Slashdot Mirror

The EU patent system is a broken as the American system, we have to put more pressure on the lawyers and their interest groups.

Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure will start it's second Free Information Infrastructure Conference in Bruxelles in April 13/14 2004. Please come to Bruxelles. Last year's participants included Lessing, RMS, Mozelle W. Thompsson, Opera, MySQL and many others. The FFII Alliance campaign was very succesfull in 2003.

The EU patent system is a broken as the American system, we have to put more pressure on the lawyers and their interest groups.

Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure will start it's second Free Information Infrastructure Conference in Bruxelles in April 13/14 2004. Please come to Bruxelles. Last year's participants included Lessing, RMS, Mozelle W. Thompsson, Opera, MySQL and many others. The FFII Alliance campaign was very succesfull in 2003.

This may not be correct if it is provided via internet download. And the EU patent office ignores current legislation.

FFII shall be supported in order to avoid EU patent legislation and we have to join forces in order to correct the mistakes of the Us system.

software patents are a danger to society.

I is very intresting that he mentiones software patents as a big issue. But I believe it is more a European debate while the United States got used to it. I Don't like software patents, they are bad for development and business. But something has to be done in US as well. Does anybody know the name of US activists that may change the USPTO policy?

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

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

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

In short word: Patents and the patent system are not designed for service industries like software. software is well protected by copyright, patents cause legal incertainty.

I don't understand why Microsoft does not support FFII in Europe to get rid off patent legislation. Patents on software are so harmful. Nobody needs them except the patent attorneys who want to make profit.

This exampe shows how important it will be to create a more effcient patent system in the world.
Economists are very critical about the patent system at large, but I believe the quality of patents has to improved, the quantitiy has to be reduced. A way to do so it to set high standards,

But in the WIPO the lawyer community drafts extension to patentability. Patent law is not evil per se, but in dynamic industries it does not suit. Patents were never designed for services. In Europe FFII and many other organisations were able to build a mature counter-force to the lawyer's lobby groups. However they are in the international and governmental institutions as experts and design their own patent law.

How to get rid of bad patents? can therefore be translated to "How to create balance in patent legislation?". It makes little sense to hunt down trivial patents. The bugs are in the patent system and have to be fixed. Patent attorneys are not intrested in a working patent system.

What to do?
1. Get organized. there are several US organisation, but there is not real US movement.
There is a very low-traffic US mailing list of FFII, JOIN.

2. Support petitions such as http://www.noepatents.org
3. Help to defend the European directive in Brussels (there will be a FFII conference in April)
4. Provide content and opinion articles about patent inflation on the internet.

This exampe shows how important it will be to create a more effcient patent system in the world.
Economists are very critical about the patent system at large, but I believe the quality of patents has to improved, the quantitiy has to be reduced. A way to do so it to set high standards,

But in the WIPO the lawyer community drafts extension to patentability. Patent law is not evil per se, but in dynamic industries it does not suit. Patents were never designed for services. In Europe FFII and many other organisations were able to build a mature counter-force to the lawyer's lobby groups. However they are in the international and governmental institutions as experts and design their own patent law.

How to get rid of bad patents? can therefore be translated to "How to create balance in patent legislation?". It makes little sense to hunt down trivial patents. The bugs are in the patent system and have to be fixed. Patent attorneys are not intrested in a working patent system.

What to do?
1. Get organized. there are several US organisation, but there is not real US movement.
There is a very low-traffic US mailing list of FFII, JOIN.

2. Support petitions such as http://www.noepatents.org
3. Help to defend the European directive in Brussels (there will be a FFII conference in April)
4. Provide content and opinion articles about patent inflation on the internet.

This exampe shows how important it will be to create a more effcient patent system in the world.
Economists are very critical about the patent system at large, but I believe the quality of patents has to improved, the quantitiy has to be reduced. A way to do so it to set high standards,

But in the WIPO the lawyer community drafts extension to patentability. Patent law is not evil per se, but in dynamic industries it does not suit. Patents were never designed for services. In Europe FFII and many other organisations were able to build a mature counter-force to the lawyer's lobby groups. However they are in the international and governmental institutions as experts and design their own patent law.

How to get rid of bad patents? can therefore be translated to "How to create balance in patent legislation?". It makes little sense to hunt down trivial patents. The bugs are in the patent system and have to be fixed. Patent attorneys are not intrested in a working patent system.

What to do?
1. Get organized. there are several US organisation, but there is not real US movement.
There is a very low-traffic US mailing list of FFII, JOIN.

2. Support petitions such as http://www.noepatents.org
3. Help to defend the European directive in Brussels (there will be a FFII conference in April)
4. Provide content and opinion articles about patent inflation on the internet.

FFII about European problems with US legal system. Also DMCA and so on. I don't think US-companies shall move cross-atlantic, bacause it will not help. The problems have to be solved on a global level.

I prefer "FLOSS" as a term.

However a support of India for Free Softwareon the international level may be very helpful in the defense against Software patents. There is still no *real US-movement* (join this list:-)) but an Indian committment similar to Brazil could be beneficial on the internatioanl level.

Also think of the fact that WSISII in Tunis will distribute UN money for IT- projects.

Since when has Microsoft attempted to enforce a patent in order to shut down Linux?

Sure. How about reading this

Not that the system is much better in EU or other places

s, but practice in this matter seems to have a tendency to spread from the US to EU and so forth. ;-)

pursue substantive harmonization goals that will strengthen the rights of American intellectual property holders

Is this just a minor side effect of a basically beneficial system that will simply work itself out as the patents are challenged? Or does this have to be fought?

If this is something that needs fighting, it would be good to know who is doing this, either on a grassroots level or as elected officials.

In the US, I guess it's mainly the EFF and FSF, but I'm not very familiar with the situation there.

Is this just a minor side effect of a basically beneficial system that will simply work itself out as the patents are challenged? Or does this have to be fought?

If this is something that needs fighting, it would be good to know who is doing this, either on a grassroots level or as elected officials.

In the US, I guess it's mainly the EFF and FSF, but I'm not very familiar with the situation there.

Algorithms are no more applicable to an infinite range of problems than any other tool.

You just have to make sure you word your claims generic enough to be able to patent all ranges of problems that could ever be tackled with that algorithm (since a computer in turn can steer pretty much every machine to do whatever you want to do). That's what that infinite range of problems is about.

Some are highly specialized for a particular task, others have broad applicability. I suppose that you could say that a screwdriver or a lathe is "applicable to an infinite range of problems," because you can build an infinite number of different things with them. But tools are still patentable.

I think the software patent thing is a tempest in a teapot, and will ultimately take care of itself.

Why keep on trying to shoehorn this patent system in place where it obviously is not fit for? Why not only introduce it at the moment that there is at least a theoretical possibility of encouraging innovation? And if such a general scenario can not be found, why not look for other possible?

But all of those broad, basic patents (the ones that survive the courts) are going to expire, and in a few years it won't be possible to get a software patent unless it is something truly innovative.

And finally, the software patents that are granted today are no less broad nor trivial than those that were granted ten years ago, often it's even on the contrary.

"remember that patent protections do benefit a lot of businesses and create jobs"

I don't remember this at all.

I can even show evidence of the contrary:
MacroEconomic Effects of Patents

What is your evidence?

So a purely mathematical algorithm, no matter how original, is not considered patentable, but a use of that algorithm to do something of real-world value is patentable.

This "limitation" of not allowing patents on "algorithms as such", but only on "algorithms executed by a computer" is not a limitation at all. I'm going to quote what FFII has to say about it, as they explain it perfectly here:

So on one side there are people who say: if physical processes are patentable, why should it make any difference whether they run on special hardware or on general-purpose hardware?

On the other there are people who say: if rules or organisation and calculation are not patentable, why should it make any difference whether I run them in my head, with pencil and paper or with the normal tool of today's civilisation, which is the universal computer?

And in fact the second argument is right, because the economic rationale behind not granting patents on thoughts applies also here: abstract ideas are, regardless of their applicability to technical problems, produced without experimentation cost, applicable to an infinite range of problems, and replicated at zero cost with no overhead to which patent license fees could be added.

The division of the extra cost of patents by the marginal cost (and long-term ideal price) of information goods is a division by zero. Moreover the deal between the inventor and the public, characterised as "monopoly on commercial implementation in return for disclosure of idea", is led ad absurdum: since between the idea and the application there is no invention, any adequate disclosure of the idea in turing-complete syntax risks to become an act of patent infringement.

The originality typically lies in the sequence of steps, not in the wet details of what kind of solvent or container, much as the originality of a software program lies in the sequence of steps, not the details of the computer hardware.

There are very good reasons for that, and most of those reasons apply equally well to software. Software is different and patent law was not designed with it in mind. Neither was copyright, for that matter, which is why some people argue there should be a third paradigm between copyright and patents to specifically protect software (as explained on the last linked page).

Until we have discovered/developed such a paradigm however, copyright is much more suited to protecting software than patents are, since patents do more harm than good as shown once more bythe recent FTC study.

The originality typically lies in the sequence of steps, not in the wet details of what kind of solvent or container, much as the originality of a software program lies in the sequence of steps, not the details of the computer hardware.

There are very good reasons for that, and most of those reasons apply equally well to software. Software is different and patent law was not designed with it in mind. Neither was copyright, for that matter, which is why some people argue there should be a third paradigm between copyright and patents to specifically protect software (as explained on the last linked page).

Until we have discovered/developed such a paradigm however, copyright is much more suited to protecting software than patents are, since patents do more harm than good as shown once more bythe recent FTC study.

SCO's patents were pure defensive too I guess. But today they even enforce IP they don't own. Defensive trivial patents are weapons of mass destruction. Also note that there are legal plan to make a patent infringement a criminal act (EU IPR enforcement directive). That's fun.

And they hold zillions which they do enforce. You should read up on IBM and Software Patents sometime. A number of software companies could learn a thing or two about monetizing their intellectual property from IBM [if that was their thing].

EU patent law is going to be much more specific.

You basically can't patent something that's just "process on the internet". You have to invent a software method that's truly original (like say a new method of indexing/compressing).

The European Parliaments's version however, completely bans software patents. It's this democratically constructed version of the directive (instead of the one written by the BSA and patent lawyers) that we in Europe are now defending and fighting for.

Software Patents are BAD for everyone, except the few groups in society who profit from them (big companies, lawyers, patent offices, the state, etc.

See the FFII website for the complete story.

regards,

Walden.

For more information please look here.

I am doing my part - are you?

The patent office is nowhere near capable of determining what is truly patentable in technology.

However, they [patent examiners, who are often programmers themselves] might express the communication problem the other way around - it's very difficult to persuade programmers that just because an invention is "easy", does not make it any less patentable.

What next? Patenting the act of selling?

Really? I thought they were associated with the FSF Europe. Or has it to be called "Free Software".

Here's FFII's mission statement from homepage:

We want

• to make basic informational resources freely usable
• to protect the creator against the plagiator and the public against monopolies
• to give political weight to programmers, information-creating enterpreneurs and informationally literate citizens

have a look at the companies that signed Call for Action II

The GI has a double tongue. Many members of GI protested against the GI presidial decision in favour of software patents. So they decided to start a media campaign, on the one hand busting an riddiculous patent on the other hand aplluding to the EU-commissions legislation.

FFII was among the toughest critics of GI (German only).

news,
see also some background.

news,
see also some background.

Those patents would all have become enforceable with the European Commissions and the JURI Committee's proposed directive. The European Parliament fortunately thwarted those plans. Support the European Parliament amendments and make sure your national government follows them!

And if you are part of a company that would be negatively affected by these patents, Call for Action II! To get listed publicly on that page, send a mail to <cpedu-help at ffii.org> and I'll add you. Thanks!

Those patents would all have become enforceable with the European Commissions and the JURI Committee's proposed directive. The European Parliament fortunately thwarted those plans. Support the European Parliament amendments and make sure your national government follows them!

And if you are part of a company that would be negatively affected by these patents, Call for Action II! To get listed publicly on that page, send a mail to <cpedu-help at ffii.org> and I'll add you. Thanks!

Those patents would all have become enforceable with the European Commissions and the JURI Committee's proposed directive. The European Parliament fortunately thwarted those plans. Support the European Parliament amendments and make sure your national government follows them!

And if you are part of a company that would be negatively affected by these patents, Call for Action II! To get listed publicly on that page, send a mail to <cpedu-help at ffii.org> and I'll add you. Thanks!

Here is the filing.

Eg this Wednesday you are invited to a Parliamentary Evening in Berlin. Other events at Paris, Brussels (FOSDEM),Leuven (yet another conference), Rome, Stockholm etc can be found via the calendar at the events page.

National mailing lists (meet your reps before European Parliament elections in June!) can be subscribed via aktiv.ffii.org.

Eg this Wednesday you are invited to a Parliamentary Evening in Berlin. Other events at Paris, Brussels (FOSDEM),Leuven (yet another conference), Rome, Stockholm etc can be found via the calendar at the events page.

National mailing lists (meet your reps before European Parliament elections in June!) can be subscribed via aktiv.ffii.org.

/*You can patent usability innovations to keep the competition from stealing them. */

Software patents are not common usage in the software industry. They only work for large companies and patent privateers. Just because the system is too expensive and we don't need them. Who lobbied for software patents? Patent attorneys, patent departments, patent offices. Most software developers don't even understand a word when they read the progress bar patent of IBM and other dangerous trivial patents.

Think of failed companies like SCO group when you are told that these patents are just defencive. they are WMD for software development.

This is nothing new, but it nice that Bruce Perens uses his public media attention to raise this issue. We shouldn't complain about Microsoft, we shall rather complain about the patent system that is out of order. There is a page of FFII about Microsoft. There will also be a FFII conference in Brussels this April where software patent policy issues will be discussed. And other events. Hope to meet you in Brussels, Bruce! We are still waiting for a solid US movement. Let's internationalize the issue. XML may be free, but what about the compression algorith used :-)

This is nothing new, but it nice that Bruce Perens uses his public media attention to raise this issue. We shouldn't complain about Microsoft, we shall rather complain about the patent system that is out of order. There is a page of FFII about Microsoft. There will also be a FFII conference in Brussels this April where software patent policy issues will be discussed. And other events. Hope to meet you in Brussels, Bruce! We are still waiting for a solid US movement. Let's internationalize the issue. XML may be free, but what about the compression algorith used :-)

The Apache License 2 is just a workaround for a real problem. Software patents are bad for development and bad for the economy. The US Federal State Commission called for change in a recent report, the benefits of software patents are falsified by emirical ressearch.

However, as software patents serve for the benefit of patent attorneys the institutions are intrested in an extension of the system, by widening the scope of patentability regardless of an economic foundation. Politicians like this quantitative patent approach, the result are many trivial patents of low quality and disfunction of the patent system atlarge. Many low quality patents endanger our information society. So it is nice to see that organisation like Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure build a counter-force to patent lawyer interest groups in Europe. So far the lobby work against software patents and the Eurolinux petition were very succesful. In my opinion we need a world wide movement in order to avoid Eolas vs. MS oder Amazonvs.Barnes&Noble ecc. will happen again. The GNU Public License is incompatible with Patent law and most projects and SME cannot afford to get patents. They, the innovators, don't want or need software patents.

Did I miss a memo, or is this a truly sinister precedent? It suggests that every kind of application will now be able to patent the way it saves data, thereby denying others the opportunity to import data from that file.

Did you not know that many jurisdictions allow software patents? They include things like methods for displaying data to users, methods for compressing data etc. Why would it not include methods for storing data?

Of course talking of methods (software) for an apparatus (normal computer) might sound confusing but that's software patents for you. People who talk about "obvious" patents being the primary problem with software patents are on completely wrong tracks. The patenting of software itself is the fundamental problem.

Software patents will always give an option to make it illegal for others to be interoperable with your software. If you don't agree with this principle, then you can't agree with the idea of software patenting either. Some people might be confused by copyright (an entirely different branch of legislation) that allows reverse-engineering and interoperability but with patents, that's not the case. Indeed, patents can effectively destroy your copyright the software you have written because after you realize that it is covered by a patent granted to someone else, you won't have the power to license it under your own terms (and whether it is a closed or open licensing, is irrelevant).

For EU citizens, I recommend that you join the fight against software patents. For people in different jurisdictions, I recommend taking a serious political stand against all software patents regardless of how ridiculous or serious they sound.

PS: it's rapporteur :)

My point was that that patents are allowed in almost all technical areas so why not for software?

If you place one Lego brick on the ground, it will just sit there. Put one or two on top, and you'll still have no problem. If you put 100 Lego bricks right on top of each other, you get a very unstable structure. So even in this very simple physical environment, things that behave one way in the small, may behave quite differently when used in a more complex whole.

With software, this is not the case. One small, sound logical reasoning remains just as valid in a larger whole. Software development by its very nature consists entirely of combining all kinds of small logical constructs into a, non-obvious or not, bigger whole. And software is being innovated every day, because if you don't innovate, your competition will and you will lose whatever edge you had.

Please read this study, carried out by the Max Planck Institute and the Fraunhofer institute (by no means anti-swpat establishments) for more on why software is different and how software development works differently. For a more philosophical approach, in case you want to understand why those empirical results are what they are, see this page.

Broadness of initial patents is just a passing phase and open-source fanatics are damaging the overall purpose of software patents which is to develop a repository of knowledge

Some quotes:

• One panelist stated that "the [patent] system discourages you from looking very hard [at patent disclosures] because ... simply by virtue of poking around to find out what patents exist you expose yourself to willfulness claims which can triple the amount of damages and exposure to attorney's fees."
• The panelist summed up the problem with the statement "there's too much information and it is no longer meaningful."

which would otherwise be locked up in the vaults of giant corporations.

How come? Because you publish software, you don't manufacture it (just like you don't publish an industrial valve or a chemical reaction, you manufacture or conduct those). Publishing by definition is "making public". It's the same with business methods: either you use a business method and it automatically becomes public, or you don't use it.

Software patents are a giant corporation's wet dream, because they pretty much only benefit the patent holders.

RSA claimed a patent on C = me mod m. It has since expired, but I don't see any hardware there, do you? What hardware is in BT's hyperlink patent? That's two, need more?

Since Perens talks about the european situation: the software patent site of FFII is quite informative about this.

FFII might get my merit award.

No FLOSS - organisation had done more for Open Source Lobbying in 2003. They smashed the EU software patent legislation while the OSI kept silent, OSI even announced they were not opposed to software patentability: "The Open Source Initiative does not have a position on whether ideas can be owned, whether patents are good or bad, or any of the related controversies. We think the economic self-interest arguments for open source are strong enough that nobody needs to go on any moral crusades about it."
So who works against us?