Slashdot Mirror

It would be much better if, when the JURI committee meets on May 22nd to vote, they choose the CULT amendments, or the ITRE amendments, or those proposed by some of the Greens and Socialists, rather than the ones this letter is calling for.

For example, CULT recommended that only systems involving "the use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information" should be patentable - essentially the caselaw in Germany and many other European states in the 1970s and 1980s.

ITRE proposed that "inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods, which inventions do not produce any technical effects beyond the manipulation and representation of information within the computer-system or network, shall not be patentable".

Also, that "the production, handling, processing, distribution and publication of information, in whatever form, can never constituate direct or indirect infringement of a patent, even when a technical apparatus is used for that purpose."

In contrast the amendments drafted for JURI by Arlene McCarthy, which the letter recommends, are much looser, in many places not well drafted at all, and contain none of these clearly defined restrictions.

The letter in fact is even worse, because unlike even Arlene McCarthy it supports "program claims" -- ie making the publication of source code on a disk or a website a primary patent violation (Compare that under ITRE's amendments such a publication would be free speech to be protected, not even an indirect violation).

There is much much more information on the FFII website, including

• their critique of the letter.
• their analysis of the McCarthy draft amendments for JURI
• their analysis of the CULT report and proposed amendments
• their analysis of the ITRE report and proposed amendments

Also worth reading is this open letter from 20 distinguished European professors of Computer Science about why software patents would be a bad thing:

http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~bengt/petition.pdf

What did we do that affected the real world?

Did Mr. Perens send a fax to all the members of the EU parliament stating in short terms (mind you they are quite busy)
"mr. taylor is NOT a representative of OSS community - disregard Open Source Community approval for software patents"
then run down a number of obvious reasons why software patents are bad. eg:
- they impose a too high "market entry fee" on newcomers
- that hurts small and medium businesses big time by giving big guys to much leverage to crush them.

Anyone care to elaborate?

You may re-publish this message or excerpts of it.

FALSE OPEN SOURCE REPRESENTATIVE CALLS FOR EUROPEAN SOFTWARE PATENTS

A false or misled "open source representative" has signed an industry resolution calling for the EU to allow software patenting, which has been sent to members of the European Parliament. Copies of the resolution are here and here . The European Legal Affairs Committee holds a plenary vote on software patenting this Wednesday, and may have been influenced by the false representation.

Graham Taylor is director of Open Forum Europe, an organization that is purported to work for broader acceptance of Open Source. Taylor has appeared at various trade shows in Europe, saying reasoanble things about Open Source, for the past year. Open Forum Europe is a division of IT Forum Foundation and InterForum. InterForum's membership includes a number of large companies that have a vested interest in the promotion of software patenting in Europe. Mr. Taylor's sponsor organization is well connected with the EU government.

I would encourage Mr. Taylor to evangelize Open Source software, something he's done successfully for a while. However, he does not have the credentials to represent the Linux, Open Source and Free Software developer communities, especially when he contradicts our extremely strong opposition to software patenting. While Mr. Taylor has been visible as a public speaker, it does not appear that he has any engagement with Open Source projects and developers, or that he brought this matter up with representative organizations such as the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, and Software in the Public Interest. No legitimate Open Source representative would think of taking this sort of position with government without first holding a public consultation with the developer community.

Software patents could be fatal for Open Source software in the U.S. and Europe. Since we do not collect royalties from the distribution of our own software, we have no funds to pay royalties to patent holders. Rather than sue us to collect money, expect patent holders to sue Open Source developers to restrain them from distributing their software or carrying out further development. Companies that produce proprietary software would bring that sort of suit to kill us off as a competitor.

While we can sometimes work around a patented algorithm that we know about, the Open Source developer is not able to defend himself from patent infringement claims, even invalid ones. In the U.S., the cost of a patent infringement defense often exceeds US$500,000. The Open Source developer, an individual working on his own time, won't have the funds to defend himself. He will be compelled to settle with his accuser, regardless of the merits of the case, in order to preserve what assets the plaintiff deigns to leave him. The copyrights of his own software won't be among those assets.

We are especially threatened by royalty-bearing software patents that are embedded in industry standards. In many cases, it is impossible to achieve compliance with a standard without infringing upon the patented algorithms that are specified by that standard. Standard compliance is critical for interoperability, and thus software patents in standards can make an un-communicating island of a Linux system. For example, the IEEE 1488 FireWire standard is encumbered by patents that apply to the software interfacing to it, and a patent r

From: phm@ffii.org
Date: 2 May 2003 09:51:44 -0000
To:
Subject: Software Patents Brussels 2003/05/7-8: Hotel Beds for Free

Dear FFII/Eurolinux Supporter[1]!

For the

Software Patent Hearing/Conference/Demo at the European Parliament 2003/05/07-8
http://swpat.ffii.org/termine/2003/europarl/05/

you get

a bed in double room for free
a single room for 50 eur
both in a 3-star hotel

if you register today (friday) before 15.00.

We subsidise your stay, because we really NEED YOU to be there. Please
try everything to make it possible.

Your presence alone makes a strong impression, as the parliament is
approaching elections. We would not have achieved multi-partisan support
for our amendment proposals, if there had not been a full room at the Nov.
26th hearing. This time we are staging a demonstration of quality
(well-reasoned support of science and software leaders) and quantity (e.g.
rally on Luxembourg Square)

Please try to be there at least on the 8th. Note that Lawrence Lessig,
Brian Kahin, Richard Stallman and others are travelling twice around half
the globe within a few days because they know how important this is.

To register, you just reply to me or to hotel@ffii.org.

Please tick:

-- Which nights do you want to spend in Brussels?

[ ] 5.-6.
[ ] 6.-7.
[ ] 7.-8.
[ ] 8.-9.

-- [ ] I want one room for myself alone
(50 eur, 70 if you don't show up)
[ ] I prefer a room for myself but wouldn't mind sharing
if there is a shortage of beds.
[ ] I prefer a bed in a double room.
(0 eur, 40 if you don't show up)
[ ] I bring a sleeping bag and would like to stay at the home
of supporters in Brussels.
[ ] I already have a place to stay in Brussels.

-- For the entry to the European Parliament on May 8th, we need your
personal identification data[2]:

Name:
sex (m/f):
nationality:
domicile (address where you live):
date of birth:
passport or identity card number:

Thank you very much for your support!

There is a strong Anti-Patent movement in Europe. The German based organsation FFII is a very important player in the defence against lawyer interest groups. The EU wanted to introduce software patents back in 1999, the battle is still not over. Eurolinux alliance started an petition against Software patents with more than 140 000 signatures. Of course everybody shall try to talk to EU parliamentarians, esp. Arlene McCarthy(UK labour), Würmling (EVP) ecc. They have Email. European parliament: http://www.europarl.eu.int/ You should also protest against patent policy of EPO at EU Ombudsman

It's easy to look at IBM as a "the good guy" and forget all the bad things they stand for too!

In Europe there is currently a big fight about software patents and who do you think is a big supporter of them?

Here is a quote:
IBM's patent department is actively lobbying Europe to legalise software patents. They have invested millions in fighting example cases to leading European lawcourts such as the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal and the German Federal Court in order to soften and eventually remove European restrictions on patenting software. They have also threatened European politicians that IBM might close down local facilities if software patents are not legalised in Europe. IBM has also prevented the US government from conducting studies on the value of software patents for the national economy. In the wake of the Opensource hype, IBM's rhetoric has become relatively moderate, but nonetheless it is supported by real pressure. IBM has acquired approximately 1000 European software patents whose legal status is currently unclear. Given the great number of software patents in IBM's hands, IBM is one of the few software companies who may have a genuine interest in software patentability. Once software patents become assertable in Europe, an IBM tax of several hundered million EUR may be levied on European software companies.

Link

Now, what is the biggest threat to Linux? SCO or software patents?

Besides that, I find SCO's suit very stupid - the only winner in this is going to be the laywers.

Well, to begin with, there's the Halloween Documents, which include amongst other things the quote:

The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be investigated.

Examples from Here include:

ASF: changing copyright rules by means of patents Microsoft has prohibited a Free Software programmer from writing import/export filters for its Advanced Streaming Format (ASF). The programmer wanted interoperability with a format that Microsoft is promoting. But for Microsoft, interoperability is in this case doubly disadvantageous: besides reducing the lock-in effect, on which Microsoft's platform strategy relies, it also can circumvent the locks on unauthorized copying, by which Microsoft wants to attract content providers to its ASF platform. Whereas in the DeCSS case a court ruling was necessary to enforce new draconian copyright provisions of the highly disputed Digital Millenium Act, in the ASF case a simple patent suffices to achieve the same legislative goal.

and

Microsoft bars GNU software from interoperating with CIFS During the 1st week of April 2002, Microsoft published a license for its new specification CIFS which it is trying to establish as a de facto communication standard. This license says that free software under GNU GPL, LGPL and similar licenses may not use CIFS. It bases this ban on two broad and trivial US patents with priority dates of 1989 and 1993. Preliminary search results suggst that these patents to not have EP (European Patent) counterparts. But there is nevertheless an EP patent which could possibly be used by MS for the same purpose. Critical network infrastructure such as Samba as well as new projects such as Mono seem to be affected.

There's also this account from Linux User (Warning: It's a pdf file):

Asked by CollabNet CTO Brian Behlendorf whether Microsoft will enforce its patents against open source projects, Mundie replied, "Yes, absolutely." An audience member pointed out that many open source projects aren't funded and so can't afford legal representation to rival Microsoft's. "Oh well," said Mundie. "Get your money, and let's go to court."

There are, I'm sure, other examples which could be provided, but this is just a small sample of Microsoft attitudes with respect to Patents and Free Software.

Well, to begin with, there's the Halloween Documents, which include amongst other things the quote:

The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be investigated.

Examples from Here include:

ASF: changing copyright rules by means of patents Microsoft has prohibited a Free Software programmer from writing import/export filters for its Advanced Streaming Format (ASF). The programmer wanted interoperability with a format that Microsoft is promoting. But for Microsoft, interoperability is in this case doubly disadvantageous: besides reducing the lock-in effect, on which Microsoft's platform strategy relies, it also can circumvent the locks on unauthorized copying, by which Microsoft wants to attract content providers to its ASF platform. Whereas in the DeCSS case a court ruling was necessary to enforce new draconian copyright provisions of the highly disputed Digital Millenium Act, in the ASF case a simple patent suffices to achieve the same legislative goal.

and

Microsoft bars GNU software from interoperating with CIFS During the 1st week of April 2002, Microsoft published a license for its new specification CIFS which it is trying to establish as a de facto communication standard. This license says that free software under GNU GPL, LGPL and similar licenses may not use CIFS. It bases this ban on two broad and trivial US patents with priority dates of 1989 and 1993. Preliminary search results suggst that these patents to not have EP (European Patent) counterparts. But there is nevertheless an EP patent which could possibly be used by MS for the same purpose. Critical network infrastructure such as Samba as well as new projects such as Mono seem to be affected.

There's also this account from Linux User (Warning: It's a pdf file):

Asked by CollabNet CTO Brian Behlendorf whether Microsoft will enforce its patents against open source projects, Mundie replied, "Yes, absolutely." An audience member pointed out that many open source projects aren't funded and so can't afford legal representation to rival Microsoft's. "Oh well," said Mundie. "Get your money, and let's go to court."

There are, I'm sure, other examples which could be provided, but this is just a small sample of Microsoft attitudes with respect to Patents and Free Software.

Well, to begin with, there's the Halloween Documents, which include amongst other things the quote:

The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be investigated.

Examples from Here include:

ASF: changing copyright rules by means of patents Microsoft has prohibited a Free Software programmer from writing import/export filters for its Advanced Streaming Format (ASF). The programmer wanted interoperability with a format that Microsoft is promoting. But for Microsoft, interoperability is in this case doubly disadvantageous: besides reducing the lock-in effect, on which Microsoft's platform strategy relies, it also can circumvent the locks on unauthorized copying, by which Microsoft wants to attract content providers to its ASF platform. Whereas in the DeCSS case a court ruling was necessary to enforce new draconian copyright provisions of the highly disputed Digital Millenium Act, in the ASF case a simple patent suffices to achieve the same legislative goal.

and

Microsoft bars GNU software from interoperating with CIFS During the 1st week of April 2002, Microsoft published a license for its new specification CIFS which it is trying to establish as a de facto communication standard. This license says that free software under GNU GPL, LGPL and similar licenses may not use CIFS. It bases this ban on two broad and trivial US patents with priority dates of 1989 and 1993. Preliminary search results suggst that these patents to not have EP (European Patent) counterparts. But there is nevertheless an EP patent which could possibly be used by MS for the same purpose. Critical network infrastructure such as Samba as well as new projects such as Mono seem to be affected.

There's also this account from Linux User (Warning: It's a pdf file):

Asked by CollabNet CTO Brian Behlendorf whether Microsoft will enforce its patents against open source projects, Mundie replied, "Yes, absolutely." An audience member pointed out that many open source projects aren't funded and so can't afford legal representation to rival Microsoft's. "Oh well," said Mundie. "Get your money, and let's go to court."

There are, I'm sure, other examples which could be provided, but this is just a small sample of Microsoft attitudes with respect to Patents and Free Software.

Microsoft's CEOs have made it "patently" clear that they intend to restrict competing .Net implementations by cultivating Microsoft's patents, such as United States Patent Application #20020059425 "Distributed computing services platform" which covers the design and inter-operation of .NET based implementations.
Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard

In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA . Sun has also fully pened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP) . Even to the point of granting full open source re-implentations of J2EE such as JBoss ...

JBoss received the green light last week, after Sun told ComputerWire that it would allow all of the APIs contained in J2EE 1.4 to be open sourced. Fleury had expressed concern that certain critical APIs, including Enterprise Java Beans (EJB) 2.1, would be not be made available to open source organizations.

However, Java Community Process director Onno Kluyt said: "Sun's plan with 1.4 is that although it started before JCP 2.5, by the time it ships it will allow the creation of independent implementations. I don't think the APIs are that interesting, because the license that sits on top of J2EE will allow that [independent implementations]".

There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.

> I think the danger here is if microsoft buys SCO. Now they own the patents. They wont really
> care about enforcibility. Actually, They wont even want to test it in court.

the danger here is that ever damn idiot sees the spook coming from around the corner and no one is thinkin "get rid of patent law".
whats so appealing about patents anyway - they just ruin the fun for all of opensource every now and then.
see http://petition.eurolinux.org/index.html
or http://www.ffii.org/index.en.html
and sign the petition. there`s no good whining over spilled milk or given patents in this case.
stop patents before you spill your guts !

WAKE UP FOLKS !

> all they have to do is go to Spain, or venuzuela or Mexico or any govenrnment thinking about converting to Linux and point out the possible complications
>if this ever did go to trial. Maybe the linux distro you are thinking about will have an accident, see...

yeah, right. everyone please dance to the noodles.
i gotta love the M$/U$ view of the world -
love it, leave it or send them into submission with ca$h.

> It would be the cheapest way for MS to subvert Linux. Even sheaper than buying the Sony DRM
> patents that are in the news lately. (Buy DRM patents, dont let GNU use them. Eventually enough
> music/movies is out in DRM that without liscenced DRM enabled players linux desktops suck.
> end of linux withou microsoft having to compete at all).

while you whine about it - have you already complained with your local politician ?
if they aint getting no fire under the darn bottoms, they`re gonna sit by and watch shit happening. start complaining about people sitting by and have hitler happen, and you can complain about people sitting by letting gates happen -
DRM, TCPA, patents - call it what you want, its the SS Mindpolice of the fragging century we live in. welcome to the 21st century, digital boy.

GO OUT AND BE POLITICAL ABOUT IT, STOP COMPLAINING THAT IT HAPPENS, BE POLITICAL !!!!

sorry for the rantlike tone, but people need to wake up. and whoever has modded up the entire junk in here, get a life and start modding up real information again. if i read at +4/+5 and keep getting junk, its not what i expect at that level.
or should we petition for a +6 / +7 ... ?

the scheme, [...] isn't engraved in stone but an undated weeks-old draft

Sounds like we can still influence the decision. How do we make SCO an example to the world that this is a very bad idea?

Of course, if you live in the EU you still have time to stop software patents altogether.

Join the stink making community!

from http://swpat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/index.en.h tml:

Asked by CollabNet CTO Brian Behlendorf whether Microsoft will enforce its patents against open source projects, Mundie replied, "Yes, absolutely." An audience member pointed out that many open source projects aren't funded and so can't afford legal representation to rival Microsoft's. "Oh well," said Mundie. "Get your money, and let's go to court."
and
"Heise report about Steve Ballmer's talk at CeBit. At a speech event together with chancellor Schroeder, Ballmer says that Microsoft owns lots of patents which cover its new DotNet standard and that it aims to use them to prevent opensource implementations of DotNet. The key phrases read, in translation:"

BSA is for Software patents in europe. The also spill their poison to arab states. However arab states are wiser.

BSA also tries to introduce software patents in Europe. That is why BSA is evil. And evuil forces don't convert to good abroad.

Heh, dig a little deeper, we'll prolly see they used PKZip to compress JPEGs and GIFs, used Cookies as identifiers, and initiated the transfer by Hyperlinks... from a Graphical and textual information on a video screen for purposes of making a sale.

All unlicensed, of course.

:))

As someone pointed out another comment, Steve Ballmer has said that MS will try to squash free implementations with their patents.

In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA . Sun has also fully pened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP). Even to the point of granting full open source re-implentations of J2EE such as JBoss...

JBoss received the green light last week, after Sun told ComputerWire that it would allow all of the APIs contained in J2EE 1.4 to be open sourced. Fleury had expressed concern that certain critical APIs, including Enterprise Java Beans (EJB) 2.1, would be not be made available to open source organizations.

However, Java Community Process director Onno Kluyt said: "Sun's plan with 1.4 is that although it started before JCP 2.5, by the time it ships it will allow the creation of independent implementations. I don't think the APIs are that interesting, because the license that sits on top of J2EE will allow that [independent implementations]".

There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.

I hope the USA gets into loads of trouble because of bad laws about (electronic) intellectual property. That's the only way the politicians here in Europa will have their eyes opened before we have similar laws.

(Nearly) too late for DMCA sec. 1201

Still time for Software Patents

Do your part! Join the European fight! Find your local partner.

In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA. Sun mhas also fully opened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP).

There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.

uninformed souls argue that copyright-- indeed all of intellectual property-- as a concept must be abolished.

Copyrights are not intellectual property, and I don't think I'm uninformed, and neither was Thomas Jefferson, but both of us think that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property.

Equating intellectual output with "property" is a rather recent thing, done by strong copyright holders who want to get "property rights" (permanence, etc.) on their intellectual output. I think that such ideas should indeed be abolished.

Also, while I do believe that it is probably a bad idea to abolish copyrights altogether, I am not at all sure of that.. I am too agnostic to claim to know this -- however I am pretty firm in my belief that restoring copyrights to their original proportion would be beneficial for society - and may even eliminate a few monopolies.

I guess this was mostly a joke, but in case it was not - you might be interested in knowing that:

Amazon Tastes Its Own Patent-Pending Medicine and One-Click Shopping: litigation turns out unexpected real owner:
Amazon (internet bookstore) received a US patent on reducing the need for data input in case of repeated ordering through a network like the WWW. Based on this patent, Amazon sought an injunction against a competing bookstore. Amazon had applied for the same patent at the EPO under EP0902381 in Sep. 1998 under the name "Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network". By the time a search report was issued by the EPO, this patent had already aroused an uproar in the USA, leading to the discovery of a lot of prior art. Under the impression of these facts, Amazon refrained from further pursuing the patent application at the EPO. Meanwhile it has turned out that the One-Click technique is "owned" by a subsidiary of Thomson Multimedia, which had obtained a similar patent a few years earlier.

Whoever is going to try to force it - will be in trouble. Seems like there is previous art more than carry. Even I have made such a wonderful thing in 1997. Who has not :) :)

"MS decide this is illegal and start suing? I mean, clearly there's the whole DMCA thing. Does this decoder ignore MS's DRM system? I would have read the article, but I don't speak C...
"

Anybody remember when VirtualDub could work on .ASF files...?

Here is a short blurb talking about it.

While common oppinion here is that copyright infringement is negative to society, I would like to present a different oppinion.

Firstly, I would like to point you to a well-written Slashdot comment about the current abuse of the original concept of Copyright. The points I would like to take from there are that Copyrights were intended to promote society, and the progress of Science and Useful Arts, but are now used for the sole means of creating profit for companies.

You must note that Copyrights, the exclusive rights to copy some data, is a big limitation on everyone's freedom to copy whatever they want. I'm not saying this means its necessarily a bad thing - because I agree its a necessary evil. Limiting people's freedom is acceptable in many aspects of life, and here too. Unfortunatly, the limit on our freedom remained through the years, but the original purpose of copyright - since it was originally drafted - was lost.

The original copyright concept was to give incentive to create, for the sole purpose of promoting science and useful arts. (Its true, its not meant to reward authors, its meant to promote science and useful arts - read about it in the constitution). This is why Copyright was created to last for limited times, which is not really limited anymore. This means that all copyrighted work is supposed to be out in the public domain within a reasonable amount of time - It is no longer this way. It also means that copyrights are only given to works that are published and distributed - for the inspiring of new works - for the progress of science and useful arts. Today's large copyright owners try to make people forget this purpose of copyright, and claim it is actually meant to protect them - That their creation is somehow their "Intellectual Property" and can be "Stolen". But the original framers of the constitution did not mean this, as Thomas Jefferson has said: There is no such thing as Intellectual Property.

If we take the software industry specifically, we must not forget that until the Copyright reforms of the 1970's, Binary Data was not copyright'able. Why? Because its creation does little to Promote Science and Useful Arts. See, you cannot both eat the cake (Get a Copyright) and have it full (Not promote science and useful arts). A copyright is not a god-given right, its given to the creator in exchange for his sharing of the created information, for the progress of science and useful arts for us all.

Since Copyright has devolved from a strong respected publishing incentive to an infamous tool for company profit, people have lost all moral obligation to it. There is no wonder people care not for the Copyrights of large corporations, as those copyrights place a limit on their freedom to "Help thy Neighbour", without contributing back to Science and Useful Arts.

This is why I will not obey the current draconian Copyright Laws, while I will support the GPL. Hypocracy? No: Copyrights have violated their mandate to Promote Science and Useful Arts. The GPL hasn't: It has inspired huge amounts of Free Software writers and possibly caused some of the greatest software code to be written and be out there for everyone to learn from.

Sorry this comment is a bit long, just my oppinion on the matter.

...the reforms sought, is higher fees for the initial processing fee, higher fees for more than 20 claims, higher fees for the more work the examiners have to due[sic]...

These 'reforms' further raise the barriers to entry for the small guy and compound the existing systemic faults in patents. That they are presented as 'reforms', perhaps gives a clue, that patent-opposition is _not_ a forlorn hope even in the US. US Geeks keep the pressure up.

Also we Europeans cannot sit on our laurels, the European Patent Office are still trying to force the introduce of software patent (http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indp rop/comp/index.htm) through the back door of EU treaty obligations and legislation. The proposals are not dead or without critics. A final push could see victory, (at least for a time). This could be forced given the major issues on table at the moment. So we ALL need to stand up for our rights and complain to our various National and EU representatives.

If you are in the UK, don't forget Fax Your MP remember keep it short, simple and professional. Don't be afraid to play up to the political position of the party in power, always claim past support & link future support to this issue, some points to use:

- Negative competitive pressure on Software sector.
- Negative economic impact overall.
- Anti-Competitive.
- Anti-Freedom.
- Anti-Democratic, process is at odds with consultation process results.

I'd also like to propose this Google Bomb, pointing the works Software Patents to the http://swpat.ffii.org/ home.

...the reforms sought, is higher fees for the initial processing fee, higher fees for more than 20 claims, higher fees for the more work the examiners have to due[sic]...

These 'reforms' further raise the barriers to entry for the small guy and compound the existing systemic faults in patents. That they are presented as 'reforms', perhaps gives a clue, that patent-opposition is _not_ a forlorn hope even in the US. US Geeks keep the pressure up.

Also we Europeans cannot sit on our laurels, the European Patent Office are still trying to force the introduce of software patent (http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indp rop/comp/index.htm) through the back door of EU treaty obligations and legislation. The proposals are not dead or without critics. A final push could see victory, (at least for a time). This could be forced given the major issues on table at the moment. So we ALL need to stand up for our rights and complain to our various National and EU representatives.

If you are in the UK, don't forget Fax Your MP remember keep it short, simple and professional. Don't be afraid to play up to the political position of the party in power, always claim past support & link future support to this issue, some points to use:

- Negative competitive pressure on Software sector.
- Negative economic impact overall.
- Anti-Competitive.
- Anti-Freedom.
- Anti-Democratic, process is at odds with consultation process results.

I'd also like to propose this Google Bomb, pointing the works Software Patents to the http://swpat.ffii.org/ home.

You will find material on all those issues and more on the web site of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure. The site is incredibly well researched.

Software patents also restrict Europeans, contrary to popular belief. This leaves only a few "free" countries and those may not necessarily be more free on the patent issue.

...needs to look at the European software patent horror gallery. Scary stuff.

I'm not a regular /. user but this time I've read some posts, and would like to answer some together.

I can understand organizations not wanting employees talking to the press, and I can undand anger at this form of censorship. I'm upset the interview couldn't be answered even though the questions weren't so absolutely great.

I believe the EPO is up to worse things than that, though. There is no democratic control on it . Please read

English/German European Patent Office: High Above Legality

Catalan A can Ribot malcrien el porc

There was a nice statement from the workers union, but it's no longer online (sounds familiar?)
It was at

http://www.usoeb.org/Suepo/kontrol.htm

Does anybody have a cached copy?

Anyway. There are more productive things to do than complaining in Slashdot or email bombing the EPO.

There are a lot of organisations fighting to stop the patent system from running even more insane than it is, and there's lot of info around.

Please think of spending some time helping these people before it's too late, instead of using slashdot, watching TV or hacking. Every bit of help is useful. You can inform yourself and talk to politicians or have your company press your government (but please do your homework first and make an informed opinion before facing people whose income and career depends on making it seem there is no problem). If you don't want to do that, you can translate text, offer technical help, gather data, produce art work, research or summarize facts, publish articles, place links in your website, etc. (even contribute money).

No fight is lost until it ends, there is a lot of work to be done, but we are many and they are few.
If everybody learns and teaches a little, and spends time on useful tasks, we'll have the patent system reformed.

This winter will be decisive in Europe, as the
software patentability directive will be in the European Parliament and Council. Please read

CEC & BSA 2002-02-20: proposal to make all useful ideas patentable


For those in the US, beside altruistically helping
Europeans, you can also try to be heard by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Comission, who are holding a debate on competition law and intellectual property. Please take your time to learn and think about the issues, so that your contribution is both solid and useful. See:


Competition and IP law and policy in the knowledge
based economy

For those in Japan, I don't know, but I believe the patent system has also recently lost bearings and political pressure would be needed. For those elsewhere I don't know, check for yourselves or help us so that this disease does not expand to where you are.

You'll find more links to information sources (a bit Europe centric) at
this slide

Ah!. And for those thinking the EPO is better than the USPTO, see
European Software Patent Horror Gallery

I'm not a regular /. user but this time I've read some posts, and would like to answer some together.

I can understand organizations not wanting employees talking to the press, and I can undand anger at this form of censorship. I'm upset the interview couldn't be answered even though the questions weren't so absolutely great.

I believe the EPO is up to worse things than that, though. There is no democratic control on it . Please read

English/German European Patent Office: High Above Legality

Catalan A can Ribot malcrien el porc

There was a nice statement from the workers union, but it's no longer online (sounds familiar?)
It was at

http://www.usoeb.org/Suepo/kontrol.htm

Does anybody have a cached copy?

Anyway. There are more productive things to do than complaining in Slashdot or email bombing the EPO.

There are a lot of organisations fighting to stop the patent system from running even more insane than it is, and there's lot of info around.

Please think of spending some time helping these people before it's too late, instead of using slashdot, watching TV or hacking. Every bit of help is useful. You can inform yourself and talk to politicians or have your company press your government (but please do your homework first and make an informed opinion before facing people whose income and career depends on making it seem there is no problem). If you don't want to do that, you can translate text, offer technical help, gather data, produce art work, research or summarize facts, publish articles, place links in your website, etc. (even contribute money).

No fight is lost until it ends, there is a lot of work to be done, but we are many and they are few.
If everybody learns and teaches a little, and spends time on useful tasks, we'll have the patent system reformed.

This winter will be decisive in Europe, as the
software patentability directive will be in the European Parliament and Council. Please read

CEC & BSA 2002-02-20: proposal to make all useful ideas patentable


For those in the US, beside altruistically helping
Europeans, you can also try to be heard by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Comission, who are holding a debate on competition law and intellectual property. Please take your time to learn and think about the issues, so that your contribution is both solid and useful. See:


Competition and IP law and policy in the knowledge
based economy

For those in Japan, I don't know, but I believe the patent system has also recently lost bearings and political pressure would be needed. For those elsewhere I don't know, check for yourselves or help us so that this disease does not expand to where you are.

You'll find more links to information sources (a bit Europe centric) at
this slide

Ah!. And for those thinking the EPO is better than the USPTO, see
European Software Patent Horror Gallery

I'm not a regular /. user but this time I've read some posts, and would like to answer some together.

I can understand organizations not wanting employees talking to the press, and I can undand anger at this form of censorship. I'm upset the interview couldn't be answered even though the questions weren't so absolutely great.

I believe the EPO is up to worse things than that, though. There is no democratic control on it . Please read

English/German European Patent Office: High Above Legality

Catalan A can Ribot malcrien el porc

There was a nice statement from the workers union, but it's no longer online (sounds familiar?)
It was at

http://www.usoeb.org/Suepo/kontrol.htm

Does anybody have a cached copy?

Anyway. There are more productive things to do than complaining in Slashdot or email bombing the EPO.

There are a lot of organisations fighting to stop the patent system from running even more insane than it is, and there's lot of info around.

Please think of spending some time helping these people before it's too late, instead of using slashdot, watching TV or hacking. Every bit of help is useful. You can inform yourself and talk to politicians or have your company press your government (but please do your homework first and make an informed opinion before facing people whose income and career depends on making it seem there is no problem). If you don't want to do that, you can translate text, offer technical help, gather data, produce art work, research or summarize facts, publish articles, place links in your website, etc. (even contribute money).

No fight is lost until it ends, there is a lot of work to be done, but we are many and they are few.
If everybody learns and teaches a little, and spends time on useful tasks, we'll have the patent system reformed.

This winter will be decisive in Europe, as the
software patentability directive will be in the European Parliament and Council. Please read

CEC & BSA 2002-02-20: proposal to make all useful ideas patentable


For those in the US, beside altruistically helping
Europeans, you can also try to be heard by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Comission, who are holding a debate on competition law and intellectual property. Please take your time to learn and think about the issues, so that your contribution is both solid and useful. See:


Competition and IP law and policy in the knowledge
based economy

For those in Japan, I don't know, but I believe the patent system has also recently lost bearings and political pressure would be needed. For those elsewhere I don't know, check for yourselves or help us so that this disease does not expand to where you are.

You'll find more links to information sources (a bit Europe centric) at
this slide

Ah!. And for those thinking the EPO is better than the USPTO, see
European Software Patent Horror Gallery

Stephan Kinsella is a registered patent attorney and earns his living by helping people obtain patents. Yet he is highly critical of the system and of fellow patent lawyers. When one of these colleagues attacked Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig as a "pompous pedagogue pronouncing patent policies", Kinsella commented:

In fact, in my view, most patent lawyers -- most lawyers in general -- fit into the category "Pompous Pedagogues Pronouncing Patent Policies", to the extent they themselves unthinkingly spout pro-patent slogans. That is because most patent and IP and even other attorneys with an opinion on this issue mindlessly parrot the simpleminded economics with which they were propagandized in law school. Virtually every patent lawyer will reiterate the mantra that "we need patents to stimulate innovation," as if they have given deep and careful thought to this. Of course, virtually none of them have. They repeat what they have read in Supreme Court and CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the primary federal appellate court dealing with patent law issues) opinions as if the positive law enunciated by government functionaries is some Holy Writ. It does not take a genius to figure out why most patent lawyers are in favor of the patent system; and it is not because they have really studied the matter and dispassionately concluded that society is better off with a patent system -- it is because they don't want to see the system that pays the mortgage for them eroded or abolished.

Here is the feeling from the outside.

Software patents are a complex subject in Europe. The law itself is clear (Art 52):

The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: [...]
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

But the law makers didn't want to rule out everything that use an algorithm. Just the thing that were only algorithms. So, they added (Art 52):

(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

But the industrial lobby used this "as such" clause to brings back software patent by the backdoor. First by saying that the "as such" clause is too complicated to really understand what it means, and then by providing their view of it: a computer program that have a "further technical effect" is not a program as such. For example, in the EPO examinator's guideline, it is written:

While "programs for computers" are included among the items listed in Art. 52(2), if the claimed subject-matter has a technical character, it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3).

But the guideline go further:

In the practice of examining computer-implemented inventions, however, it may be more appropriate for the examiner to proceed directly to the questions of novelty and inventive step, without considering beforehand the question of technical character. In assessing whether there is an inventive step, the examiner must establish an objective technical problem which has been overcome (see IV, 9.5). The solution of that problem constitutes the invention's technical contribution to the art. The presence of such a technical contribution establishes that the claimed subject-matter has a technical character and therefore is indeed an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).

But the EPO have no juridictional power. That's why, when there is patent litigation, it goes in front of a national court. But EPO could not impose its views on national court. So, in every european software patent case, the court has found the software patent illegal.

So, in order to have the Europe comply to its views, the industrial lobby, and especially our friends of the BSA, has lobbyed the European Commission to propose a new law to make software patent lawfull. My prefered line from the FAQ is about the answers they have got from a consultation he subject, and the respect they have for those answers (my emphasis):

Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper.

Fortunately, our gouvernment is still opposed to the idea. But how long could it stand against Europe or industrial lobbies ?

So, from outside, the feeling is that the EPO is defying the law, on the pressure of the industrial lobby. And in order to align the law to their views, they even lobby the European Commission.

And you ? What is your feeling about this ? Especially from the inside of the EPO. You are somehow in the center of the whole thing. I would really like to have an opinion "from the inside".

Here is the feeling from the outside.

Software patents are a complex subject in Europe. The law itself is clear (Art 52):

The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: [...]
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

But the law makers didn't want to rule out everything that use an algorithm. Just the thing that were only algorithms. So, they added (Art 52):

(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

But the industrial lobby used this "as such" clause to brings back software patent by the backdoor. First by saying that the "as such" clause is too complicated to really understand what it means, and then by providing their view of it: a computer program that have a "further technical effect" is not a program as such. For example, in the EPO examinator's guideline, it is written:

While "programs for computers" are included among the items listed in Art. 52(2), if the claimed subject-matter has a technical character, it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3).

But the guideline go further:

In the practice of examining computer-implemented inventions, however, it may be more appropriate for the examiner to proceed directly to the questions of novelty and inventive step, without considering beforehand the question of technical character. In assessing whether there is an inventive step, the examiner must establish an objective technical problem which has been overcome (see IV, 9.5). The solution of that problem constitutes the invention's technical contribution to the art. The presence of such a technical contribution establishes that the claimed subject-matter has a technical character and therefore is indeed an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).

But the EPO have no juridictional power. That's why, when there is patent litigation, it goes in front of a national court. But EPO could not impose its views on national court. So, in every european software patent case, the court has found the software patent illegal.

So, in order to have the Europe comply to its views, the industrial lobby, and especially our friends of the BSA, has lobbyed the European Commission to propose a new law to make software patent lawfull. My prefered line from the FAQ is about the answers they have got from a consultation he subject, and the respect they have for those answers (my emphasis):

Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper.

Fortunately, our gouvernment is still opposed to the idea. But how long could it stand against Europe or industrial lobbies ?

So, from outside, the feeling is that the EPO is defying the law, on the pressure of the industrial lobby. And in order to align the law to their views, they even lobby the European Commission.

And you ? What is your feeling about this ? Especially from the inside of the EPO. You are somehow in the center of the whole thing. I would really like to have an opinion "from the inside".

Here is the feeling from the outside.

Software patents are a complex subject in Europe. The law itself is clear (Art 52):

The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: [...]
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

But the law makers didn't want to rule out everything that use an algorithm. Just the thing that were only algorithms. So, they added (Art 52):

(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

But the industrial lobby used this "as such" clause to brings back software patent by the backdoor. First by saying that the "as such" clause is too complicated to really understand what it means, and then by providing their view of it: a computer program that have a "further technical effect" is not a program as such. For example, in the EPO examinator's guideline, it is written:

While "programs for computers" are included among the items listed in Art. 52(2), if the claimed subject-matter has a technical character, it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3).

But the guideline go further:

In the practice of examining computer-implemented inventions, however, it may be more appropriate for the examiner to proceed directly to the questions of novelty and inventive step, without considering beforehand the question of technical character. In assessing whether there is an inventive step, the examiner must establish an objective technical problem which has been overcome (see IV, 9.5). The solution of that problem constitutes the invention's technical contribution to the art. The presence of such a technical contribution establishes that the claimed subject-matter has a technical character and therefore is indeed an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).

But the EPO have no juridictional power. That's why, when there is patent litigation, it goes in front of a national court. But EPO could not impose its views on national court. So, in every european software patent case, the court has found the software patent illegal.

So, in order to have the Europe comply to its views, the industrial lobby, and especially our friends of the BSA, has lobbyed the European Commission to propose a new law to make software patent lawfull. My prefered line from the FAQ is about the answers they have got from a consultation he subject, and the respect they have for those answers (my emphasis):

Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper.

Fortunately, our gouvernment is still opposed to the idea. But how long could it stand against Europe or industrial lobbies ?

So, from outside, the feeling is that the EPO is defying the law, on the pressure of the industrial lobby. And in order to align the law to their views, they even lobby the European Commission.

And you ? What is your feeling about this ? Especially from the inside of the EPO. You are somehow in the center of the whole thing. I would really like to have an opinion "from the inside".

Here is the feeling from the outside.

Software patents are a complex subject in Europe. The law itself is clear (Art 52):

The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: [...]
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

But the law makers didn't want to rule out everything that use an algorithm. Just the thing that were only algorithms. So, they added (Art 52):

(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

But the industrial lobby used this "as such" clause to brings back software patent by the backdoor. First by saying that the "as such" clause is too complicated to really understand what it means, and then by providing their view of it: a computer program that have a "further technical effect" is not a program as such. For example, in the EPO examinator's guideline, it is written:

While "programs for computers" are included among the items listed in Art. 52(2), if the claimed subject-matter has a technical character, it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3).

But the guideline go further:

In the practice of examining computer-implemented inventions, however, it may be more appropriate for the examiner to proceed directly to the questions of novelty and inventive step, without considering beforehand the question of technical character. In assessing whether there is an inventive step, the examiner must establish an objective technical problem which has been overcome (see IV, 9.5). The solution of that problem constitutes the invention's technical contribution to the art. The presence of such a technical contribution establishes that the claimed subject-matter has a technical character and therefore is indeed an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).

But the EPO have no juridictional power. That's why, when there is patent litigation, it goes in front of a national court. But EPO could not impose its views on national court. So, in every european software patent case, the court has found the software patent illegal.

So, in order to have the Europe comply to its views, the industrial lobby, and especially our friends of the BSA, has lobbyed the European Commission to propose a new law to make software patent lawfull. My prefered line from the FAQ is about the answers they have got from a consultation he subject, and the respect they have for those answers (my emphasis):

Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper.

Fortunately, our gouvernment is still opposed to the idea. But how long could it stand against Europe or industrial lobbies ?

So, from outside, the feeling is that the EPO is defying the law, on the pressure of the industrial lobby. And in order to align the law to their views, they even lobby the European Commission.

And you ? What is your feeling about this ? Especially from the inside of the EPO. You are somehow in the center of the whole thing. I would really like to have an opinion "from the inside".

Here is the feeling from the outside.

Software patents are a complex subject in Europe. The law itself is clear (Art 52):

The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: [...]
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

But the law makers didn't want to rule out everything that use an algorithm. Just the thing that were only algorithms. So, they added (Art 52):

(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

But the industrial lobby used this "as such" clause to brings back software patent by the backdoor. First by saying that the "as such" clause is too complicated to really understand what it means, and then by providing their view of it: a computer program that have a "further technical effect" is not a program as such. For example, in the EPO examinator's guideline, it is written:

While "programs for computers" are included among the items listed in Art. 52(2), if the claimed subject-matter has a technical character, it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3).

But the guideline go further:

In the practice of examining computer-implemented inventions, however, it may be more appropriate for the examiner to proceed directly to the questions of novelty and inventive step, without considering beforehand the question of technical character. In assessing whether there is an inventive step, the examiner must establish an objective technical problem which has been overcome (see IV, 9.5). The solution of that problem constitutes the invention's technical contribution to the art. The presence of such a technical contribution establishes that the claimed subject-matter has a technical character and therefore is indeed an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).

But the EPO have no juridictional power. That's why, when there is patent litigation, it goes in front of a national court. But EPO could not impose its views on national court. So, in every european software patent case, the court has found the software patent illegal.

So, in order to have the Europe comply to its views, the industrial lobby, and especially our friends of the BSA, has lobbyed the European Commission to propose a new law to make software patent lawfull. My prefered line from the FAQ is about the answers they have got from a consultation he subject, and the respect they have for those answers (my emphasis):

Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper.

Fortunately, our gouvernment is still opposed to the idea. But how long could it stand against Europe or industrial lobbies ?

So, from outside, the feeling is that the EPO is defying the law, on the pressure of the industrial lobby. And in order to align the law to their views, they even lobby the European Commission.

And you ? What is your feeling about this ? Especially from the inside of the EPO. You are somehow in the center of the whole thing. I would really like to have an opinion "from the inside".

The patent is valide in US, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy, as explained here.

Patent numbers :
US 4698672
EP 0266049
JP 63148789

Sotfware patent are not legal (yet ?) in Europe. Yes, EPO can give you a patent for a "computer-implemented" invention, proven that there is a "further technical effect" (whatever this means, if it is really much simpler than "as such". See the FFII web site for discussion about it). But for now, every times a software patent has been brought in front of a (national) court, it has been judged as illegal (decisions are here). So, yes, EPO grants software patent, but no, they are not legal in front of a national court.

So, we, european developer, could develop open-source project without caring about software patent. At least until we put the executable on the web. You can be judged as infringing a software patent if you distribute an executable. And severals judgment have set that "putting on the web" is like "distributing for the world". Finally, the Sklyarov stuff have shown that if you are found guilty of something in the us that is still absolutely legal in your country, it's not a good idea to go to the US. So, for now, the solution is to put a kind of message on the web page, like "sorry, if you are in the US, you don't have the right to download the software".

Fine. But in fact, in front of a court, this could be judged as not enought. A court could ask you to put a real filtering on your web page (see the Yahoo stuff). But if the filtering itself is patented in US ? Do we have to put a pre-filtering for US citizen ? Or does this means that wherever you are, if you put something on your web page, then you are bound by the US patent laws, even if you have different laws in your country ? At least the Yahoo case required only the filtering for French citizen...

Sotfware patent are not legal (yet ?) in Europe. Yes, EPO can give you a patent for a "computer-implemented" invention, proven that there is a "further technical effect" (whatever this means, if it is really much simpler than "as such". See the FFII web site for discussion about it). But for now, every times a software patent has been brought in front of a (national) court, it has been judged as illegal (decisions are here). So, yes, EPO grants software patent, but no, they are not legal in front of a national court.

So, we, european developer, could develop open-source project without caring about software patent. At least until we put the executable on the web. You can be judged as infringing a software patent if you distribute an executable. And severals judgment have set that "putting on the web" is like "distributing for the world". Finally, the Sklyarov stuff have shown that if you are found guilty of something in the us that is still absolutely legal in your country, it's not a good idea to go to the US. So, for now, the solution is to put a kind of message on the web page, like "sorry, if you are in the US, you don't have the right to download the software".

Fine. But in fact, in front of a court, this could be judged as not enought. A court could ask you to put a real filtering on your web page (see the Yahoo stuff). But if the filtering itself is patented in US ? Do we have to put a pre-filtering for US citizen ? Or does this means that wherever you are, if you put something on your web page, then you are bound by the US patent laws, even if you have different laws in your country ? At least the Yahoo case required only the filtering for French citizen...

Since you didn't provide a url, I googled and came up with http://www.european-patent-office.org

I also noticed on the first page of google results a link to The European Software Patent Horror Gallery.

Tarring with the same brush? If the shoe fits, wear it.

But of course, there's no point in moaning. The question we need to ask is: Where do we go from here? Does 2600 still want people to distribute flyers like this one? What about extending this campaign to outside the USA, since Europe, for example, is considering making all ideas patentable. If that is the case, 2600 might like to redesign some of the flyers to make them just a bit less US-centric. For example, how many people outside the US really know what the First Amendment is?

Although the 2600 case focuses on the DMCA, which is thankfully just an American law at the minute, other countries have seen it and clearly like what they see.

So, sorry for the rambling on---but I want to know what I can do to help this cause outside the USA. I'm sure we can get massive support once people realise just how much their general freedom is at stake, and how much technology will be crippled in the name of profit.

Sorry, I meant hyperlinking

Maybe the closest equivalent for Germans might be the FFII.

To emphasis this, take a look at european law about copyright and patent.
First, software patents are STILL unlawfull, even if given by the European Patent Office, and so are VERY LIKELY to be broken in front of a national court, as it has already be done.
Second, it seems that the patents given by the EPO are not as broad as the US patents, so they might not be used against european developers.
Finally, the Article 6 of the copyright law in Europe, about decompilation, specifically say that any user of a software has the right to decompile it "to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs", and that any part in a license say the contrary is considered as null.

To emphasis this, take a look at european law about copyright and patent.
First, software patents are STILL unlawfull, even if given by the European Patent Office, and so are VERY LIKELY to be broken in front of a national court, as it has already be done.
Second, it seems that the patents given by the EPO are not as broad as the US patents, so they might not be used against european developers.
Finally, the Article 6 of the copyright law in Europe, about decompilation, specifically say that any user of a software has the right to decompile it "to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs", and that any part in a license say the contrary is considered as null.

I misinterpreted some comment I read about the proposal of the European commitee. So here in Europa we might get the same situation regarding patentability of software. And of course, we created them for ourselves as well :-(

My apologies for the misinformation.

But see for yourself proposal to make all useful ideas patentable

"Something can be an invention without being patentable"

No, this is the same bug again.

I think we're going to have to agree on which dictionary we will use. The EPC makes "being an invention" one of the requirements for patentability, but not the only one. The light bulb, as originally invented by Edison, is an invention, but it is known and so cannot be patented today (although it was in the 1880s).

Inventions are patentable, and there are no inventions that are unpatentable.

So, you would say that the lightbulb isn't an invention, but rather that it was an invention, I suppose. Ok, I can understand that (it's the common use of the word), but please keep in mind that when dealing with patent law, it works best if you use the legal terms and legal meanings rather than the common, layman terms.

Nevertheless, for the present discussion it does not matter, and the EPC does not consider computer programs as such to be inventions - in both senses of the word. :-)

You _know_ programming is about logical problem solution because you can program. Lawyers can't, and they think everyting about computing is technical.

True. That's why I was surprised when the EPO Board of Appeals (which btw includes several technically qualified people) came up with the "further technical effect", and made the distinction with "normal technical effects" that all computer programs exhibit. So it is not enough to say "This is a computer program", you have to demonstrate what this particular program does and why that particular effect is technical. I've given some examples in the context of business methods on my site.

You know Thomson? Do you know they have a patent on BladeEnc? Do you know how they got it? Answer: IP-technology.

I thought the MP3 encoding patents were held by Fraunhofer, but I could be wrong. My own area of expertise is digital rights management, not signal coding. And I don't think I want to comment in public on patents held by direct competitors of my company.

I suggest you take a look into EPO practice before you go to far in looking for consistency and logics in EPO legal doctrine. As a matter of fact, I'd be surprised if you found them since those are not usually the main objectives of powerful institutions.

Well, you will have noticed by now that I work at the patent department of one of the largest electronics firms in Europe. So I am quite familiar with the state of the case law regarding software and business methods at the EPC. While I agree that the case law leaves much to be desired, I do believe that by now they have worked out a sensible compromise: a computer program is patentable if it qualifies as an invention, just like any other device, method or apparatus. Basically, it doesn't matter that the invention is embodied in software. If it were embodied in hardware, would the resulting effects then be technical? If so, it is patentable (assuming novelty and nonobviousness).

"So they simply moved it into the heading of the article corresponding to 52(2)."

No - the other way around. I think England insisted on inserting 52.3 while other member countries were happy with their wording, but I could be wrong

I'm going to have to take your word for the translations of the EPC into Danish and Swedish. It would be interesting to see how these countries defend being in compliance with the EPC whilst ignoring this provision.

(can I get an url for "Beresford, p. 19" to erik@sslug.dk ?). From comparison I think it is evident that 52.3 was inserted.

"Beresford" refers to the book Patenting software under the EPC by Keith Beresford (ISBN: 0-752-006339). Oh, I see FFII has a review.

According to Beresford, they didn't even have an exclusion for software at all at first. It appeared first in 1971 as a point under discussion in the list of items like "mere discoveries" and "purely aesthetic creations". These "merely" and "purely" qualifications were finally moved to 52(3) when the EPC was adopted.

Finally (and here I rearrange your wording), the EPC, according to the latest case law, excludes only computer programs as such if they are not claimed as what they are. That is, if it does nothing more than any other computer program would (display things, produce electrical currents, etc), it is claimed to have a "further technical effect". I guess you know that there are IP-tech instruction manuals for this:

Yes. In fact, I've sat through several conferences that purport to teach you how to draft claims to get protection for software as such. It is not quite as simple as this article makes it appear. You can't just say "It's process control software and so it is an invention".

Also you better make sure you are not infringing on the great "inventions" EP0895689, EP0747840 and EP0522591 on your homepage.

I am running my website as a private individual and so, by law, cannot infringe on any patents. Further, EP0895689 is not a patent. It's just a published applications, and those have no legal force.

Weither EPC should be drafted in another way or not we have to discuss another day. I think the important part is: Could you consider defending the intellectual property of european software creators instead of inviting an american lawbenders army?

I am defening the IP of a European software creator, although the software my employer makes is for a large part embedded in hardware. Our innovations were traditionally realized in hardware, and as such clearly patentable. Now that the industry trend is to move to more and more functionality in software, and we still desire to same level of protection for our innovations, you'll understand where I'm coming from. It is simply not fair that an innovation could be copied or imitated merely because it could be realized in software. So a balance has to be struck between "all software is patentable" and "all software-related patents should be abolished."

As a final note, I am not speaking on behalf of my employer, in case that wasn't clear already. :-)