The participants will collaborate in the development of theoretical and technical solutions to the management of large-scale, modular software projects..."

Abstraction Physics is the foundation of the practical application solutions. Deal with that, establish the mechanics and create the software mechanism and the rest will come easy (or boringly repetitive), where there is plenty to apply "navigational mapping" to and productively exaust the funds on and I believe to accomplish a lot more then thought possible regarding the EDOS goals.

from: - ffii.org - Software Patents
to: Advances in software are advances in abstraction
Then to: Abstraction Physics

Microsofts direction with longhorn.

Google search "web" for: "Timothy Rue" patents a few links from that search are here
and here (-see comment #4 - I'm/VIC USPTO published protected!)

I can wonder why the USPTO edited my comment and removed the near transparent markup but here is the version I sent them (with contact information limited). Also this google finding.

The Virtual Interaction Configurationion project is GPL'd (forkable and all the other things allowed) and would amount to maybe a drop in the bucket, in comparison to the funding and manpower the EDOS project has available, it could be completed and I believe used to surpass the goals of EDOS.

Current state is that of needing some correction and completion in the current python code, integration of the existing IQ and ID commands and the c

Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?

Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)

In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.

Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of software the foundation upon which software is created must be supported the same. Free Software development community doesn't want to do this anymore than proprietary software campanies.

For its always about money based upon some mode of elitism. With Free Software its the service oriented products/applications and complexity out of teh reach of most customers, with proprietary software its exclusive use.

But if the arguement that software is not patentable due to its abstract ideas status, that anyone is capable of abstract logical thought and ideas, then that status has to be supported by making software obviously easy enough that the "free software" label will be because software is easy enough to create that its free in the sense that anyone can create it or cause the machine to, regardless of their knowledge resource. (you don't need to know how a calculator works to use it to calculate an equasion you input or hit the key that does some equasion for you - ie pi)

How do I know this? In a email to various participants of Edos, (Of which experience tells me not to expect any support for honesty about abstraction physics. Or any indication they got the email, as avoidance seems to be thought to be proof against something the thing being avoided), I wrote:

RE: press release "Major European research institutions and Open Source software companies today announced the launch of EDOS, a project dealing with complexity management in the field of Open Source software. The participants will collaborate in the development of theoretical and technical solutions to the management of large-scale, modular software projects..."

Abstraction Physics is the foundation of the practical application solutions. Deal with that, establish the mechanics and create the software mechanism and the rest will come easy (or boringly repetitive), where there is plenty to apply "navigational mapping" to and productively exaust the funds on and I believe to accomplish a lot more then thought possible regarding the EDOS goals.

from: - ffii.org - Software Patents
to: Advances in software are advances in abstraction
Then to: Abstraction Physics

Microsofts direction with longhorn.

Google search "web" for: "Timothy Rue" patents a few links from that search are here
and here (-see comment #4 - I'm/VIC USPTO published protected!)

I can wonder why the USPTO edited my comment and removed the near transparent markup but here is the version I sent them (with contact information limited). Also this google finding.

The Virtual Interaction Configurationion project is GPL'd (forkable and all the other things allowed) and would amount to maybe a drop in the bucket, in comparison to the funding and manpower the EDOS project has available, it could be completed and I believe used to surpass the goals of EDOS.

Current state is that of needing some correction and completion in the current python code, integration of the existing IQ and ID commands and the c

Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?

Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)

In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.

Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of software the foundation upon which software is created must be supported the same. Free Software development community doesn't want to do this anymore than proprietary software campanies.

For its always about money based upon some mode of elitism. With Free Software its the service oriented products/applications and complexity out of teh reach of most customers, with proprietary software its exclusive use.

But if the arguement that software is not patentable due to its abstract ideas status, that anyone is capable of abstract logical thought and ideas, then that status has to be supported by making software obviously easy enough that the "free software" label will be because software is easy enough to create that its free in the sense that anyone can create it or cause the machine to, regardless of their knowledge resource. (you don't need to know how a calculator works to use it to calculate an equasion you input or hit the key that does some equasion for you - ie pi)

How do I know this? In a email to various participants of Edos, (Of which experience tells me not to expect any support for honesty about abstraction physics. Or any indication they got the email, as avoidance seems to be thought to be proof against something the thing being avoided), I wrote:

RE: press release "Major European research institutions and Open Source software companies today announced the launch of EDOS, a project dealing with complexity management in the field of Open Source software. The participants will collaborate in the development of theoretical and technical solutions to the management of large-scale, modular software projects..."

Abstraction Physics is the foundation of the practical application solutions. Deal with that, establish the mechanics and create the software mechanism and the rest will come easy (or boringly repetitive), where there is plenty to apply "navigational mapping" to and productively exaust the funds on and I believe to accomplish a lot more then thought possible regarding the EDOS goals.

from: - ffii.org - Software Patents
to: Advances in software are advances in abstraction
Then to: Abstraction Physics

Microsofts direction with longhorn.

Google search "web" for: "Timothy Rue" patents a few links from that search are here
and here (-see comment #4 - I'm/VIC USPTO published protected!)

I can wonder why the USPTO edited my comment and removed the near transparent markup but here is the version I sent them (with contact information limited). Also this google finding.

The Virtual Interaction Configurationion project is GPL'd (forkable and all the other things allowed) and would amount to maybe a drop in the bucket, in comparison to the funding and manpower the EDOS project has available, it could be completed and I believe used to surpass the goals of EDOS.

Current state is that of needing some correction and completion in the current python code, integration of the existing IQ and ID commands and the c

You might want to read this account for a more balanced picture. The broken patent system we have in the West is coming back to haunt us.

Not just that, China also owns about 40% of US debt.

If Ford had just stolen his idea then what could he have done? How much would it have cost him to take any action?

With such a clear law stating about firmware, how can patents be applicable to embedded systems ?

I'm mailing my ministers immediately !!... If you are an Indian, do the same immediately.

The patent lobby tried to introduce software patents in Europe silently as well. Thanks to the FFII there was enough noise to wake up politicians. Now we have additional support from sites like No Software Patents, but it took a lot of time to get this support.

Hopefully there is a chance to postpone the decision so the indian people and politicians can catch up on software patents.

Correction: Dolby owns the AAC patents, not Apple.

That doesn't change the issue though, Dolby is no stranger to harassing open source developers: Dolby Standard tolerates no OpenSource implementation

Now I write a new computer program to efficiently sort a database. Didn't this take the same type of mental effort that it took to design the apple sorter? Aren't I entitled to the same type of protection?

What agreements are there between Europe and the U.S. concerning patent law?

If so, European developers may not be off the hook. Sure European companies won't be able to create software patents - but that wouldn't stop Microsoft or other U.S. companies from enforcing their patents.

Similarly, it will prevent US companies from enforcing their European software patents.

Here is the transcription of the speech. Also, there is a website which has an open letter to send greetings to the polish government: thankpoland.info

Merry Christmas Europe !!!! (pfiu! ;)

Poland forced the patents directive to be removed from the agenda of the EU Agricultural Council. It means that the directive will not be adopted this year.

Maybe it's because canada doesn't have the european commission and other dubious characters decide about these matters>?

He is also a person who believes that information comes in physical quantities.

You can find some more information on him here.

And the only way for anyone to protect their software is to employ more ... lawyers. Gee, big surprise. More patent lawyers, trial lawyers, the works.

A google search for "Greg Aharonian" hit this: http://swpat.ffii.org/players/aharonian/index.en.h tml
Is this guy even worth an article? He seems like a professional troll who makes his living off the flame wars he starts.

a patent of 2.5 years wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on

exactly! only those companies that absolutely demand that extra edge will bother.

it will also work as means to dissuade frivolous patents.

I didn't know about the TRIPs agreement. It should be expanded to allow for different patent situations. The 17 years was selected (from what I understand) so that the innovations could be utilized at a later date by other companies as means of encouraging the use of innovative ideas.

(doesn't the USPTO contend [counterintuitively] that they exist to further innovation?)

It only makes sense that industries that move at a faster pace should have a shorter time before using patented innovations.

a patent of 2.5 years wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on

exactly! only those companies that absolutely demand that extra edge will bother.

it will also work as means to dissuade frivolous patents.

I didn't know about the TRIPs agreement. It should be expanded to allow for different patent situations. The 17 years was selected (from what I understand) so that the innovations could be utilized at a later date by other companies as means of encouraging the use of innovative ideas.

(doesn't the USPTO contend [counterintuitively] that they exist to further innovation?)

It only makes sense that industries that move at a faster pace should have a shorter time before using patented innovations.

You need to differentiate between proper patents that do apply, and ones that abuse the rules.

Loopholes in the law do not mean the law should be destroyed - it means it should be fixed.

If this means that they first have to find that magical fix for increasing the quality of granted patents to unknown heights, which has been promised forever now, then let them do so first. We've been doing perfectly fine without software patents, it does not make sense to introduce a broken system with the promise that if it ever gets fixed, it might have good effects.

Not all patents are wrong. Broad software patents however are, and that is what is at issue.

One of the main differences is that software is greatly different to physical products. Generally we do not have to deal with issues such as durability and reliability of materials. The entire manufacturing process is limited only by I/O speeds. Most software is an extension of what has gone before.

It is much easier and cheaper to develop a piece of software which comprises of thousands or even millions of components, each of which may only comprise a few lines of code. If broad software patents were allowed, each of these components could be patented. Developers would then have to spend huge resources researching existing patents to see if a particular component is covered. This is an unacceptable strain on small companies and individaul developers. Also, patent applications are kept secret until approved, a process which often takes over 18 months. So even if you did your research, you could have your product developed and in the marketplace before you learn that it infringes somebodies patent.

Another effect of the component-based nature of software is that any particular product can infringe on many different patents - a particular technique for writing data, another for reading it, another for displaying it on the screen, another for linking it with other data, and so on.

Large corporations can build up large patent portfolios and cross-licence with each other to avoid paying royalties between themselves. However, if a small developer receives a patent and tries to sell a product using his invention, his patent does not necessarily protect him from such large competitors. They can usually dig up patents of their own which his product infringes on, and at best he will end up granting them royalty-free licences. At worst, he will end up paying royalties to them. If he ends up infringing 20 patents, and has to pay 5% royalties for each licence, you can see the problem.

Of course, this often doesn't happen, but only because the corporations don't bother to enforce their patent. Legally though, it is their right to do so. Most websites out there infringe on at least a half dozen patents - see http://webshop.ffii.org.

Most computer science boils down to making the most with the resources available. There are many things we would love to be able to do with computers, but are currently impractical due to hardware constraints. Often software 'inventions' are not inventions at all - they are just the first time somebody has implemented an existing idea. Patenting an idea now that may not be possible to implement for another 10 years is unfair, and goes against the idea of patents.

Even if there were a case for broad software patents, the 20 year term is overly restrictive due to the speed of development, and the relative short lifespan of products. Compare software that we have now with that of 1984.

Would someone please explain to me (logically, not emotionally) what is wrong with a patent?

A Dane pretending to show some spine about this very question? That has to be a troll!

Yes, I know, trolls are Norvegian, not Danish, but "Can I hear from Norvegia?" just doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely...

You mention a company where I have a foot (actually only some toes) in door, and I already had a lot of informal discussions with my contacts about this issue. But typically they're too distanced and too busy minding their own corner to care. With a wait-and-see approach businesses in Belgium tend to be very reactive regarding politics.

I've also talked to a quite highly positioned person at Alcatel, but they take a very, very pro-patent stance since they feel it's a thing that can protect them from Chinese competition/rip-offs. Being a big business, they don't care about the cost, as the lawyers add to their meat mass and hence their visible profile.

Non-IT businesses are even worse. Talking to them about this is like talking about a math problem to a baker. They simply have other things to do.

You mention a company where I have a foot (actually only some toes) in door, and I already had a lot of informal discussions with my contacts about this issue. But typically they're too distanced and too busy minding their own corner to care. With a wait-and-see approach businesses in Belgium tend to be very reactive regarding politics.

I've also talked to a quite highly positioned person at Alcatel, but they take a very, very pro-patent stance since they feel it's a thing that can protect them from Chinese competition/rip-offs. Being a big business, they don't care about the cost, as the lawyers add to their meat mass and hence their visible profile.

Non-IT businesses are even worse. Talking to them about this is like talking about a math problem to a baker. They simply have other things to do.

Please do verify what I wrote, I have the feeling I may be mixing up things.

Even beyond that, however, there is another issue at stake. If a law is passed which standardizes software patents, all of the individual countries which make up the EU will be forced to accept it. So, say that, for example, the government of Germany would rather not accept software patents. Too bad, they'll have to anyway, despite the fact that the majority of the people there may not want it. So much for the will of the people.

I believe this is not correct. This link seems to state something totally different.

States do not need to accept a Council agreement that does not represent their will

Background

Talks with politologists and Brussels lobbyists independently confirmed that the heads of state can reverse decisions of their ministers, especially in cases such as that of 2004-05-18, where it appears that the decision taken by the ministers does not reflect the will of a real qualified majority of governments.

There is no law that forbids reversal of such flawed decisionmaking. Nevertheless governments hesitate to do it, because it could undermine the trust in words given at international negotiations. OTOH, political malpractise of the level witnessed here is rare.

Even beyond that, however, there is another issue at stake. If a law is passed which standardizes software patents, all of the individual countries which make up the EU will be forced to accept it. So, say that, for example, the government of Germany would rather not accept software patents. Too bad, they'll have to anyway, despite the fact that the majority of the people there may not want it. So much for the will of the people.

I believe this is not correct. This link seems to state something totally different.

States do not need to accept a Council agreement that does not represent their will

Background

Talks with politologists and Brussels lobbyists independently confirmed that the heads of state can reverse decisions of their ministers, especially in cases such as that of 2004-05-18, where it appears that the decision taken by the ministers does not reflect the will of a real qualified majority of governments.

There is no law that forbids reversal of such flawed decisionmaking. Nevertheless governments hesitate to do it, because it could undermine the trust in words given at international negotiations. OTOH, political malpractise of the level witnessed here is rare.

You forgot to mention that Eolas is no software company such as Microsoft (hate them, but they are a software company with code) but a well-known patent privateer. They filed patents for various technologies they claim to own such as the Digital timestamp and so on. Eolas also forced IBM to license their "e"-Trademark also used by the eBusiness advertisement campaign from IBM.

What is a patent privateer? A patent privateer obtains patents and sues/blackmails technology companys in the market place.

Software patents are evil. It is time to get organised and to get rid of them.

Just wait until the new software patent directice from EU have been affirmed before saying that.

There are terrible forces at work to americanizise the EU patent system.

Support FFII.org

If I send you a BS bill for $50 and you pay it, it's your fault, not mine.

Now, if you've got a suggestion to protect small players from frivilous litigation, I'd love to hear it.

From a national economic standpoint, even the US has an incentive to pump out as many patents as possible, no matter how frivolous, in order to extract money from corporations in other countries

Here is a list of patent application numbers:

http://kwiki.ffii.org/?CommerceOne

I think basically they have a load of US patents, and the applications above are the EU applications for the equivalent of what they already have in the US.

A search on the USPTO database for that company and those inventors would probably yield a list of the Commerce One patents.

I think some of them are going to be big-bucks patents too, sadly.

European Patent News: European Council's bad 18th May "agreement" seems to have come unstuck:

http://nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php? t=233

Oh dear. This might mean the EU doesn't get swpat after all.... ;)

There are no software patents in Europe. Keep it that way. Otherwise this purchase will hurt industry on both continents rather than containing the damage.

Software patents are illegal in the UK anyway

Unfortunately, this hasn't stopped the UK patent office granting them.

http://swpat.ffii.org/players/uk/index.en.html

being somewhat involved in these discussions, i can tell you that the NO SOFTWARE PATENT attitude and the petulancy with which it is aadvanced is getting Open Source no where fast.

I really wonder where that open source obsession of all you pro-software patent people comes from. You guys even seem to think FFII is some kind of open source lobbying organisation. Maybe the fact that this easily shown to be false when talking to politicians is one reason that we have been so successful until now, as that immediately raises doubts about other things that may have been wrongly described by your side.

the FFII and others cannot even define precisely what a "software patent" is and most of the arguments boil down to no patents period - which is never going to happen.

Nice copy/paste from Axel Horns' blog (maybe you're even him?). He has even linked to your post.

There is a very simple definition though, which we even spread to all MEPs in September: software patents are patents that cover computer programs. There, that wasn't hard, was it? Of course, that's not a juridical definition ready to go in the directive, but that's what we want to exclude.

And unlike what Mr. Horns says, this does not per definition exclude everything that is computer-implementable. We do think it would be best for innovation and the economy (and moral reasons) if all pure logic/math advances were excluded from patentability regardless of what devices they are applied to (and most economists are even with us on that), but we are prepared to compromise.

As the document Mr Horns referred to earlier says:

Our constituents' basic interest is to keep the software free from patents, regulated by copyright only. I.e. even if there are patents on the much cited "anti-lock braking system", "washing machine", "intelligent vacuum cleaner" etc, they must apply only to the makers and users of the devices, not to people who create or provide software (= control logic, similar to user manuals) for these devices.

However, there has been no sign at all from the "everything under the Sun should be patentable" camp that they are the least interested in a compromise. For them, it's indeed all or nothing it seems.

instead of engaging the pro-patent side in thoughtful debate and trying to reach a compromise, Open Source is shooting themselves in the head by taking such a strident anti approach.

If you still mean FFII with "Open Source", we're actually taking very much a "pro" approach. How many conferences with economists from all over the world has the "pro" side organised?

my colleagues are of the opinion that the best way to combat the anti-patent forces is simply to let them speak and make fools of themselves in front of the parliament. it seems to be working. emotion and passion are simply no substitute for sustained debate.

Yes, sure. Sustained debate like this? :) "Semantical wafare", "vast armies of volunteers", "They must not be allowed to "occupy" any of the long-standing concepts of patent law." Claiming that only patent lawyers and others from the "IP incrowd" should be listened to in this debate.

at the end of the day, friends, the EPO is not controlled by the EU and even if the EU does nothing the situation at the EPO and in the member states of the EPC will remain unchanged.

You might actually want to talk to the people of the EPO. They have publicly stated that they will follow the EU directive, whatever the outcome. Besides, patents have to be enforced under member states' laws, whi

being somewhat involved in these discussions, i can tell you that the NO SOFTWARE PATENT attitude and the petulancy with which it is aadvanced is getting Open Source no where fast.

I really wonder where that open source obsession of all you pro-software patent people comes from. You guys even seem to think FFII is some kind of open source lobbying organisation. Maybe the fact that this easily shown to be false when talking to politicians is one reason that we have been so successful until now, as that immediately raises doubts about other things that may have been wrongly described by your side.

the FFII and others cannot even define precisely what a "software patent" is and most of the arguments boil down to no patents period - which is never going to happen.

Nice copy/paste from Axel Horns' blog (maybe you're even him?). He has even linked to your post.

There is a very simple definition though, which we even spread to all MEPs in September: software patents are patents that cover computer programs. There, that wasn't hard, was it? Of course, that's not a juridical definition ready to go in the directive, but that's what we want to exclude.

And unlike what Mr. Horns says, this does not per definition exclude everything that is computer-implementable. We do think it would be best for innovation and the economy (and moral reasons) if all pure logic/math advances were excluded from patentability regardless of what devices they are applied to (and most economists are even with us on that), but we are prepared to compromise.

As the document Mr Horns referred to earlier says:

Our constituents' basic interest is to keep the software free from patents, regulated by copyright only. I.e. even if there are patents on the much cited "anti-lock braking system", "washing machine", "intelligent vacuum cleaner" etc, they must apply only to the makers and users of the devices, not to people who create or provide software (= control logic, similar to user manuals) for these devices.

However, there has been no sign at all from the "everything under the Sun should be patentable" camp that they are the least interested in a compromise. For them, it's indeed all or nothing it seems.

instead of engaging the pro-patent side in thoughtful debate and trying to reach a compromise, Open Source is shooting themselves in the head by taking such a strident anti approach.

If you still mean FFII with "Open Source", we're actually taking very much a "pro" approach. How many conferences with economists from all over the world has the "pro" side organised?

my colleagues are of the opinion that the best way to combat the anti-patent forces is simply to let them speak and make fools of themselves in front of the parliament. it seems to be working. emotion and passion are simply no substitute for sustained debate.

Yes, sure. Sustained debate like this? :) "Semantical wafare", "vast armies of volunteers", "They must not be allowed to "occupy" any of the long-standing concepts of patent law." Claiming that only patent lawyers and others from the "IP incrowd" should be listened to in this debate.

at the end of the day, friends, the EPO is not controlled by the EU and even if the EU does nothing the situation at the EPO and in the member states of the EPC will remain unchanged.

You might actually want to talk to the people of the EPO. They have publicly stated that they will follow the EU directive, whatever the outcome. Besides, patents have to be enforced under member states' laws, whi

As least the US has people passionately campaigning for freedoms

And yet, all those good things aside, I bet it still gets passed.

I september 2003, the FFII and other software patent opponents won a major victory in the European Parliament, when a majority of the politicians there adopted a version of the directive that said no to software patents.

Last week, it was announced that Poland will not support the introduction of software patents in the Council of Ministers, which means that there is no longer a qualified majority in the Council. This too is a great step towards a Europe free from software patents.

Right now, the issue hangs very much in the balance in Europe. The best estimate I've heard anybody give, is that it could really go either way. So this is no time to give up and resort to armchair cynicism. We managed to get a majority in parliament, now let's try to reach the politicians in the Council as well.

Right now, this one winnable in Europe.

And even if things had looked gloomier than they actually do today, I think there is a lot of wisdom to the German saying "Wer kämpft kann verlieren, wer nicht kämpft hat schon verloren." (If you fight you may lose, if you don't fight you've already lost.)

The beauty of being a politician is the public listens to what you say, not what you do. So yeah, they'll make tons of noise about being against sw patents, and then silently pass it into law.

• Software has not advanced faster since patents were introduced in the US, actually quite the opposite.
• The average cost of patent litigation, even to get a lame patent tossed out, is around $4 000 000 USD.
• So far the arguments in favor of software patents have not been backed up by evidence
• Most of the small and medium business owners I've heard claiming to favor SWP have only one major customer, in Redmond

They also call on the Internet community to express solidarity by placing NoSoftwarePatents.com links and banners on many Web sites."

That's exactly what China is doing now to US and European companies that previously "fulfilled" contractual patent obligations by giving licenses on worthless patents to the Chinese.