Slashdot Mirror

The time is not to make fun of the patent system in general. It is the right time to call for reform in the United States. There are currently US patent reform discussions initiated by Microsofts while myriads of stupid MS lobbyists walk on the floors of the European parliament to lobby for Software patents:

* Hugo Lueders, CompTIA or Initiative for Software Choice
* Jonathan Zuck, ACT
* Simon Gentry, Campaign for Creativity
* Pleon
* DCI Group
and so on. And the more professional guys, which are also partially paid by Microsoft.

* Francisco Mingorance, Business Software Alliance
* Mark McGann, EICTA

So I recommend you to act now.

1. Help to save Europe, participate in our webdemo

2. Subscribe to the US FFII List

We do not have to complain about the US patent system, we can change it.

In Germany, 160 software patents were tried in court during the last approx. 25 years. ALL of them have been nullified by the supreme court!

See http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/bgh-dispo76/index.en .html

That means: Though the EPO ignores the EPC and allows software patents, they're currently not enforceable - and AFAIK NOWHERE in Europe! Hence, this time bomb of about 45000 software patents could now be activated by the new directive.

AND: It is normal that the directive is directly (word-by-word) translated into national law!

Marco.

Tell your MEPs to support the 21 amendments tabled by Rocard/Buzek. (PSE and EPP parties)

See

http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En

Call by phone or fax, eMails won't get read.

Here is a list of all MEPs:

http://www.ffii.org/~gibuskro/meplist/

Tell your MEPs to support the 21 amendments tabled by Rocard/Buzek. (PSE and EPP parties)

See

http://wiki.ffii.org/AmPlenPr050701En

Call by phone or fax, eMails won't get read.

Here is a list of all MEPs:

http://www.ffii.org/~gibuskro/meplist/

Why don't we team up and get rid off EU software patents first, then reform US patents. us-parl is the right mailing list you should join.

• At this stage sending an email is a complete waste of time, MEPs now routinely ignore emails about this Directive because they have been swamped. You need to phone them(or meet them, but it is probably too late for that now)
• Most MEPs want to do the right thing, but many have been mislead by an aggressive pro-patent campaign that have variously claimed:
  • That companies will leave the EU if the EU doesn't introduce software patents (why? Your location makes no difference as to whether or not you can file for patents in other countries)
  • That the current text of the Directive won't introduce "pure" software patents, and so this is all a fuss about nothing (wrong, the European Patent Office has already granted many software patents that are currently unenforceable, but would become enforceable if the Directive isn't amended)
  • That people who don't want software patents really don't want patents on any machine that might include a computer (wrong, the Rocard-Bozek amendments won't prevent patents on machines that contain computers)
• If you can, try to research your MEPs position on the issue before phoning them
• Don't rant and rave. Be polite, but clear that the council text will hurt you/your business unless the Rocard-Buzek re-tabled amendments are passed.
• Stress that a no-vote or an abstention counts as a vote in favour of software patentability.

...please just take the time to write a letter to MEP. That site gives the addresses and phone numbers you can write and fax to. (Emails are too ineffective; most MEPs get so many that they just get their secretaries to send out form responses.) If we can Slashdot politicans about this issue in real life, we might have a chance to stop this pro-corporate bullshit going through. See swpat.ffii.org for more info, and this site for more specific information about communicating with politicos.

...please just take the time to write a letter to MEP. That site gives the addresses and phone numbers you can write and fax to. (Emails are too ineffective; most MEPs get so many that they just get their secretaries to send out form responses.) If we can Slashdot politicans about this issue in real life, we might have a chance to stop this pro-corporate bullshit going through. See swpat.ffii.org for more info, and this site for more specific information about communicating with politicos.

A list of all MEPs with their phone numbers at Brussels and Strasbourg.

In the second round the Council added Article 5.2 Program claims, and the latest legal affairs committee did *not* remove or alter it.

Article 5.2: Program claims
[FFII: This was one of the worst Council articles, and unfortunately did not get amended.]
2. A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1.

A patent claim on software on any media. Stored on disk, printed on paper, anything.

The only time software "as such" is not subject to a program claim is when it does not exist anywhere. Only imaginary software is not patentable "as such". The moment you write it down it is covered by the program claim. That program scribbled down on paper "would, when loaded and executed in a programmable computer, programmable computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application". The fact that you scribbled it on paper and it would need to be "loaded" with some fancy optical text recognition system does not matter. It is covered by Article 5.2 Program Claims.

Also, in both proposals, software as such won't be patentable, actually.

Now do you understand why the anti-SW-patent side goes ballistic every time the pro-SW-patent side says that software "as such" would not be patentable? It is a ludacris and meaningless statement.

as I've understood it, your invention actually has to do something - to be "technical"

Uhhh, yeah... I guess that would exclude software that wouldn't do anything if you ran it. Chuckle. That would be right there next to the imaginary software "as such" that doesn't exist anywhere. Chuckle.

And that problem with the "technicals" as defined in the latest version is that they still allow "inventions" that are nothing more than purely mathematical "contributions". The physical forces clause that was just added does little or nothing in light of the other clauses and loopholes. You can still claim a purely mathematical "innovations" in contection to plain old hardware and ordinary old and obvious physical processes.

You can get patents like "this new equation can be used to calculate a number, and that number physically displayed on a computer screen, and that number then being interprested as a dollar value to charge a customer". The only thing actually being taught in the invention is the new equation, yet it still satisfies the patentability rules.

*This* is what the FFII side is objecting to. The fact that they recently ADDED Program Claims to cover any written software itself is just adding insult to injury. We beat it back in the Parliment the first time, and the Council just came back and rewrote it as a "compromise position" that was WORSE with added Program Claims.

-

fonts on Linux are a bit "blurry"...that is, they are not as clear/crisp as their those on their windows counterparts.

According to this it's a patent issue. I think there's something deeply wrong with patents on operations required to render fonts correctly, above and beyond the already troubling issue of software patents in general. Remember that in the US fonts are explicitly not copyrightable to prevent even the potential of copyright being used to prevent free speech. Shouldn't this easement be extended to any communication or presentation technology.

a market based upon supporting "Abstraction Physics" and "automated - code generation to execution".

Steps in this direction can be seen with MS's "Software Factories ideology" though its of course biased to feed MS more than being genuine about Abstraction Physics. And there is Apples "Automator" and plenty of other "code generation" and "automation" efforts all leading to the same "different then now" market.

This is relative to the "Software Patents battle ground"

I wonder whose interests this European Commission is representing. Looking at this: http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/pikta/perled/#invland it seems obvious that they work especially for the interests of USA and Japan. Great job, considering how much it costs the European tax payer!

Article 2b states that by definition everything which is new is technical

In FFII's summary, I read for article 2(b):

"technical contribution" means a contribution to the state of the art in a field of technology. The technical contribution is the set of features by which the scope of the patent claim as a whole is considered to differ from the state of the art. The contribution must be technical, that is, comprise technical features and belong to a field of technology. Without a technical contribution, there is no patentable subject-matter. The technical contribution must fulfil the conditions for patentability. In particular, it must be novel and not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

I know I have problem understanding legalese, but doesnt this article state very clearly that the constribution has to be in the field of technology (and thus involve natural science) ? Why do you say that it states everything new is technical ? Note that FFII's comments are pretty positive about that article.

For article 3, I read

In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application and make a technical contribution. The inventive step is assessed by considering the difference between all of the technical and non-technical features of the patent claim and the state of the art.

Again, I must miss something since yours and FFII's comments are pretty negative. Doesn't this article states that the computer-implemented invention has to be technical and make a contribution ? How comes this article allows business methods to be patented ?

The progress bar patent is mentioned on FFII's Software Patents FAQ page.

In addition to the Webshop example, which other posters have mentioned, you can find some more examples here.

And don't forget Acacia's patent on streaming video, which is another good illustration of how software patents work in practice.

The progress bar patent is mentioned on FFII's Software Patents FAQ page.

In addition to the Webshop example, which other posters have mentioned, you can find some more examples here.

And don't forget Acacia's patent on streaming video, which is another good illustration of how software patents work in practice.

The progress bar patent is mentioned on FFII's Software Patents FAQ page.

In addition to the Webshop example, which other posters have mentioned, you can find some more examples here.

And don't forget Acacia's patent on streaming video, which is another good illustration of how software patents work in practice.

Try the European Software Patent Horror Gallery.

No, not many small companies have done that. The BSA (yes, the Business Software Allience) recently ordered a study trying to prove your point, but it resulted in proving exactly the reverse.

If you want to make a difference, ensure you are familiar with the issues and arrange a meeting with your MEP, even if that means flying to Brussels. In the meeting focus on the practical impact of software patents, and be sure to bring along the FFII's analysis of the various amendments which can be found here.

Its gone way beyond simply bombarding MEPs with emails, if you care about this you need to make sure your MEPs sit up and take notice of you, and email won't achieve that.

The Financial Times summarizes the event as a major victory for the bad guys (to make it short). Still, the summary given on FFII's page states that the definition of field of technology as the field of applied natural sciences (and not exact sciences) excludes clearly software patents.

Also, Rocard's phrasing was to characterize what is patentable vs. what is not by considering if it requires or not the use of natural forces. All the good guys (to make it short) seem to agree with that characterization.

Can someone explain why it is a "major blow" ? And more precisely what is patentable with natural sciences which is not with natural forces ?

SME's are the hardest hit here, but as the FFII organisers suggest, SME's need to make direct contact with MEP's, ideally in Brussels itself.

Fat yet hungry wolves like Apple and Microsoft et al http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=11 649&Page=1&pagePos=11 are working hard alongside EU nationals (eg Nokia, Siemens) to falsely lobby on behalf of SME's. The case needs to be made clear to MEP's that SME's have the least to gain from swpats, and the argument needs to be economically framed in the context of the EU's stake in a global IT market. Statistics like these serve as good support material:
http://wiki.ffii.org/Bsa050609En

It's not just that there is much to lose from unbridled software patenting, so much as there is arguably much to gain from disallowing them altogether.

Personally I would have thought the moment US mega-corps become involved, would be glaring reason for MEP's to become anxious over the interests of the directive, but as they say "follow the money".. in this case off a cliff.

Try this page for a few examples: http://webshop.ffii.org/

THe only thing that is needed is a US organisation that compares with FFII. However, you can subscribe to a FFII US mailing list. Time to get rid off software patenting. Time to get organised. You can stand on the shoulders of the European Campaign.

A ray of Sunlight, coming at the right time

Never have I been prouder of my (very) old Sun machines nor of my IRC nicks (DrSolaris, docSunny) than on this day. No longer do I need to feel ashamed for running Sun's own OS on SPARC, where it kicks root... and having to spend 2 minutes excusing and explaining myself at Free Software events. Sun, you made my day!

I've cancelled my appointments for the afternoon and given my date for the evening a No honey, not tonight: I have a headache! -> and I intend to have one, too!! While ritually installing S-10 in a couple of Ultra's and a E3500 (and writing this comment in /.), I'm already halfway thru a bottle of Jack D from Tennessee, celebrating...

Well, of course, not too exuberantly: maybe, just maybe, as someone with a sense of humour already commented above these lines those awful codewar-mongers at SCO are now going thru every single line of Solaris code to see if they might claim a few trillion or zillion dollars! And Sun has been so permissive with M$ on Java issues, maybe they let the big bad wolf in among the sheep (...) ??
RMS, the man, told me recently that they're nothing to worry about (at least, nothing compared to the EU software patents situation, see here), but...
As long as SCO and their none too saintly part-owner M$FT are "out there" playing their fuzzy games and trying to scare the Free Software community (confusing aspiring or new adopters), I'll not bat an eyelid. Freedom is still a fragile thing, it would seem, and needs continually to be defended!

No sleep for the weary... but we can cautiously celebrate another little milestone, today!
So have a Sunny day, y'all, and please help me free some of the content of my bottles of liquor in a toast to Sun :):)

Actually, the wallets are on your side. The majority of small and medium-sized enterprises is against software patents, and even the few that subscribed to the http://www.ffii.org/ campaign already have more annual turnover than Microsoft, who is very vocal about software patents.
Also, the big companies are arguing mainly that the small ones want software patents (which the small ones deny, of course).
So it's also about saving a large part of the european economy.

Tonnerre

I get to talk to elected and non-elected officials on a regular basis. They have a tremendous number of people talking at them all the time, with so many opposing points of view they can never keep up. The only bits that stick are the well presented ones, carefully crafted and without repetitions or ambiguities.

I've seen some of the FFII supporters talking to Parliamentarians, and frankly it was embarrassing watching a few of them. They had the nugget of an idea, but couldn't present it clearly and concisely. They would start a beautifully thought out thread, then before getting to a conclusion lose the train of thought and end up talking about something completely different, often repeating ideas already presented. Very annoying for all those very familiar with the issue, and certainly annoying and confusing for the intended audience.

The guy is a busy man ... present for 30 minutes and give the rest for him to either ask questions

Not that you will have time to hone your presenting skills, but the best lobbyists present each idea in one to three minutes, then engage the politico with questions where they have to actually think about the issue. The guys who make the biggest money are schooled in the tradition of rhetoric, where every thought is presented as a series of conflicting questions (with spin) and as if...then statements. This requires the politician to make a concious decision on the spot on which way to think about a subject, and this forced thinking will most likely be the way they will vote later.

There is a whole debate on the best way to word the if...then statements, first, second or third person, singular or plural. Compare and contrast "if you support long term growth in rapidly changing fields, then are you prepared to oppose entrenched laws?" with "if our objectives are to protect ideas of individuals from the oppressive threat of corporate lawsuits, can we obtain a balance...". (N.B. there is no right way) Forcing immediate responses from an audience is orders of magnitude more effective in creating lasting impressions. Even more effective is to word the if...then statements so the politician comes to conclusions on his own, thus becoming his ideas.

Impassioned emotional pleas are no good here, construct a good well founded argument

Precisely. The issue of patents, copyright, and ideas having value goes back thousands of years, and is a very complicated area. Narrow down your arguments to a very limited discussion of a single domain, and be prepared to place it within the larger and global (historical) scope of the battle. The emotion should be evident by the fact you have taken the time to become politically active to protect what you believe in.

Do your homework throughly before going in

This is the most important idea in the post, buried right in the middle. Not only do your homework, but practice the presentation as well. Out loud, on real humans, several times. If you have a lawyer friend, ask them to hear your presentation and offer criticism (then listen to them and correct yourself). Lawyers who practice in front of courts have to be skilled at presenting clear and linear ideas. Even if you don't know any lawyers, just try out your presentation on a few people and ask for feedback. By the third or fourth time you will notice a huge improvement in which ideas get presented, and which ones you drop because they are not needed. Try videotaping your presentation and then review it later with friends, watch where you say "ummm..." or where you repeat yourself.

For material to study, browse the websites of the EFF and the FFII, and read this speech by Alan Greenspan. If you have an entire hour, you can effectively present four to six points with a limited background and context. Limit yourself to only these, avoid digression and monologing.

the AC

According to the ffii newspage http://wiki.ffii.org/SwpatcninoEn, there is a European equivalent to this patent: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP04 74717+&F=8, which has been expired.

In the legal status document (http://v3.espacenet.com/legal?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP047 4717+&F=8&QPN=EP0474717), it also says opposition has been filed by Philips and that it has been expired because the patent owner failed to pay it's yearly fees.

What do they stand to gain then, exactly?

The current patent situation is an arms race...companies build portfolios to protect themselves from litigation from competitors and shell companies that exist only to litigate. I don't think Bill likes the situation any more than you do.

2. You can't fight back without money for a solicitor.

3. If he fights it and loses (which would be inevitable without legal support), he will likely spend the rest of his life in debt, lose his house and quite possibly spend a non-trivial amount of time in prison.

And I am sure there are loads of independent UK lawyers who would gladly take his case pro bono. However, it appears that he chose to roll over to their totally unreasonable conditions at the first hurdle.

According to the MacNN coverage of the keynote a Pentium 4 development machine will be available in two weeks. Also announced are Pentium III (or "m" in marketing English) based notebooks. These need a differend chipsets. Also OS X has been running on x86 forever, even before apple had much reason to look into x86. (We knew, Darwin, but still)

To me this doesn`t sound like apple has its own special chipset. It doesn`t even sound like they have much in the way of apple specific non "IBM compatible" firmware. It wouldn`t matter that much as Darwin boots fine from a plain old PC bios. As Darwin is open source it could be made to boot pretty much anyware (Ice cream for the first person to port it to the x-box 360 ;-)).

Without a chipset to set the x86 Mac apart from its "IBM compatible" cousin and only minor differences in the firmware (it still has to initialize the same (Intel?) chipset) what is the difference? Especially if you build a PC with the same processor, chipset, disk controller, graphics and sound?

So if, and this is the big if, (pre-???)installing OS X comes in the reach of the corner computer shop then we have a platform with:

• Cheap x86 machines
• "Walk into store, have fixed, walk out" support
• Every major productivity application in use today (ms office,adobe)
• Better security than on windows running ie/outbreak, or at least that perception.
• A user interface that is at least equal to the other desktop competitors.
• documentation, and word of mouth/relative/coworker support that beats Unix-alikes.
• Support for most things you find on a network.(kerberos,ldap,cifs,NFS,imap,most websites)
• The support of geeks everywhere happy with new chances to replace stuff with tiny shell scripts
• a possibility for wine on os x, meaning buy one os, get the second one for free. This may be enough for a couple of those business specific windows only apps
• big players more and more free to ship the OS they like without getting on bill`s shitlist.
• microsoft opening up the office file formats potentially giving away their other cash cow.

Apple could

• Sue? Doesn`t seem likely if you stay within the apple public licence when messing with Darwin and buy the rest.
• Ignore, seams likely
• Embrace, more likely then you might think! Where did all those crazy BeOS people go? They already tried the head on attack on windows and their motto was that getting a new OS is a smart thing to do once every decade... Also NeXT really was intended as "the next standard desktop os" and many people working on os x might still think of their baby that way. They might for example help out people working on drivers. Afterall more drivers means more hardware options for Apple to consider for their next Mac.

Ofcourse without pure windows dominance microsoft loses a lot. Even if they keep office microsoft would be left with

• the x-box 360 (seems IBM will have less supply problems and with ppc microsoft may have found a way to keep the machines cost down)
• file and user authentication servers everywhere (keep them, os x doesn`t care and samba 4.0 is moving in)
• exchange (which the people I know would rather get rid of)
• sql server (get your linux or os x copy at sybase.com, that is if you dont like opstgresql or mysql)
• windows CE (which the mobile phone people wont do because they have plenty of problems without inviting microsoft into their market)
• Lots of worthless patents (Remember the "no patent experiance required" jobs? Anyway there will be a european showdown soon)

So well said, and that is coming from a top software innovator who could have single handedly block the advance of small software houses (in United States, at least) had he taken measures including software patents, as Carmack was the first to employ many new ideas.

Software patents are nothing less than shameful, as they allow the patenting of IDEAS. It blocks innovation instead of seeding it.

A good example on how shameful the software patent system can be, and that even the simplest ideas can make its way to the patents.

If you are a programmer, you will know that while there may be infinite approaches to a given problem, the most optimized solutions will very much look like eachother. Even though you may build your solution from scracth, it is highly probable that in some part of the world, someone may have similarly solved your problem. You should then pray that he hasn't patented it if you are ever going to make your solution public, as by doing so, you caused 'losses' to him by giving away his marvellous idea. Worse if you used it in a commercial application that you want to sell. You may never know what part of your software has 'already patented' ideas. And once you get sued, good luck trying to find prior art, because it is up to you, and not the patent institution who issues patents.

A good example of abuse of patents is E-Data. They said, once they are done with the big firms, they will go after the medium and small sized businesses..

My examples are mostly from the web, but the basic idea is all the same.

Software patents are there to protect the big and powerful from the rise of the weak, which allows them to crush competition before there can be any. Patents are mostly enforced for the good of big firms, as they don't like competition from the "weak and small", they want to be on the top of the food chain. Big firms with their horde of lawyers can deal with these issues, buying licenses or settling up with the patent issuer, or dismissing the case by finding prior art as they have the resources.

It is sad to know that there are shameless firms like E-Data, waiting the right moment to strike and make money off their patents, most of which cover so simple and basic ideas that leaves no space for different solutions, hence giving them unfair advantage.

I remember around the time that Virtua Racing hit the arcades I heard a lot of patent talk relating to Sega. Essentially, they claimed a patent on what was tantamount to rendering polygons.

I just a cursory 1/2 second search, I found a reference to Yu Suzuki (legendary programmer) having obtained a patent on switching views in a 3D racing game. That was directly tied to Virtua Racing. The patent number was allegedly #2687989 though I don't know in what patent office that was. Perhaps Japan.

Additionally, you may want to look at:
http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1033682
http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP981107

Apparently in Europe Sega owns the method and the idea of using 3 dimensional calculations to render an object in 2 dimensions on a screen, heh.

Video game patents are old news, though I'm not sure if any of them actually stick. I'm sure there is bound to be a case of "Prior Art" for virtually every patent.

I remember around the time that Virtua Racing hit the arcades I heard a lot of patent talk relating to Sega. Essentially, they claimed a patent on what was tantamount to rendering polygons.

I just a cursory 1/2 second search, I found a reference to Yu Suzuki (legendary programmer) having obtained a patent on switching views in a 3D racing game. That was directly tied to Virtua Racing. The patent number was allegedly #2687989 though I don't know in what patent office that was. Perhaps Japan.

Additionally, you may want to look at:
http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1033682
http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP981107

Apparently in Europe Sega owns the method and the idea of using 3 dimensional calculations to render an object in 2 dimensions on a screen, heh.

Video game patents are old news, though I'm not sure if any of them actually stick. I'm sure there is bound to be a case of "Prior Art" for virtually every patent.

Actually, they aren't bad for Nokia, or any large software company. Software patents will not stop large software companies in the list bit. When they are sued by another large software company (think Sun and IBM), they will simply sign a cross-licensing agreement.

But when a company like Nokia gets attacked by a patent profiteer, that only has a patent and doesn't make any products, then the big company has to pay up. Since the profiteer is not producing anything (except lawsuits), Nokia can't threaten to counter-sue. So they have to pay --- one percent, two percent, whatever the patent profiteer fancies, actually. Perhaps it won't kill a company like Nokia, but it certainly won't help their bottom line either.

A well known case is Acacia, which is a firm consisting entirely of patent lawyers, that has a patent on the idea of sending video over a computer network. Acacia's standard licence terms are to ask for 2% of the other company's turnover (regardless of how much of the revenues come from products that have anything to do with the video patent).

I wonder what Nokia's shareholders will say when they find out that Nokia's own patent lawyers have been lobbying hard for EU legislation that will make Acacia's patent enforceable in Europe.

2% of Nokia's turnover is a lot of money.

But perhaps mobile phones with cameras will go out of style anyway...

In Demark there was a binding order from Parliament. But the responsible minister ignored it and they created a superficial and incredible theater piece. It had no consequences for the Minister responsible. Denmark is strange. In rotten Denmark the "Road to Europe" had no political consequences for Rasmussen, he did not step down. Similarly the representative was rescued by the social democrats. In other European states he would regarded as a criminal. Democracy in Denmark is soft, it is still a monarchy.
http://wiki.ffii.org/Dkparl050304En
http://wiki.ffii.org/Cons050307En
http://wiki.ffii.org/Navision050215En
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. php?t=439
http://osdir.com/Article629.phtml

In Demark there was a binding order from Parliament. But the responsible minister ignored it and they created a superficial and incredible theater piece. It had no consequences for the Minister responsible. Denmark is strange. In rotten Denmark the "Road to Europe" had no political consequences for Rasmussen, he did not step down. Similarly the representative was rescued by the social democrats. In other European states he would regarded as a criminal. Democracy in Denmark is soft, it is still a monarchy.
http://wiki.ffii.org/Dkparl050304En
http://wiki.ffii.org/Cons050307En
http://wiki.ffii.org/Navision050215En
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. php?t=439
http://osdir.com/Article629.phtml

In Demark there was a binding order from Parliament. But the responsible minister ignored it and they created a superficial and incredible theater piece. It had no consequences for the Minister responsible. Denmark is strange. In rotten Denmark the "Road to Europe" had no political consequences for Rasmussen, he did not step down. Similarly the representative was rescued by the social democrats. In other European states he would regarded as a criminal. Democracy in Denmark is soft, it is still a monarchy.
http://wiki.ffii.org/Dkparl050304En
http://wiki.ffii.org/Cons050307En
http://wiki.ffii.org/Navision050215En
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. php?t=439
http://osdir.com/Article629.phtml

Most of these amendments are meant to ensure that software might be part of a patentable invention, while the software as such cannot be patented.

If I was going to write my MEP today, I would urge them to support Michel Rocards amendmends, while opposing the amendmends by Toine Manders and Malcolm Harbour (the last two being "IP" policy extremists with little support in the Parliament anyway). And I would urge them to vote on this matter, as an absolute majority is needed for the Parliament to do anything now.

What matters now is what happens in the European Parliament. The expert hearing they recently held or the amendments proposed (pdf in english) are a lot more interesting than a UK software patent workshop.

What matters now is what happens in the European Parliament. The expert hearing they recently held or the amendments proposed (pdf in english) are a lot more interesting than a UK software patent workshop.

What matters now is what happens in the European Parliament. The expert hearing they recently held or the amendments proposed (pdf in english) are a lot more interesting than a UK software patent workshop.

Of course the UKPO can change because the UK government is the UKPO. Lord Sainsbury, the minister responsible in the EU Council of Ministers, ordered the workshop series to be held. Software patent legislation is one example for legislation overtaken by administration in the interests of particular interests.

The UKPO has the most radical pratice in Europe, a vague definition of technical. Change has to take place. At least I expect Lord Sainsbury not to act against EU Parliament which is fixing the Uncommon Poisiton.

It's an absolute disgrace, that the UK media aren't covering this very important issue. The European council have disregarded the decision of the elected Parliament, and have tried to force this through.

Software patents are wrong, and incredibly dangerous territory for SME business. Larger companies may well be able to devend and enforce patents, but smaller players are likely to be unable to do so, and could be forced to lay off staff, raise prices, or even close down.

Software is simply a list of instructions. It is not a physical product. It should not therefore be patentable. Copyright protection is available to those who need it.

relevant links

• http://swpat.ffii.org/
• http://www.nosoftwarepatents.org/
• http://www.noepatents.org/

XW

I don't know about anyone else but I certainly don't feel like thanking Nokia - anymore than I'd feel like thanking a gang of thieves for not smearing shit on the walls and smashing the stuff they didn't want when they emptied my house. Have you seen the 'great inventions' in 'mobile phone technology' this bunch of clowns claims ownership to? Perhaps they'd like to make another statement, informing the Mozilla project that it's okay for them to continue using the 'invention' Nokia has stolen from them:

http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1253500

Nokia is playing games with the EU Parliament, they are among the worst of those pushing for unlimited patent scope. They see the patent system as an instrument to exclude or control competition and they see patents primarily as sources of revenue - not as a means to promote innovation. If you don't believe me, just ask Ilkka Rahnasto.

Nokia seems absolutely pro-swpat in europe. Their patent department has done lots of lobbying in conferences and in the European Parliament. We encountered the head of their IP department, Tim Frain, in Bournemouth in summer 2002. Participants at the conference easily demonstrated that his arguments are economic nonsense.

The internet software for the Nokia phones is developped by Opera and not Nokia itself. Opera is supporting our directive counter proposal.

We have seen Tim Frain at the 7th november and 26th november hearings in Brussels, he seems to be a European Parliament "resident".

FFii nokia info

Betting Exchange

Nokia is one of the major companies (if not THE company) lobbying for software patents (sorry, "Computer Implemented Inventions") in Europe. Taking into account that they reserve the right to enforce some patents in the future, I simply believe it is a major PR stunt. Don't get me wrong, I'd really wish this was a legitimate pro-FLOSS movement.

So where are the patents? The closet approximiation of Nokia's patents is this list of 900+ patents: Nokia Software Patents at the European Patent Office (EPO). Most are related to mobile data syncing, but a few might be applicable to Linux, such as "ep1432207: Adaptive delayed ACK switching for TCP applications."

Not difficult.

Nokia seems absolutely pro-swpat. Their patent department has done lots of lobbying in conferences and in the European Parliament. We encountered the head of their IP department, Tim Frain, in Bournemouth in summer 2002. Participants at the conference easily demonstrated that his arguments are economic nonsense. http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/nokia/index.en.html

Campaigners are opposed by representatives from large companies, including Nokia, which the FFII reports is engaged in energetic Pro-Patent Lobbying Efforts. Nokia argues that software patents "provide incentives to undertake research and development in Europe, and to promote licensing and technology transfer". http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/13/eu_patent_ protest/

Meanwhile, lobbyists in favour of software patents are also gearing up
for the fight. FFII has obtained a copy of a round-robin letter being
circulated by Nokia's Tim Frain (Nokia/Southwood) and Dany Ducoulombier
(Nokia/Brussels) for pro-patent signatures before April 8th. The letter
calls on ministers to drop their objections, and to support a draft text
issued by the Irish Presidency on March 17th. http://lwn.net/Articles/79930/

In Denmark they have threathened to fire 800 employees at Navision if software patents are not legalized in Europe.