Slashdot Mirror

I'd be curious to know whether you would support the kind of interoperability exception contained in article 6a of the EU parliament's (amended, anti-swpat) version of the software patent directive? If so, you might want to support or donate to the FFII anyway, because they played a key role in getting the parliament to vote for that.

...gave a flaming speech (german, sorry) for software patents and the protection of intellectual property as the new resources of the 21st century in Munich, 2 days ago. Note the european parliament voted AGAINST the draft, now the senate is clandestinely pushing for it's implementation. We're talking, demonstrating, doing everything in our possibilities here as german software developers, but the "social democratic" guys in power do not care, and do not have a fucking clue what they're talking about. Destroying innovation to appease the big companies :( If you're in europe, come on join at the FFII and help in the fight, please. It might be our last chance.

Ah - the European federal government is even more complicated than it appeared to me. National governments (typically parliaments) decide, then instruct their minister(s) to the EU Parliament, which votes to propose a law. Meanwhile, national governments also instruct their minister(s?) to the EU Council of Ministers, which selects from proposed laws, including those proposed by the Council, for a final candidate law for passage. Then the Council votes again, binding them to accept or reject the accepted candidate law. Is that correct? Is that the format for every law?

First of all, the Players:

• The Commission: a bunch of unelected people, who get their position by horse trading among the different national governments, with some influence from the large political groups in the EP.
• The Council of Ministers: not really one body. There are several Council formations (e.g. there's one on competitiveness, which is the one handling this directive), but they're all called "The Council of Ministers". Every formation consists of ministers (sometimes State Secretaries or even just civil servants) delegated from the national governments, and depending on the subject, these are other people. One always talks about "The Council has decided that ..." though.
• The European Parliament: the only body among the three which is directly elected.

Next, there are several possible decision procedures, but I only know one in detail: the co-decision procedure, which is what the software patents directive goes through. It's actually the procedure most directives go through nowadays. It works like this:

• The Commission proposes a directive text (or in our case: the BSA, after which the Commission comes forward with a copy of this text and claims it's its own), along with several studies (which in this case univocally stated that economically, software patents are a bad idea). I think they do this on initiative of the member states, but I'm not sure.
• This text gets an opinion from the European Economical and Social Committee (which completely blasted the Commission text in this case)
• The text goes to two advising Committees of the European Parliament, in this case the Committee of Culture and Youth (CULT) and the Committee of Industry and Trade (ITRE), which both heavily amended the Commission proposal (one removed pure software patents, the other guaranteed the right to publication and interoperability).
• The text goes to the responsible Committee (Committee on Juridical Affairs and Internal Market (JURI) in this case), which created a text more or less identical to what was approved in the Council, except that they accidentally left in the interoperability amendment).
• The text goes to the plenary of the European Parliament, where the amendments from the responsible Committee (JURI) are voted on, along with all amendments proposed by either a political group, or a group of 32 or more MEPs. The result was a definite "no" to software patents.
• Then the original Commission text goes together with the EP text to the Council, for which the resulting text of the EP is just an "advice". The Commission sent along a list of all unacceptable EP amendments.
• The Council lets its "Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents)" formulate a counterproposal for the EP text. This Working Party mainly consists of civil servants from national and even the European Patent office, i.e. the people that started giving out software patents in the first place.
• The Council votes about this counterproposal, whereby the national delegations are mostly advised by those same people who wrote the counterproposal. They accept a text which is even more pro-software patents than the original Commis

It means that something went really wrong. In our case, the Minister said to the Dutch Parliament that there was agreement between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, which was absolutely not the case.

In our communications with politicians, it became clear that they had no idea what was going on. Because of the clear case of misinformation, we were able to get the attention of the Parliament, so we could inform them of the situation.

What was really important was that we had the European Parliament on our hand.

What hopefully happens now is that the Dutch decision triggers the attention in the other European Countries, so they start talking to their people in the European Parliament and to local representatives of the FFII and other organisations.

In case you're interested: read all about our efforts at: osnews.com

The Inquirer: "A plan by the European Council of Ministers to force the continent wide adoption of the Directive on Software Patents suffered a blow yesterday when the Dutch Parliament ordered a minister to withdraw the country's support".

Groklaw says "The Dutch parliament is making news. It has just withdrawn its vote for the Directive on Software Patents. It's a proof-of-concept vote, you might say, the first time such a move has been taken in the history of the EU, demonstrating that other countries are free to do the same, as we reported on June 22.".

In Germany, Heise covers the story. In the Netherlands, the story is making headlines all over the place, lik e for example on webwereld and Tweakers.net.

This sudden change of direction is a long story, in which a classic case of desinformation of the Parliament triggered a whole process of debates and motions.

This law they are trying to pass will allow companies to patent the software (intellectual property) that they have written? Just like any other company that does R&D (the most costly aspect of producing a product) what is the problem with it being patented?

it's very much "not done" to change your stance after a political agreement has been reached, but there are no juridical hurdles which prevent you from doing that.

Now, the Dutch parliament has told the minister to retract his support, because he misinformed the Parliament before the vote (he told them there was a compromise between the EP and the Council, while their positions are completely contrary).

The decision to originally vote for the software patents directive was based on incorrect information. When this was clear they changed their mind.

ffii

"The European Parliament's version asserted that patents would only be allowed for industrial inventions (e.g. washing machines) and would not be made possible for pure software. All these adaptations were removed in the Council of Ministers' controversial version.

Earlier, Brinkhorst described the Council proposal to the Dutch Parliament as a compromise with the EP. In recent legislative debates, Van Gennip was forced to admit that this was incorrect information, and attributed it to "an error in the word processor." "

-doh!

Please use this link instead, it goes to a static version of the linked page. It would be nice if an editor could update the story itself as well, thanks.

I hope you're not a programmer, or someone that depends on logic. Just because my name isn't on the patent is proof of nothing.

• "While the invention has been particularly shown and described with reference to a preferred embodiment thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various other changes in the form and details may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention." (Sun's patent on converting Windows file names)
• "While we have described our preferred embodiments of our invention, it will be understood that those skilled in the art, both now and in the future, may make various improvements and enhancements which fall within the scope of the claims which follow. These claims should be construed to maintain the proper protection for the invention first disclosed." (IBM's patent on extensible web servers)
• "What has been described is merely illustrative of the application of the principles of the present invention. Other arrangements and methods can be implemented by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention." (ATT patent on single object file naming conventions)
• ... (countless other examples)

I really don't agree that there is a tendency for narrow software patents (that may be the case with guns...), on the contrary, attempts to make patents as broad as possible are ubiquitous, which is understandable, since these patents are used for building large patent portfolios for threatening, not necessarily to be valid.

When you do things in an original way, the best means of maintaining economic viability in the software industry these days is to ensure that somebody can't clone your work and offer it for less, or in the case of OSS, for free. The best way to do that is to patent it.

Oh yes, for those who have patents it is obviously good - they can overcharge and don't have to deal with competition. For everyone else, it is bad - customers a) have to pay more b) have worse products because if only one company is allowed to implement an idea, fewer optimization will happen.

Theft of intellectual property (e.g. product design) should not be accepted as business as usual.

You call competition theft... It's just a question of competition or monopolies, and - apart from those few that would have their monopolies -, competition is better (except perhaps some natural monopolies that should be under democratic public control).

spent three months working on the interface for my last program and my boss is so worried that somebody will just clone it and sell a look-alike for cheaper that he doesn't want to put screenshots on the web!
A clear indication that your overcharge for your product. If the functionality behind the interface is so easy to implement that the main concern is that the interface could be cloned, it is obviously a program that should be cheap.

In our industry, price is a BIG concern and we're already selling things as cheaply as we can without cutting big corners, like our R&D budget. Being able to have the peace of mind that, for twenty years, nobody else in this industry could do what the core of our product does in the way it does it without our permission, would be a great boon to the maintenance of our MASSIVE R&D budget.
And for your customers, which would have to pay too much for 20 years because your apparently more efficient competitors are banned pri

"the deputy director" - there isn't just one, their are several. The top-dog is the comptroller. Then there are divisional directors, then deputy directors (one of whom heads the group that examine computer patents), then senior examiners and finally examiners (and associates below them).

I think the argument is slightly different to how Halo1 frames it in that if an examiner argues that a "barrel-shift and multiply processor in a mobile phone"-patent (say, maybe for hashes or something, I'm just making this up!!) is obvious as "barrel-shift and multiply processors are known in general computing and mobile phones are just specialised computers" ... then the response is, if it's obvious _in_such_a_well_worked_field why hasn't it been done already. It's a pretty good argument too. The best ideas, after all, always elicit that "why didn't we think of that before".

That's when the examiner has to say, benefit of doubt to applicant and use their big stamp!

Incidentally this all gets quite tricky when you mix-in the non-patentability of computer programs!!

There's no "European" patent office

Each country within the EU has its own separate patent office, and its own separate patent laws.

Note however that the EPO is not an EU body, it lives completely outside the EU (there are countries who signed the EPC and which thus recognise the EPO, but which are not in the EU).

Some countries permit the patenting of software patents, some currently do not.

However, when you want to enforce a patent, you have to do so before a national court in the country where you want to enforce it. When you look at this, only in the UK software patents have been successfully enforced in the general case. In The Netherlands for example, no-one has ever even tried to enforce a software patent. In Germany, software patents have been generally unenforceable until now.

Even if (when) the EU patent directive is introduced there still will not be a "European" patent office, or even a Europe-wide agreement as to what is and is not patentable.

As you may have seen, article 52 EPC excludes computer programs, mathematical methods and business methods from being an invention (and thus from patentability). The catch is article 52(3), which states that those exclusions only pertain to the subject matter "as such". What this used to mean, is that you could never get a patent on something where the only contribution lied in one of those things (maths etc), but that otoh an patentable invention which also contains a computer program, does not suddenly become unpatentable

Since the EPO wanted to start granting software patents (their advisory board consists of corporate lawyers from IBM, Nokia etc, and they make money per granted patent), they changed that interpretation: now they say that this exlclusion means that e.g. computer programs not as such are patentable. Now what is a computer program not as such? A computer program executed by a computer, and to make it absolutely clear those are patentable, they call those "computer-implemented inventions" nowadays.

Quicktime is at least "mostly" open. Standard container format (basis for MPEG-4 and all!) that supports actually sensible compression methods like MPEG-4 video and MP3 audio. (Just remember to pay the license fees for those.)

While, of course, Microsoft will get ve-ry ve-ry ang-ry if you try to use ASF for anything.

Of course, both are heavily patented behemoths, but at least Apple has nothing particular against those people that develop programs to handle QT files.

And, of course, Windows players for both of them kind of suck, but that's obvious. =)

"I've always liked Nokia phones but I wasn't going to get another one because of their stance (and their campaigning) on software patents but if they are investing in Mozilla - I'm really torn."

Don't be torn -- anyone who is campaigning for software patents so that they can patent the idea of displaying an image on a computer doesn't get any free sympathy just because they use open-source software.

I've always liked Nokia phones but I wasn't going to get another one because of their stance (and their campaigning) on software patents but if they are investing in Mozilla - I'm really torn.

Still, Siemens supports software patents, and you'd be a damned fool to think that they actually care about the OSS scene any more than they can profit from it.

this has been extensively examined by lots of people, including the Mono developers and their lawyers

Responding to questions about the opening-up of the .NET framework, Ballmer announced that there would certainly be a "Common Language Runtime Implementation" for Unix, but then explained that this development would be limited to a subset, which was "intended only for academic use". Ballmer rejected speculations about support for free .NET implementationens such as Mono: "We have invested so many millions in .NET, we have so many patents on .NET, which we want to cultivate."

Microsoft has publicly stated that it is their intention that people can implement ECMA C# (which includes a lot of .NET libraries) freely.

It was not a plain deal. It is generally considered a M$ victory in Europe: look at article of FFII site.

Those "poor corperations" are usually corporations like IBM (e.g. progress bar) or Sun (shopping cart in web shops).

The majority of those patents have been filed by non-EU-companies, and even most of their claims are just based on the line "we managed to patent this in the US, so acknowledge this patent for the EU as well".
As the european patent office gets money for issuing patents and not for giving out legal advisories, they issued those patents.

If those patents were actually set in place, most EU companies who relied on the more than 30 years old laws forbidding to patent computer programs or math algorithms are deep in trouble: they would face a new legal situation and market, where the non-EU-companies who filed those EU-patents are definitely in advantage.

See swpat.ffii.org for more information on the situation of software patents in the EU.

The European Patent Office has been granting stupid software patents for years, even though they'll remain impossible to enforce pending the new legislation. For example, see some of Ericsson's patents here.

As you would expect, the average European is just as clueless about software patents as the average American. I wish this was not true but it is. It's possible that there's a higher awareness within the political parties, but not necessarily in favour of the free software position. At least the European greens in the parliament seem to have some clue.

Regards,

/ A EUropean who will take this opportunity to help vote in representatives this weekend with a favourable view on this matter.

The European Patent Office has been granting stupid software patents for years, even though they'll remain impossible to enforce pending the new legislation. For example, see some of Ericsson's patents here.

As you would expect, the average European is just as clueless about software patents as the average American. I wish this was not true but it is. It's possible that there's a higher awareness within the political parties, but not necessarily in favour of the free software position. At least the European greens in the parliament seem to have some clue.

Regards,

/ A EUropean who will take this opportunity to help vote in representatives this weekend with a favourable view on this matter.

Software patents party trends, candidate statements and voting behavior for many European countries (it's a wiki, add your country if you feel it's missing ;)

Abuse of the patent system

For those of you just tuning into this soap opera, here is a brief summary of the plot so far. Ken Brown, president of a Washington think tank called the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution has written a book claiming open source using GPL is a bad idea and that Linus Torvalds stole Linux from MINIX, which I wrote. Linus, the alleged stealer, responded. As the alleged stealee I also felt the need to respond. Now Ken Brown has reacted to my responses. I very much doubt that when he came to visit me, he was expecting me to (1) defend Linus in our interview and then (2) do it fairly publicly later.

I was planning to spend my Sunday afternoon doing something useful, but since Brown has directly challenged me in his posting cited above, I feel I should respond. I will do this in the form of commenting on his posting. His comments are set off typographically like this:

"Samizdat is a series of excerpts from an upcoming book on open source and operating systems that will be published later this year. AdTI did not publish Samizdat with the expectation that rabidly pro-Linux developers would embrace it."

I have to give credit where credit is due. Brown got that one completely right.

"The United States is the home of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, an internationally respected agency which contributes to the worldwide effort to protect and govern intellectual property."

***EVERY*** country has a patent office. The United States is not unique in this respect. Furthermore, many people think that patenting software is a terrible idea. The subject of software patents is a very controversial issue in Europe right now.

"The Samizdat report recommends that the U.S. government should invest $5 billion in research and development efforts that produce true open source products, such as BSD and MIT license-based open source. Government investment in open source development will accelerate innovation."

I can live with this. Professors are always on the lookout for new sources of research funding.

"The disturbing reality is that the hybrid source model depends heavily upon sponging talent from U.S. corporations and/or U.S. proprietary software. Much of this questionable borrowing is a) not in the best interest U.S. corporations ..."

Excuse me? A Finnish student writes some software (in Finland) that a lot of people like and he is accused on sponging off U.S. corporations? And last time I checked, quite a few U.S. Corporations, such as IBM, seemed quite happy with Linux. And a very large number of U.S. corporations seem to be using the (open source) Apache web server. And even if open source weren't in the best interest of U.S. corporations, where is it written that all activities everywhere in the world must be done with the interests of U.S. corporations as their primary goal?

"Linux is a leprosy; ..."

This statement is not grammatically, politically, or factually correct. Does he mean "Linus has Hansen's disease"? I hope not. But if he does, fortunately, it is highly treatable these days. If he means Linux is wasting away, the facts speak otherwise. If he means "Linux is very contagious" this is true, but a better wording could have been chosen.

"... and is having a deleterious effect on the U.S. IT industry because it is steadily depreciating the value of the software industry sector. Software is also embedded in hardware, chips, printers and even consumer electronics

Further, the current Commission stance on software patents is mostly dominated by Bolkestein, an extremely conservative "liberal" who longs for a European Microsoft (and failing that, just Microsoft: a few all-encompassing companies as "backbone" for the economy). Bolkestein is now leaving the Commission. Of course, his people will most likely remain, but it will still be interesting to see whether this will bring any change. And failing that, there's still the Parliament and more and more to some extent even the Council that could help us.

This database should give everyone a good idea whom to elect, and whom to vote out of office ASAP.

The fact that so few people participate in European elections only adds to the weight of your votes.

A reasonably composed European Parliament (which can now veto most of the proposals by Commission and Council) is our best chance for (more) sensible lawmaking in the future.

Yep, and regarding the article's "Europe" comment. The battle isn't over for European software patents. The disgraceful undemocratic behaviour of the European commission, chucking out all the amendments and introducing new ones, has really pissed off a lot of MEPs. Now is the time to lobby them -- with the elections -- and when the software patent issue arrives back in the European Parliament, we could well get it stopped.

But it won't happen without some serious volunteer lobbying power though -- we have to make up in numbers and committment what the corporations can by in influence and scumbags paid whisper politicians ear's fullstime.

First you accuse me of mischaracterizing the FFII.

That can happen with a comment title like the one above...

If you read carefully (I believe the first parenthesis in my response) I clearly wrote that this was the view of the one cambridge ffii presenter.

Who was that? James Heald? I'd be extremely surprised if he'd say something like that (though not impossible I guess, we all make mistakes).

Next, you attempt to equate a sound bite's use of the word "trivial" with "nonobvious", which sounds to me like a bit spin-doctoring by you.

How else is the patent system supposed to stop trivial patents, other then through careful application of the novelty and non-obvious conditions? Without software patents, there's still the "technical character" test in Europe, but that one has been completely eroded by the EPO so it doesn't mean squat anymore... Virtually everything has become "technology" in their eyes. See the page I referred to in my previous post.

But, even if you were right, the fact is that airplanes crash occasionally too, and yet it's still better than walking.

I argue that patent law is so unfit for advances in abstract reasoning, logic and mathematics that you can't but end up with tons of trivial and/or very broad patents if you allow software patents. The end result is that the resulting monopolies hamper innovation much more than they encourage it.

Some studies to back up my claims:

• Study by the Federal Trade Commission from October 2003 (extracts with the software patent related stuff from that report). Conclusions: many indications that software patents hamper innovation because of, among others, patent thickets.
• Empirical study by Bessen&Hunt on the effects of software patents in the US. Conclusion: software patents have resulted in a transfer of R&D money to patent departments and has not resulted in increased R&D. Because of the incremental nature of software development, patents hinder instead of encourage innovation.
• Study ordered by the European Commission in preparation of the European software patents directive. It did not suit their goals however, so they avoid referring to it. Quote: "Unless this fundamental lack of knowledge is addressed in a more structured manner, any proposal to optimise the patent system in respect of software-related inventions is based on nothing more than wild guesses or wishful thinking."

Many more are linked on the page I gave you earlier.

Your comment about no software patents being the default argument position is dubious at best as the counter argument (which in fact you allude to using the term 'intertia') could be made quite easily - patents have worked quite well for many years.

No software patents is the default position in Europe. The European Patent Convention excludes them, and so did the European Patent Office until it started with its creative interpretation claiming that "a computer program executed by a computer" is not the same as "a computer program as such". When you change the law, and on top of that adapt it to accomodate the behaviour of the people that started breaking it, then you have to provide quite convincing arguments (preferably in the form of macro-economical studies) that this is a good thing.

Yes, i agree the system has been flawed and needs reform, but the fundamental idea is sound. Why should software be any different? To claim that you have absolutely the default position is nonsense; it's

Johanna Boogerd from D66 is an extremely strong and active supporter of our fight against software patents. She's also a public signatory of our Call for Action II

+49-174-7313590 (gsm,myself)
Irc.
(apologies for the previous accidental ac dupe)

+49-174-7313590 (mobile, me) IRC (apologies)

Mrs. Piia-Noora Kauppi is the only Finnish MEP that protested against the attempts at strong-arm the patent directive to force. FFII reported this. She has also held a speech at a Linux convention.

Kauppi belongs to the National Coalition, a right-wing party in Finland that favors the rights of enterpreneurs, especially the small enterpreneurs. With excessive power, big corporations are just as bad as a Communist government. (This opinion by Sirpa Pietikäinen, another MEP of the Coalition.)

Software patents would harm small enterpreneurs and freedom, so the right-wing party can't be in favor of them. So, the Socialists or Greens don't represent your opinion against software patents. Remember that one of the key Finnish supporters of software patents has been Erkki Liikanen, a member of the European Commission, who is a Social Democrat!

---
Toisin sanoen: Ainoa softapatentteja voimakkaasti vastustanut euroedustaja on Piia-Noora Kauppi. Kokoomuslaisena Kauppi ei missään nimessä voi kannattaa isojen firmojen mahdollisuutta jyrätä pienyrittäjiä. Sosiaalidemokraatti Erkki Liikanenhan on kannattanut softapatentteja.

Ks. lehdistötiedote.

(the mandatory self-evaluation: +5 Informative)

http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html

Software Patents in Europe: A Short Overview

A patent is a right to monopolize an invention. A would-be inventor specifies a scope of activities from which he wants to exclude others (the claims), and submits it to the Patent Office, which evaluates whether these claims depict an invention within the sense of the law and whether the invention is correctly disclosed and industrially applicable (formal examination). Some patent offices will moreover examine whether the invention is new and non-obvious (substantive examination). If the application passes the examination hurdles, the Patent Office grants the applicant exclusive rights to produce and market the invention for a period of 20 years.

Programming is similar to writing symphonies. When a programmer writes software, he weaves together thousands of ideas (algorithms or calculation rules) into a copyrighted work. Usually some of the ideas in the programmer's work will be new and non-obvious according to the (inherently low) standards of the patent system. When many such ideas are patented, it becomes impossible to write software without infringing on patents. Software authors are thereby deprived of their copyright; they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by holders of large patent portfolios. As a result, less software is written and fewer new ideas appear.

The core patent law in Europe is the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. In Article 52, the Convention states that discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, rules, methods of thought, business methods, and computer programs are not inventions in the sense of patent law. There is a reason for that: in the legal tradition patents have been for concrete applications of natural science ("technical inventions"), whereas patents on software cover abstract ideas. When patents are applied to software, the result is such that instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any "means of trapping mammals" (or, for an actual example, any "means of trapping data in an emulated environment").

In 1986 the European Patent Office (EPO) started granting patents on computer programs in violation of the EPC , allowing claims on software distinguished only by the use of the following phrasing:

"1. process for using a computer, characterised by ..."

Unchecked in this practice, in 1998 they began granting claims that literally contradicted the law , allowing patents on software for claims that used the following phrasing:

"2. computer program, characterised by that [with its help a process according to claim 1 can be executed]."

The number of patents on software that the EPO has granted in this manner is estimated at more than 30,000, and this practice has been increasing at a rate of 3,000 per year.

Most of these patents are broad and trivial and not significantly different from corresponding types of patents that the US and Japan have been allowing.

Given the damaging effects of these kinds of patents, not to mention their illegality, one might expect the EPO would be subject to pressure to bring its practice in acc

http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html

Software Patents in Europe: A Short Overview

A patent is a right to monopolize an invention. A would-be inventor specifies a scope of activities from which he wants to exclude others (the claims), and submits it to the Patent Office, which evaluates whether these claims depict an invention within the sense of the law and whether the invention is correctly disclosed and industrially applicable (formal examination). Some patent offices will moreover examine whether the invention is new and non-obvious (substantive examination). If the application passes the examination hurdles, the Patent Office grants the applicant exclusive rights to produce and market the invention for a period of 20 years.

Programming is similar to writing symphonies. When a programmer writes software, he weaves together thousands of ideas (algorithms or calculation rules) into a copyrighted work. Usually some of the ideas in the programmer's work will be new and non-obvious according to the (inherently low) standards of the patent system. When many such ideas are patented, it becomes impossible to write software without infringing on patents. Software authors are thereby deprived of their copyright; they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by holders of large patent portfolios. As a result, less software is written and fewer new ideas appear.

The core patent law in Europe is the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. In Article 52, the Convention states that discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, rules, methods of thought, business methods, and computer programs are not inventions in the sense of patent law. There is a reason for that: in the legal tradition patents have been for concrete applications of natural science ("technical inventions"), whereas patents on software cover abstract ideas. When patents are applied to software, the result is such that instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any "means of trapping mammals" (or, for an actual example, any "means of trapping data in an emulated environment").

In 1986 the European Patent Office (EPO) started granting patents on computer programs in violation of the EPC , allowing claims on software distinguished only by the use of the following phrasing:

"1. process for using a computer, characterised by ..."

Unchecked in this practice, in 1998 they began granting claims that literally contradicted the law , allowing patents on software for claims that used the following phrasing:

"2. computer program, characterised by that [with its help a process according to claim 1 can be executed]."

The number of patents on software that the EPO has granted in this manner is estimated at more than 30,000, and this practice has been increasing at a rate of 3,000 per year.

Most of these patents are broad and trivial and not significantly different from corresponding types of patents that the US and Japan have been allowing.

Given the damaging effects of these kinds of patents, not to mention their illegality, one might expect the EPO would be subject to pressure to bring its practice in acc

http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html

Software Patents in Europe: A Short Overview

A patent is a right to monopolize an invention. A would-be inventor specifies a scope of activities from which he wants to exclude others (the claims), and submits it to the Patent Office, which evaluates whether these claims depict an invention within the sense of the law and whether the invention is correctly disclosed and industrially applicable (formal examination). Some patent offices will moreover examine whether the invention is new and non-obvious (substantive examination). If the application passes the examination hurdles, the Patent Office grants the applicant exclusive rights to produce and market the invention for a period of 20 years.

Programming is similar to writing symphonies. When a programmer writes software, he weaves together thousands of ideas (algorithms or calculation rules) into a copyrighted work. Usually some of the ideas in the programmer's work will be new and non-obvious according to the (inherently low) standards of the patent system. When many such ideas are patented, it becomes impossible to write software without infringing on patents. Software authors are thereby deprived of their copyright; they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by holders of large patent portfolios. As a result, less software is written and fewer new ideas appear.

The core patent law in Europe is the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. In Article 52, the Convention states that discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, rules, methods of thought, business methods, and computer programs are not inventions in the sense of patent law. There is a reason for that: in the legal tradition patents have been for concrete applications of natural science ("technical inventions"), whereas patents on software cover abstract ideas. When patents are applied to software, the result is such that instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any "means of trapping mammals" (or, for an actual example, any "means of trapping data in an emulated environment").

In 1986 the European Patent Office (EPO) started granting patents on computer programs in violation of the EPC , allowing claims on software distinguished only by the use of the following phrasing:

"1. process for using a computer, characterised by ..."

Unchecked in this practice, in 1998 they began granting claims that literally contradicted the law , allowing patents on software for claims that used the following phrasing:

"2. computer program, characterised by that [with its help a process according to claim 1 can be executed]."

The number of patents on software that the EPO has granted in this manner is estimated at more than 30,000, and this practice has been increasing at a rate of 3,000 per year.

Most of these patents are broad and trivial and not significantly different from corresponding types of patents that the US and Japan have been allowing.

Given the damaging effects of these kinds of patents, not to mention their illegality, one might expect the EPO would be subject to pressure to bring its practice in acc

http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html

Software Patents in Europe: A Short Overview

A patent is a right to monopolize an invention. A would-be inventor specifies a scope of activities from which he wants to exclude others (the claims), and submits it to the Patent Office, which evaluates whether these claims depict an invention within the sense of the law and whether the invention is correctly disclosed and industrially applicable (formal examination). Some patent offices will moreover examine whether the invention is new and non-obvious (substantive examination). If the application passes the examination hurdles, the Patent Office grants the applicant exclusive rights to produce and market the invention for a period of 20 years.

Programming is similar to writing symphonies. When a programmer writes software, he weaves together thousands of ideas (algorithms or calculation rules) into a copyrighted work. Usually some of the ideas in the programmer's work will be new and non-obvious according to the (inherently low) standards of the patent system. When many such ideas are patented, it becomes impossible to write software without infringing on patents. Software authors are thereby deprived of their copyright; they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by holders of large patent portfolios. As a result, less software is written and fewer new ideas appear.

The core patent law in Europe is the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. In Article 52, the Convention states that discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, rules, methods of thought, business methods, and computer programs are not inventions in the sense of patent law. There is a reason for that: in the legal tradition patents have been for concrete applications of natural science ("technical inventions"), whereas patents on software cover abstract ideas. When patents are applied to software, the result is such that instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any "means of trapping mammals" (or, for an actual example, any "means of trapping data in an emulated environment").

In 1986 the European Patent Office (EPO) started granting patents on computer programs in violation of the EPC , allowing claims on software distinguished only by the use of the following phrasing:

"1. process for using a computer, characterised by ..."

Unchecked in this practice, in 1998 they began granting claims that literally contradicted the law , allowing patents on software for claims that used the following phrasing:

"2. computer program, characterised by that [with its help a process according to claim 1 can be executed]."

The number of patents on software that the EPO has granted in this manner is estimated at more than 30,000, and this practice has been increasing at a rate of 3,000 per year.

Most of these patents are broad and trivial and not significantly different from corresponding types of patents that the US and Japan have been allowing.

Given the damaging effects of these kinds of patents, not to mention their illegality, one might expect the EPO would be subject to pressure to bring its practice in acc

http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html

Software Patents in Europe: A Short Overview

A patent is a right to monopolize an invention. A would-be inventor specifies a scope of activities from which he wants to exclude others (the claims), and submits it to the Patent Office, which evaluates whether these claims depict an invention within the sense of the law and whether the invention is correctly disclosed and industrially applicable (formal examination). Some patent offices will moreover examine whether the invention is new and non-obvious (substantive examination). If the application passes the examination hurdles, the Patent Office grants the applicant exclusive rights to produce and market the invention for a period of 20 years.

Programming is similar to writing symphonies. When a programmer writes software, he weaves together thousands of ideas (algorithms or calculation rules) into a copyrighted work. Usually some of the ideas in the programmer's work will be new and non-obvious according to the (inherently low) standards of the patent system. When many such ideas are patented, it becomes impossible to write software without infringing on patents. Software authors are thereby deprived of their copyright; they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by holders of large patent portfolios. As a result, less software is written and fewer new ideas appear.

The core patent law in Europe is the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. In Article 52, the Convention states that discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, rules, methods of thought, business methods, and computer programs are not inventions in the sense of patent law. There is a reason for that: in the legal tradition patents have been for concrete applications of natural science ("technical inventions"), whereas patents on software cover abstract ideas. When patents are applied to software, the result is such that instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any "means of trapping mammals" (or, for an actual example, any "means of trapping data in an emulated environment").

In 1986 the European Patent Office (EPO) started granting patents on computer programs in violation of the EPC , allowing claims on software distinguished only by the use of the following phrasing:

"1. process for using a computer, characterised by ..."

Unchecked in this practice, in 1998 they began granting claims that literally contradicted the law , allowing patents on software for claims that used the following phrasing:

"2. computer program, characterised by that [with its help a process according to claim 1 can be executed]."

The number of patents on software that the EPO has granted in this manner is estimated at more than 30,000, and this practice has been increasing at a rate of 3,000 per year.

Most of these patents are broad and trivial and not significantly different from corresponding types of patents that the US and Japan have been allowing.

Given the damaging effects of these kinds of patents, not to mention their illegality, one might expect the EPO would be subject to pressure to bring its practice in acc

http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html

Software Patents in Europe: A Short Overview

A patent is a right to monopolize an invention. A would-be inventor specifies a scope of activities from which he wants to exclude others (the claims), and submits it to the Patent Office, which evaluates whether these claims depict an invention within the sense of the law and whether the invention is correctly disclosed and industrially applicable (formal examination). Some patent offices will moreover examine whether the invention is new and non-obvious (substantive examination). If the application passes the examination hurdles, the Patent Office grants the applicant exclusive rights to produce and market the invention for a period of 20 years.

Programming is similar to writing symphonies. When a programmer writes software, he weaves together thousands of ideas (algorithms or calculation rules) into a copyrighted work. Usually some of the ideas in the programmer's work will be new and non-obvious according to the (inherently low) standards of the patent system. When many such ideas are patented, it becomes impossible to write software without infringing on patents. Software authors are thereby deprived of their copyright; they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by holders of large patent portfolios. As a result, less software is written and fewer new ideas appear.

The core patent law in Europe is the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. In Article 52, the Convention states that discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, rules, methods of thought, business methods, and computer programs are not inventions in the sense of patent law. There is a reason for that: in the legal tradition patents have been for concrete applications of natural science ("technical inventions"), whereas patents on software cover abstract ideas. When patents are applied to software, the result is such that instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any "means of trapping mammals" (or, for an actual example, any "means of trapping data in an emulated environment").

In 1986 the European Patent Office (EPO) started granting patents on computer programs in violation of the EPC , allowing claims on software distinguished only by the use of the following phrasing:

"1. process for using a computer, characterised by ..."

Unchecked in this practice, in 1998 they began granting claims that literally contradicted the law , allowing patents on software for claims that used the following phrasing:

"2. computer program, characterised by that [with its help a process according to claim 1 can be executed]."

The number of patents on software that the EPO has granted in this manner is estimated at more than 30,000, and this practice has been increasing at a rate of 3,000 per year.

Most of these patents are broad and trivial and not significantly different from corresponding types of patents that the US and Japan have been allowing.

Given the damaging effects of these kinds of patents, not to mention their illegality, one might expect the EPO would be subject to pressure to bring its practice in acc

http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html

Software Patents in Europe: A Short Overview

A patent is a right to monopolize an invention. A would-be inventor specifies a scope of activities from which he wants to exclude others (the claims), and submits it to the Patent Office, which evaluates whether these claims depict an invention within the sense of the law and whether the invention is correctly disclosed and industrially applicable (formal examination). Some patent offices will moreover examine whether the invention is new and non-obvious (substantive examination). If the application passes the examination hurdles, the Patent Office grants the applicant exclusive rights to produce and market the invention for a period of 20 years.

Programming is similar to writing symphonies. When a programmer writes software, he weaves together thousands of ideas (algorithms or calculation rules) into a copyrighted work. Usually some of the ideas in the programmer's work will be new and non-obvious according to the (inherently low) standards of the patent system. When many such ideas are patented, it becomes impossible to write software without infringing on patents. Software authors are thereby deprived of their copyright; they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by holders of large patent portfolios. As a result, less software is written and fewer new ideas appear.

The core patent law in Europe is the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. In Article 52, the Convention states that discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, rules, methods of thought, business methods, and computer programs are not inventions in the sense of patent law. There is a reason for that: in the legal tradition patents have been for concrete applications of natural science ("technical inventions"), whereas patents on software cover abstract ideas. When patents are applied to software, the result is such that instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any "means of trapping mammals" (or, for an actual example, any "means of trapping data in an emulated environment").

In 1986 the European Patent Office (EPO) started granting patents on computer programs in violation of the EPC , allowing claims on software distinguished only by the use of the following phrasing:

"1. process for using a computer, characterised by ..."

Unchecked in this practice, in 1998 they began granting claims that literally contradicted the law , allowing patents on software for claims that used the following phrasing:

"2. computer program, characterised by that [with its help a process according to claim 1 can be executed]."

The number of patents on software that the EPO has granted in this manner is estimated at more than 30,000, and this practice has been increasing at a rate of 3,000 per year.

Most of these patents are broad and trivial and not significantly different from corresponding types of patents that the US and Japan have been allowing.

Given the damaging effects of these kinds of patents, not to mention their illegality, one might expect the EPO would be subject to pressure to bring its practice in acc

http://swpat.ffii.org/log/intro/index.en.html

Software Patents in Europe: A Short Overview

A patent is a right to monopolize an invention. A would-be inventor specifies a scope of activities from which he wants to exclude others (the claims), and submits it to the Patent Office, which evaluates whether these claims depict an invention within the sense of the law and whether the invention is correctly disclosed and industrially applicable (formal examination). Some patent offices will moreover examine whether the invention is new and non-obvious (substantive examination). If the application passes the examination hurdles, the Patent Office grants the applicant exclusive rights to produce and market the invention for a period of 20 years.

Programming is similar to writing symphonies. When a programmer writes software, he weaves together thousands of ideas (algorithms or calculation rules) into a copyrighted work. Usually some of the ideas in the programmer's work will be new and non-obvious according to the (inherently low) standards of the patent system. When many such ideas are patented, it becomes impossible to write software without infringing on patents. Software authors are thereby deprived of their copyright; they live under permanent threat of being blackmailed by holders of large patent portfolios. As a result, less software is written and fewer new ideas appear.

The core patent law in Europe is the European Patent Convention (EPC) of 1973. In Article 52, the Convention states that discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, rules, methods of thought, business methods, and computer programs are not inventions in the sense of patent law. There is a reason for that: in the legal tradition patents have been for concrete applications of natural science ("technical inventions"), whereas patents on software cover abstract ideas. When patents are applied to software, the result is such that instead of patenting a specific mousetrap, you patent any "means of trapping mammals" (or, for an actual example, any "means of trapping data in an emulated environment").

In 1986 the European Patent Office (EPO) started granting patents on computer programs in violation of the EPC , allowing claims on software distinguished only by the use of the following phrasing:

"1. process for using a computer, characterised by ..."

Unchecked in this practice, in 1998 they began granting claims that literally contradicted the law , allowing patents on software for claims that used the following phrasing:

"2. computer program, characterised by that [with its help a process according to claim 1 can be executed]."

The number of patents on software that the EPO has granted in this manner is estimated at more than 30,000, and this practice has been increasing at a rate of 3,000 per year.

Most of these patents are broad and trivial and not significantly different from corresponding types of patents that the US and Japan have been allowing.

Given the damaging effects of these kinds of patents, not to mention their illegality, one might expect the EPO would be subject to pressure to bring its practice in acc

Strange, my language is set to English as well. Maybe try going directly to http://www.ffii.org/index.en.html?

What I found out was that the FFII side (at least that presenting at cambridge, according to the position papers they have posted on the indymedia website) was not actually arguing against software patents--they are arguing against "bad" software patents, which in their view (and mine) includes certain dubious business method patents that we have all heard rehashed here a billion times and whatever else they happen to disagree with that week.

You understood wrongly. FFII is against software patents as a whole, on the basis that the patent system is completely unfit for software (which is not very surprising, given that it was conceived in the 15th century and was never designed to allow monopolisation of information entities).

Novelty and non-obviousness cannot prevent trivial software patents to get through, even if you apply them according to the most stringent standards. Even the deputy director of the UKPTO argues that patent law was not designed to stop "trivial inventions" from being patented.

The webshop pamphlet is simply there to educate people on what kind of stuff the proposed directive text from the Commission and the Council will legalise. FFII is not only against the legalisation of that kind of patents.

Clearly, this same argument can be made against *any* bad (overbroad, overobvious, etc) patents that from time to time patent authorities issue. however, only idiots (and I say this matter of factly--you have to be a complete idiot--not a free thinker with advanced ideas on information distribution on innovation, not an alternative genuis who sees a bigger picture and thinks outside the box, but an uninformed idiot) favor complete abolition of the patent system.

Although FFII does not argue for the complete abolition of the patent system, there are many economists and even business people who think the patent system has outlived its useful life and indeed does more harm than good nowadays. Several such studies are linked (among others) here.

So lo and behold I would find myself arguing an unwinnable cause. If i brought up the case of my friend who started a small company based on a software algorithm that takes (the data from a lab test) and outputs (useful diagnostic information) and righly claim that the only legitimate way in his case to prevent big business from stealing his and his small staff's four years of work is with patent protection (in his particular case, which i am not going into the details of, other forms of protection would not be applicable), the FFII would say "well, that's one of the good types of patents... we're not against those."

It depends on what the innovation of your friend is. If all he's doing is just performing some statistical information gathering, sorting, classifying etc in his program (no matter how insightful the sequence of this stuff is), then FFII is against granting a patent on those things. If your friend's technique however involves new insights in applied natural science, then there is no problem granting him a patent, because then it wouldn't be a software patent.

Let me give an example: suppose you have a fully automated and computer-controlled weaving machine. You then discover on how to reposition the blades so that the threads can be cut much faster. However, the only thing you have to do to implement this invention, is change the values of a few variables in the program that controls the weaving machine (or maybe you have to implement some kind of mathematical algorithm to describe the path and turning rates those knives have to follow).

Well, that remains a perfectly patentable invention under the EP's proposal (which FFII supports): the invention is not that you are changing the program or the mathematical al

What I found out was that the FFII side (at least that presenting at cambridge, according to the position papers they have posted on the indymedia website) was not actually arguing against software patents--they are arguing against "bad" software patents, which in their view (and mine) includes certain dubious business method patents that we have all heard rehashed here a billion times and whatever else they happen to disagree with that week.

You understood wrongly. FFII is against software patents as a whole, on the basis that the patent system is completely unfit for software (which is not very surprising, given that it was conceived in the 15th century and was never designed to allow monopolisation of information entities).

Novelty and non-obviousness cannot prevent trivial software patents to get through, even if you apply them according to the most stringent standards. Even the deputy director of the UKPTO argues that patent law was not designed to stop "trivial inventions" from being patented.

The webshop pamphlet is simply there to educate people on what kind of stuff the proposed directive text from the Commission and the Council will legalise. FFII is not only against the legalisation of that kind of patents.

Clearly, this same argument can be made against *any* bad (overbroad, overobvious, etc) patents that from time to time patent authorities issue. however, only idiots (and I say this matter of factly--you have to be a complete idiot--not a free thinker with advanced ideas on information distribution on innovation, not an alternative genuis who sees a bigger picture and thinks outside the box, but an uninformed idiot) favor complete abolition of the patent system.

Although FFII does not argue for the complete abolition of the patent system, there are many economists and even business people who think the patent system has outlived its useful life and indeed does more harm than good nowadays. Several such studies are linked (among others) here.

So lo and behold I would find myself arguing an unwinnable cause. If i brought up the case of my friend who started a small company based on a software algorithm that takes (the data from a lab test) and outputs (useful diagnostic information) and righly claim that the only legitimate way in his case to prevent big business from stealing his and his small staff's four years of work is with patent protection (in his particular case, which i am not going into the details of, other forms of protection would not be applicable), the FFII would say "well, that's one of the good types of patents... we're not against those."

It depends on what the innovation of your friend is. If all he's doing is just performing some statistical information gathering, sorting, classifying etc in his program (no matter how insightful the sequence of this stuff is), then FFII is against granting a patent on those things. If your friend's technique however involves new insights in applied natural science, then there is no problem granting him a patent, because then it wouldn't be a software patent.

Let me give an example: suppose you have a fully automated and computer-controlled weaving machine. You then discover on how to reposition the blades so that the threads can be cut much faster. However, the only thing you have to do to implement this invention, is change the values of a few variables in the program that controls the weaving machine (or maybe you have to implement some kind of mathematical algorithm to describe the path and turning rates those knives have to follow).

Well, that remains a perfectly patentable invention under the EP's proposal (which FFII supports): the invention is not that you are changing the program or the mathematical al

What I found out was that the FFII side (at least that presenting at cambridge, according to the position papers they have posted on the indymedia website) was not actually arguing against software patents--they are arguing against "bad" software patents, which in their view (and mine) includes certain dubious business method patents that we have all heard rehashed here a billion times and whatever else they happen to disagree with that week.

You understood wrongly. FFII is against software patents as a whole, on the basis that the patent system is completely unfit for software (which is not very surprising, given that it was conceived in the 15th century and was never designed to allow monopolisation of information entities).

Novelty and non-obviousness cannot prevent trivial software patents to get through, even if you apply them according to the most stringent standards. Even the deputy director of the UKPTO argues that patent law was not designed to stop "trivial inventions" from being patented.

The webshop pamphlet is simply there to educate people on what kind of stuff the proposed directive text from the Commission and the Council will legalise. FFII is not only against the legalisation of that kind of patents.

Clearly, this same argument can be made against *any* bad (overbroad, overobvious, etc) patents that from time to time patent authorities issue. however, only idiots (and I say this matter of factly--you have to be a complete idiot--not a free thinker with advanced ideas on information distribution on innovation, not an alternative genuis who sees a bigger picture and thinks outside the box, but an uninformed idiot) favor complete abolition of the patent system.

Although FFII does not argue for the complete abolition of the patent system, there are many economists and even business people who think the patent system has outlived its useful life and indeed does more harm than good nowadays. Several such studies are linked (among others) here.

So lo and behold I would find myself arguing an unwinnable cause. If i brought up the case of my friend who started a small company based on a software algorithm that takes (the data from a lab test) and outputs (useful diagnostic information) and righly claim that the only legitimate way in his case to prevent big business from stealing his and his small staff's four years of work is with patent protection (in his particular case, which i am not going into the details of, other forms of protection would not be applicable), the FFII would say "well, that's one of the good types of patents... we're not against those."

It depends on what the innovation of your friend is. If all he's doing is just performing some statistical information gathering, sorting, classifying etc in his program (no matter how insightful the sequence of this stuff is), then FFII is against granting a patent on those things. If your friend's technique however involves new insights in applied natural science, then there is no problem granting him a patent, because then it wouldn't be a software patent.

Let me give an example: suppose you have a fully automated and computer-controlled weaving machine. You then discover on how to reposition the blades so that the threads can be cut much faster. However, the only thing you have to do to implement this invention, is change the values of a few variables in the program that controls the weaving machine (or maybe you have to implement some kind of mathematical algorithm to describe the path and turning rates those knives have to follow).

Well, that remains a perfectly patentable invention under the EP's proposal (which FFII supports): the invention is not that you are changing the program or the mathematical al

Just a reminder to people that you can't believe a word that a politician says.

Sadly, a lot (the majority) of people still believe that the concepts typically taught in Politics 101 actually operate that way in the "democratic west". That's so naive that it's not even funny. The article linked a pretty good summary of the subversion of the democratic process that should dispell any childish misconceptions about that.

The only means we have of changing the course of history is through voting (I exclude suggestions relating to guns etc, they'll only accelerate the current bad path, afaics), but our voted directives are being entirely bypassed by those who wish a different outcome. This makes it pretty clear what the future holds.

Software freedom is being forced underground. In due course (dozens of years I expect, not one or two), writing a program openly outside of a rigorously patent-controlled corporate environment will be considered an act of economic terrorism or subversion.

Kind of sad really.

Yeah I thought that was specific to organising events in Brussels, like protests and lobbying, as the title of the page indicates. I'll give it a blast sure...

I also found this other link buried at the bottom of the page to a mailing list , the mysteriously titled project Parl mailing list, but I got no response as of yet. I'll try it again I think...

Interestingly, the FFII website is also closed as a protest against software patents. Isn't that kinda shooting yourself in the foot in this situation? A redirect exists, but the link from the protest page goes to a 404.

Yeah I thought that was specific to organising events in Brussels, like protests and lobbying, as the title of the page indicates. I'll give it a blast sure...

I also found this other link buried at the bottom of the page to a mailing list , the mysteriously titled project Parl mailing list, but I got no response as of yet. I'll try it again I think...

Interestingly, the FFII website is also closed as a protest against software patents. Isn't that kinda shooting yourself in the foot in this situation? A redirect exists, but the link from the protest page goes to a 404.

Tried The mailinglist?