Slashdot Mirror

Especially rich and powerful graffiti artists, as long as they're rich enough to buy whole countries.

And judges tend to be wary of slapping someone too hard when that person pretty much owns their boss.

Why do you think Gates and MS are so happy to give the finger so often and so liberally? Because no-one will ever dare to call them out on it - the worst that happens is sanctions against MS that then get argued down on appeal, creatively "misunderstood" or just blatantly ignored.

I don't think you really need to define "as such", because it is a placeholder, not a carrier of meaning. Pretending that "as such" qualifies somehow software and then trying to define which software is "as such" and which is not is falling in the pro-swpat trap. See http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/exeg/index.en .html In other words, "as such" in art 52 EPC does not mean anything by itself, so it may be hard to attribute it a meaning with no harm.

I'm not so sure the actual main "pro-swpat" trap really is where you suspect it. The above FFII analysis correctly contrasts two approaches:

Software is not to be separated into two subsets (software as such and other software), but software is universally excluded from patentability.

(...) the Technical Board of Appeal [in Computer Program Product/IBM] says that computer programs are to be divided in the two subsets "software as such" and "other software".

However, the pro-swpat "red herring" rather seems to be the shifting of this debate from "as such" to technicity:

the Board asserts that the limitation "as such" has to be understood in the sense that computer programs as such are only computer programs without a technical character.

Now it is quite interesting to consider what the EPO president makes of this in the trilateral discussions (in the instance, on allowing even BMPs) in http://www.european-patent-office.org/tws/appendix 6.pdf:

The scheme for examining computer-implemented inventions is as follows:

(1) The claimed subject-matter, which by definition includes elements such as a computer or code which is intended to run on a computer, is presumed, prima facie, not to be excluded from patentability by Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.

(2) The subject-matter of the claim is therefore to be examined for novelty and inventive step. This is done according to the Guidelines for Examination as currently specified. In particular, in the examination for inventive step the objective technical problem solved by the invention as claimed considered as a whole when compared with the closest prior art is to be determined. If no such objective technical problem can be determined, the claim is to be rejected on the ground that its subject-matter lacks an inventive step.

Notes:

1. This scheme makes no mention of the "further technical effect" discussed in T1173/97. There is no need to consider this concept in examination, and it is preferred not to do so for the following reasons: firstly, it is confusing to both examiners and applicants; secondly, the only apparent reason for distinguishing "technical effect" from "further technical effect" in the decision was because of the presence of "programs for computers" in the list of exclusions under Article 52(2) EPC. If, as is to be anticipated, this element is dropped from the list by the Diplomatic Conference, there will no longer be any basis for such a distinction. It is to be inferred that the BoA would have preferred to be able to say that no computer-implemented invention is excluded from patentability by the provisions of Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.

As to the lack of need to consider "further technical effect", this assertion is based on the proposition that according to the scheme put forward no patent would be granted which should have been refused for lack of further technical effect. This is because the existence of an objective technical problem overcome is itself sufficient proof of the requisite further technical effect. Further, it is to be remarked that this scheme of examination should not lead to refusals where previously a patent would have been granted, since the requirement for an objective technical problem is long-established. The only change is an e

In fact not the minister, the national bureaucrats from the legal department wwho are also in the borard of the EPO as representatives. The patent system creates its own laws and politicians are told what to do. Plus some cheering of the lobby.

You do not need to be eurosceptic. You just have to ask for a simple rule of Government: Seperation of powers. National parliaments and the European Parliament have little say in this. Euroscepticism often leads to strengthening of the national
representations in the EU such as the Council of ministers, where administration takes over the role of the lawmaker.

Btw: http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/ie-parl

In fact you can read the examination guidelines of the EPO how it is done. Some scholars complain about it and the European Parliament has to correct the mess now.

Currently the EPO even takes part in many Microsoft Softwarechoice/compTIA lobbying events. The EPO is no EU body but totally independent. It will be difficult to get the system back under legislative control but the European Parliament will try. Now the Committee on Legal Affairs works on the directive.

What kind of support can YOU provide?

* US citizens may get subscribed in the us-parl mailing list. software patents are an international problem, so we have to get rid off them internationally.
* EU citizens can have a look at this list
* EU citizens shall make an appointment with their MEP
* Donate to the FFII
* Register as a supporter via aktiv.ffii.org, members unlike supporters additionally pay membership fees.

In fact you can read the examination guidelines of the EPO how it is done. Some scholars complain about it and the European Parliament has to correct the mess now.

Currently the EPO even takes part in many Microsoft Softwarechoice/compTIA lobbying events. The EPO is no EU body but totally independent. It will be difficult to get the system back under legislative control but the European Parliament will try. Now the Committee on Legal Affairs works on the directive.

What kind of support can YOU provide?

* US citizens may get subscribed in the us-parl mailing list. software patents are an international problem, so we have to get rid off them internationally.
* EU citizens can have a look at this list
* EU citizens shall make an appointment with their MEP
* Donate to the FFII
* Register as a supporter via aktiv.ffii.org, members unlike supporters additionally pay membership fees.

In fact you can read the examination guidelines of the EPO how it is done. Some scholars complain about it and the European Parliament has to correct the mess now.

Currently the EPO even takes part in many Microsoft Softwarechoice/compTIA lobbying events. The EPO is no EU body but totally independent. It will be difficult to get the system back under legislative control but the European Parliament will try. Now the Committee on Legal Affairs works on the directive.

What kind of support can YOU provide?

* US citizens may get subscribed in the us-parl mailing list. software patents are an international problem, so we have to get rid off them internationally.
* EU citizens can have a look at this list
* EU citizens shall make an appointment with their MEP
* Donate to the FFII
* Register as a supporter via aktiv.ffii.org, members unlike supporters additionally pay membership fees.

In fact you can read the examination guidelines of the EPO how it is done. Some scholars complain about it and the European Parliament has to correct the mess now.

Currently the EPO even takes part in many Microsoft Softwarechoice/compTIA lobbying events. The EPO is no EU body but totally independent. It will be difficult to get the system back under legislative control but the European Parliament will try. Now the Committee on Legal Affairs works on the directive.

What kind of support can YOU provide?

* US citizens may get subscribed in the us-parl mailing list. software patents are an international problem, so we have to get rid off them internationally.
* EU citizens can have a look at this list
* EU citizens shall make an appointment with their MEP
* Donate to the FFII
* Register as a supporter via aktiv.ffii.org, members unlike supporters additionally pay membership fees.

Actually, the idea behind the "forces of nature" wording is that you should be able to patent a physical device that includes a software component, but not the software itself (that's covered by copyright), nor the algorithms you used, nor the idea of controlling the device by software. So you would not be barred from patenting your computer-controlled camera that follows motion just because it contains a software component, but you would not be able to patent the software or the algorithms themselves, nor would the patent cover all possible computer-controlled cameras that follow motion, but only those who take advantage of the "inventive step" you made.

This approach has the advantage of outlawing software patents while not rejecting the directive outright. This is good because a) if the directive is rejected, a new one will appear shortly, b) a positive but restrictive directive would reinforce the ban of pure software patents, c) lawmakers seem to feel that their job is sanctioning new laws, not avoiding them, so they are less likely to reject the directive altogether.

The problem with this approach is that it is confusing to many people (/. readers routinely discuss the subject, yet there still are differences in interpretation). This confusion is an invitation to abuse. Current European patent legislation bans software patents altogether, yet the EPO ignores the rules and grants them all the same. Nothing indicates that the EPO will honor the "forces of nature" wording, even if it's imposed on it.

In all, while the "forces of nature" approach may be a workable solution, it's not worth it: all this confusing concession buys us is the supposed bonanza of innovation that patentability would fuel. However, it has been shown that patentability not merely in the software but in the whole computing arena actually stifles innovation, rather than encouraging it. There again, it may be all that we manage to bargain from this situation.

Patent lawyers are no legal experts, they are technicians.

Most patent professionals, whether they work at the Patent Office or for a firm of private patent agents, do in fact have their basic training in engineering rather than in law. The idea has always been that the difficult part of the job is to be able to understand the technical aspects of the inventions, and to be sufficiently familiar with the technological field in question to be able to determine if an invention is indeed new, non-obvious etc.

So the traditional way of recruiting new people in the patent sector always has been to hire an engineer, and give him on the job training for the legal stuff he needs to know. This is different from how it works in for example trademarks, where (nowadays) most new recruits would have a law degree under their belt before they start working at the Patent Office, or for a patent and trademark agent.

Now, considering the quality of the prior art searches conducted by most patent offices before granting their one-click patents, as opposed to the advanced legal argumentation acrobatics required to claim that software can be patented even though the law explictly says that it can't, this may perhaps change in the future.

But at least for now, most of the people that you would spontaneously call "patent lawyers" aren't in fact lawyers at all, but engineers or technicians that have taken a side course in patent law.

Patent lawyers are no legal experts, they are technicians.

Most patent professionals, whether they work at the Patent Office or for a firm of private patent agents, do in fact have their basic training in engineering rather than in law. The idea has always been that the difficult part of the job is to be able to understand the technical aspects of the inventions, and to be sufficiently familiar with the technological field in question to be able to determine if an invention is indeed new, non-obvious etc.

So the traditional way of recruiting new people in the patent sector always has been to hire an engineer, and give him on the job training for the legal stuff he needs to know. This is different from how it works in for example trademarks, where (nowadays) most new recruits would have a law degree under their belt before they start working at the Patent Office, or for a patent and trademark agent.

Now, considering the quality of the prior art searches conducted by most patent offices before granting their one-click patents, as opposed to the advanced legal argumentation acrobatics required to claim that software can be patented even though the law explictly says that it can't, this may perhaps change in the future.

But at least for now, most of the people that you would spontaneously call "patent lawyers" aren't in fact lawyers at all, but engineers or technicians that have taken a side course in patent law.

Language like this is already present in the European Patent Convention. It says:

The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions:

1. [...]
2. aesthetic creations;
3. [...] programs for computers

But the funny thing is how the patent lawyers interpret this exclusion. When it comes to aesthetic creations, they all agree that you can't get a patent on them, because of this wording in the EPC.

But when it comes to computer programs, they claim that the law as written doesn't apply any more. Even though both films and computer programs are part of the same list in the same article in the same international convention.

For a slightly humorous text that explores this inconsistency, and the "as such" loophole in paticular, read Why Can't I Patent My Movie?

It's a funny world.

What about one-click? That could be a business process. Are those patentable in the EU?

According to the European patent convention, neither software nor business methods can be patented. But the patent lawyers work with the Patent Office to bend the rules and grant the patents anyway. So this is an established praxis. Now they want the politicians to turn this praxis into law so that the patents that are already granted gets a firmer foundation.

About the Amazon patents in Europe

About the EPC (European Patent Convention)

How about:

http://wiki.ffii.org/Navision050215En
http://www.acsblog.org/ip-and-tech-law-950-the-ope n-source-approach-to-patent-policy.html

and an aborted one:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-22_11-5392026.htm l

LinuxInsider also has a pretty strange track record. I've only followed it on the topic of software patents, but at least there they are only publishing pro-swpat lawyer opinion pieces without giving any room for rebuttals. See the collected documentation on the FFII wiki

EP19950303789 19950602

It's not just the US Congress; the promoters of softare patent legislation in Europe attempted to tack on the software patent legislation onto the end of the Agricultural and Fisheries bill. Fortunately, this was blocked by Poland. More details here.

"An economic review of the patent system", Machlup's study for the U.S. Congress in 1958, dug up this little gem from the UK (footnote 111 at p. 22):

"(...) vague or angry declarations that invention is property, and the lavish use of the expressions 'pirate' and 'pilfer', and 'stealing of the fruit of other men's minds and labour' [do not] prove more than that certain persons gain an advantage rightly or wrongly, which they wish to keep."

Rev. J.E.T. Rogers
On the Rationale and Working of the Patent Laws
Journal of the Statistical Society of London, vol. XXBI (1863), p. 128

Then how could the use of the words "Thought Thieves" and "stealing the ideas in your head" be anything else but an appalling attempt of indoctrination with blurred concepts of "IP"?
N.B. "mere" thoughts and ideas, neither expressed (copyright) nor reduced to practice (patents)...

I do not agree that copyright or patents are immoral per se, it is rather a problem of what e.g. the DMCA and the EU Directives on copyright and patents (try to) make of them...

``As of now.'' Something about your proposal is worrying me, but as of now I can't put my finger on it.

Yes, it's a good, sensible plan for today, but there's this terrible little flaw which keeps it from being a long term solution.

The general principle of patents is fine. It worked up until about 1990. Then the system decided it was okay or even desired to grant nearly every patent that came its way. It wasn't long before business plan and software patents would follow.

I think Nathan Myhrvold needs to see this film.

If he doesn't understand why people don't like software patents, then maybe he should have paid more attention to his (ex-)boss.

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ... The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
-- Bill Gates in a 1991 internal memo (Source: http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/quotes/index.en.html#b gates91)

Ghostscript doesn't support transparency in pdf's. Compare this document when viewed with Ghostscript/xpdf and when viewed Acrobat 5 or higher (or Mac OS X Preview).

"Apparently, over a million in four days. - You really trust that?"

That google bar is logging where you surf"

Besides, it's optional, and not even enabled by default. You are given clear instructions on what it does before you yourself turn them on.

"And when you say "won't even notice them" You are a Troll."

"I'm not 'insinuating', I'm telling you. How did Opera get so rich? They sued."

"And now, when they are rich, they got to guard their commercial interests, and propritary code. We'll see what happens..."

Come now, little boy, give me some specific examples where Opera has sued someone for ad blocking or software patents.

"Please man, do you really think Opera is controlling all the web? Opera is a browser..."

"You must be naive? Is that the case? Your naivistic anger made you write this repply?"

"And Tetzhnes did not drow, because he floated on his belly fat. He reached to hundret meters, before they picked him up."

"From my point of view, you are the commercial infected troll."

Seriously, you are simply delusional. I hope for your sake that you are trolling, but I'm beginning to think that you actually are this stupid.

How old are you?

but there is nothing stopping you from writing your own software to create or display PDFs

To try to understand why even a very large company that performs due diligence on prior art cannot escape the patent minefield, read my presentation at this page (it's the first .pdf link on the page):

http://wiki.ffii.org/Madras050408En

It's released under the FDL and/or GPL, so feel free to borrow ideas from it.

IANALOAK (of any kind), but the scenario you described is an abuse of the patent/judicial system, not the scenario it is designed to protect.

(Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.)

Nevertheless, no one argues for "not throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and to introduce such a system, while at the same encouraging people to fight for preventing abuse of such a system. Even though a particular system could have some positive effects in an ideal world, that does not mean that abandoning it in the real (and not ideal) world is a bad decision.

In fact, patents (if done right) should be a benefit to any developer. They should stimulate people to work hard at developing new ideas, so when they share them, there can be some personal reward (or at least a payback to cover the investment of time and effort).

In summation, the problem isn't with the patent concept itself, but with its implementation-- benefitting the powerful to the expense of the individual.

It's not just implementation, there are lots of indications that the principle of the patent system is simply unsuited for a field like software. More here.

Here's a viewpoint on why constructing and maintaining a prior art database makes patent applications even cheaper and easier for people like IBM:

http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/gacri/index.en.html/

The open-source and academic community should be writing code and generating new ideas -- producing actual tangible stuff that counts as human progress -- rather than helping the patent offices and IP lawyers to ply their perverse trade.

The company that patented "first come first serve" wants to reform the patent system?! What, did they finally run out of blatantly obvious ideas? Or is Microsoft gaining ground in patenting such ideas, which scares IBM somehow? Or is it the Japanese who are catching up?

• working unpaid on his/her project as a hobby
• giving his/her inventions away freely for the benefit of society ,
• i.e. without any project income,
• without any corporate project sponsor to pay legal fees,
• without sufficient personal savings or income to pay for even a brief consultation with a "cheap" patent lawyer, and
• without a patent lawyer prepared to work pro bono,

is threatened with a patent lawsuit by a corporation demanding he/she removes the allegedly infringing software from the project's website, leaving the impoverished developer with no real choice but to comply with the demand and close the project?

One recent unresolved case, which is not unique, is that of the German mathematician and open-source software developer Helmut Dersch who had no financial choice but to remove his software from his project website. He had no money to pay for a patent application at the time of his own inventions, which pre-date the patent application of the IPX company , to to pay for a lawyer to challenge the company which threatened him with the prospect of a lawsuit.

Here is a summary of the case history.

I hope you will take the time to reply at moderate length for the sake of explaining to the open-source developer community why software patents are not a threat to completely unfunded open-source projects.

Thank you for reading this. If you are a patent lawyer, please mention that fact in your reply here.

Last posted here without a reply from any patent lawyers reading slashdot.

Please copy and re-post this message in all available forums until at least one patent lawyer has the courtesy to write a thorough reply.

Nobody threatened VLC, MPlayer or FFMPEG with shit.

What about DTS? http://wiki.ffii.org/?Videolan0411En

from that site:

The European parliament will now be taking the last stand against software patents in a voting for which an absolute majority is needed. Such a majority is hard to come by in a parliament with a low attendance level.

But not all is lost yet as long as you decide it is time to make a difference and take action. This is our last opportunity to fend off software patents worldwide, there will be no second chance for the foreseeable future.

Signing petitions will not suffice. Contact your local EU representatives and educate them why software patents are a bad idea in the first place and why they must attend that parliament session to vote against them. Make it clear that they need to stop the machinations of the EU council and reaffirm the power of the EU parliament, the only democratically elected EU institution. For in-depth information and starting points to get active visit the software patent page of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and NoSoftwarePatents.com.

from that site:

The European parliament will now be taking the last stand against software patents in a voting for which an absolute majority is needed. Such a majority is hard to come by in a parliament with a low attendance level.

But not all is lost yet as long as you decide it is time to make a difference and take action. This is our last opportunity to fend off software patents worldwide, there will be no second chance for the foreseeable future.

Signing petitions will not suffice. Contact your local EU representatives and educate them why software patents are a bad idea in the first place and why they must attend that parliament session to vote against them. Make it clear that they need to stop the machinations of the EU council and reaffirm the power of the EU parliament, the only democratically elected EU institution. For in-depth information and starting points to get active visit the software patent page of the FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) and NoSoftwarePatents.com.

...This will mean that the US will be left behind....

This isn't a legal battle within the US. IIRC this patenting algorithms nonsense has been legal in the US for a while. This comes a result of a new ruling within the European Union, and these projects are all hosted within EU countries.

There's still a chance that this can be stopped, it still needs to pass the Euorpean parliament, so anybody within the EU who's concerned should contact your representative in the EU parliament and explain why software patents are a bad idea.

In the interest of stimulating more discussion, some more information about this subject can be found here

It's a jab about this and this.

• working unpaid on his/her project as a hobby
• giving his/her inventions away freely for the benefit of society ,
• i.e. without any project income,
• without any corporate project sponsor to pay legal fees,
• without sufficient personal savings or income to pay for even a brief consultation with a "cheap" patent lawyer, and
• without a patent lawyer prepared to work pro bono,

is threatened with a patent lawsuit by a corporation demanding he/she removes the allegedly infringing software from the project's website, leaving the impoverished developer with no real choice but to comply with the demand and close the project?

One recent unresolved case, which is not unique, is that of the German mathematician and open-source software developer Helmut Dersch who had no financial choice but to remove his software from his project website. He had no money to pay for a patent application at the time of his own inventions, which pre-date the patent application of the IPX company , to to pay for a lawyer to challenge the company which threatened him with the prospect of a lawsuit.

Here [ffii.org] is a summary of the case history.

I hope you will take the time to reply at moderate length for the sake of explaining to the open-source developer comm unity why software patents are not a threat to completely unfunded open-source projects.

Thank you for reading this. If you are a patent lawyer, please mention that fact in your reply here.

Last posted here [slashdot.org] without a reply from any patent lawyers reading slashdot.

Please copy and re-post this message in all available forums until at least one patent lawyer has the courtesy to write a thorough reply.

* We are not in favour of the patenting of software as in the US.

We are in favour of patenting software, but our laws won't be word-for-word identical to the US ones.

* Europe needs a uniform legal approach to stop the drifting towards extending patentability to inventions, which would not have been traditionally allowed, and to stop patentability of pure business methods, algorithms or mathematical methods.

As a diversionary tactic, we claim to want to stop patentability of "pure business methods, algorithms or mathematical methods" and "inventions, which would not have been traditionally allowed", while actually defining these things vacuously.

* Software products as such, must not be patented.

The EPO should be allowed to continue to use its twisted interpretation of "as such" in Article 52 EPC, so that what everyone without our hidden agenda calls software patents will be permitted.

* Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must ensure that this Directive does not have any adverse effect on opensource software and small software developers.

We couldn't care less about open-source or small developers, but we say that we do to deflect criticism.

* Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies.

We will wag our fingers and say "tut tut" to patent trolls and extortionists -- in public at least.

Furthermore, the Labour Euro MPs are supporting a UK campaign for a defence fund for small companies to protect themselves from litigation abuse by dominant market players.

Aren't protection rackets a good idea? Lately I've been brushing up on my patent lobby doublespeak -- "protect themselves", geddit?

Please be assured that the Council of Ministers and the Commission cannot ignore our views as democratically elected Members of the European Parliament.

There's an outside chance that the parliament might have a hissy fit and reject the swpat directive in retaliation for the commission doing something unrelated that pisses us off. After all, a week is a long time in politics. Don't count on it, though.

Unless we get full agreement between the three institutions (Parliament, Council and Commission) on this Directive, there is no guarantee that this law will be passed.

Rejecting this law will require half of all MEPs (not just half of all MEPs present) to vote against it. Factoring in the usual apathy quota that's about as likely as simultaneous direct meteoroid strikes on Strasbourg and Brussels. However, it's not impossible.

(I wish I were just being cynical here, but really, that is what the reply you got means. How people use the "as such" code phrase in this debate is a pretty reliable indicator of what side they're on.)

* We are not in favour of the patenting of software as in the US.

We are in favour of patenting software, but our laws won't be word-for-word identical to the US ones.

* Europe needs a uniform legal approach to stop the drifting towards extending patentability to inventions, which would not have been traditionally allowed, and to stop patentability of pure business methods, algorithms or mathematical methods.

As a diversionary tactic, we claim to want to stop patentability of "pure business methods, algorithms or mathematical methods" and "inventions, which would not have been traditionally allowed", while actually defining these things vacuously.

* Software products as such, must not be patented.

The EPO should be allowed to continue to use its twisted interpretation of "as such" in Article 52 EPC, so that what everyone without our hidden agenda calls software patents will be permitted.

* Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must ensure that this Directive does not have any adverse effect on opensource software and small software developers.

We couldn't care less about open-source or small developers, but we say that we do to deflect criticism.

* Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies.

We will wag our fingers and say "tut tut" to patent trolls and extortionists -- in public at least.

Furthermore, the Labour Euro MPs are supporting a UK campaign for a defence fund for small companies to protect themselves from litigation abuse by dominant market players.

Aren't protection rackets a good idea? Lately I've been brushing up on my patent lobby doublespeak -- "protect themselves", geddit?

Please be assured that the Council of Ministers and the Commission cannot ignore our views as democratically elected Members of the European Parliament.

There's an outside chance that the parliament might have a hissy fit and reject the swpat directive in retaliation for the commission doing something unrelated that pisses us off. After all, a week is a long time in politics. Don't count on it, though.

Unless we get full agreement between the three institutions (Parliament, Council and Commission) on this Directive, there is no guarantee that this law will be passed.

Rejecting this law will require half of all MEPs (not just half of all MEPs present) to vote against it. Factoring in the usual apathy quota that's about as likely as simultaneous direct meteoroid strikes on Strasbourg and Brussels. However, it's not impossible.

(I wish I were just being cynical here, but really, that is what the reply you got means. How people use the "as such" code phrase in this debate is a pretty reliable indicator of what side they're on.)

What is even more amazing is that Microsoft's lobbyists seem to be having an impact on some of our so-called representatives in the European Parliament.

Take, for example, Spain's Manuel Medina MEP, who appears to have bought completely into their propaganda. In a recent article he writes:

In the United Stated, computer patents have on the one hand allowed to innovation to thrive in this area and on the other hand make Bill Gates the richest man in the world.

If you live in Spain and care about this issue I ask you to contact Mr Medina and politely provide him with some counter-arguments to this pro-software patent FUD. His contact info is:

email: mmedina [at] europarl.eu.int fax Bruselas: +32 (0)2 284 9882 fax Estrasburgo: +33 (0)3 88 17 9882 mail: Europe Parlament , Rue Wiertz ASP 11G351 B-1047 BRUSELAS

http://ffii.org/

The MPlayer homepage is mentioned on the Software Patent News page.

Keep in mind that there has already been shown to be *signficant* revenue in licensing patents - its an awesome business model.

Create the patent (this does involve research and work and inventiveness). Then let other people productise it, take the risk, sell it and pay royalties to you. (Profit!!!)For example:

Collecting the patent royalties could add millions to IBM's net profits. In 1995--the last year IBM released figures--the company took in $650 million from royalties on all patents, software and hardware alike. Insiders say that senior managers believe IBM could collect $1 billion a year from its patents

My prediction: When the MS bottom line starts drooping, the patent suits will begin.

If you can't figure out the format of an XML file (with appropriate Schema or DTD) in 15 years, god help you.

Wow! It's easy to see you've not been in this game for fifteen years.

Let's see, it's easy to figure out the format of a file so long as it's in XML. Provided, of course, that you know the character encoding, of course. And that you've got a device that can actually read the media. And provided you can license the patent on the compression algorithm. And provided the XML doesn't include any binary sections. So, no problems, then.

...currently hits on the European Council at number 3. This is as a result of the (elected) Council's antidemocratic campaign to force Bill Gates' software patent agenda on the European Union, in direct contravention of the wishes of the the (elected) European Parliament.

The way I have attacked this in the past is to go through it sentence by sentence and translate it back into English, keeping a glossary of things which seem to make sense in context.

From your example: "The archive format includes the transfer of data to an archive media member, which archive media member can alternatively be addressable or sequential memory and can be recordable in either a rewriteable or right [sic] once manner."

Glossary: Archive media member - a tape or disk. (This is backed up by the fact that these may be sequential or "addressable" (i.e. random access)).

So, in other words, "The archives are stored on tapes or disks, which may be rewritable or write-once."

This is, of course, a tedious and laborious process. (Just imagine, however, being a patent lawyer and having to actually write this stuff for a living.)

Note well that, if the CIID passes, us software developers in Europe are going to have to learn to do this much more often. Here's an obligatory link to the FFII for the benefit of anyone who's been on Mars for the last 6 months.

OK, here's an idea. How about an open directory of patent translations?

Once you've translated a patent into English, you would upload it to the directory for others to use. They would be available under something like a creative commons license, with a feedback/rating system, standard disclaimers that original legalese has priority over the translation (of course), and that translations are supplied for convenience only.

The web interface could optionally display the original and the translation side-by-side, aligned by paragraphs, so you can easily cross-check. There should be a simple way to post/suggest corrections.

NOTE: This posting consitutes prior art on this concept. You may not patent it!

ASIDE: The method described for translation is basically the same as that described by Richard Feynman for dealing with obtuse english. Here's a quote:

"There was a sociologist who had written a paper for us all to read - something he had written ahead of time. I started to read the damn thing, and my eyes were coming out: I couldn't make head nor tail or it! I figured it was because I hadn't read any of the books on that list. I had this uneasy feeling of "I'm not adequate," until I finally said to myself, "I'm gonna stop, and read one sentence slowly, so I can figure out what the hell it means.

So I stopped - at random - and read the next sentence very carefully. I can't remember it precisely, but it was very close to this: "The invidivual member of the social community often received his information via visual, symbolic channels." I went back and forth over it, and translated. You know what it means? "People Read."

(From "Is Electricity Fire?" in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman".)

Don't forget Poland :)

Very funny but no, as a matter of fact he didn't forget Poland, because you see, Poland is in Europe. In case you didn't notice, Poland is one of the most important forces in Europe fighting against software patents in the European Union. Poland is not only a very important state in EU but is also in the very center of Europe. You might take a look at the map sometimes. Good luck.

Don't forget Poland :)

Very funny but no, as a matter of fact he didn't forget Poland, because you see, Poland is in Europe. In case you didn't notice, Poland is one of the most important forces in Europe fighting against software patents in the European Union. Poland is not only a very important state in EU but is also in the very center of Europe. You might take a look at the map sometimes. Good luck.

for example ASF and Virtualdub. I'm pretty sure you can find more if you search for it.

At first they personal responses and were rather optimistic. The last one was send as a reply to messages from a whole bunch of people. It glanced over the procedural 'shortcuts' the EC made, while focussing more on further action to take. It didn't respond well to the bitter frustration this dossier created, and tried to make a case for adoption of the EU 'constitution', by stating that this would make the whole process clearer. Well, the current process is clear enough for everyone to see that we got screwed over and that didn't stop them, so why should a 'constitution'? I can only refer to Open letter to the EU: Constitution, we have a problem

The parliament's version of the text addresses this by making sure patents can not be claimed against a pure software product:

Article 5(1). Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention may be claimed only as a product, that is as a programmed device, or as a technical production process.

Well, I've written and directly talked to people from my party (Portuguese Communist Party), as well as read the national and EU parliament statements by the deputies. They brought the issue of free software to the portuguese parliament for discussion (general apathy ensued) and oppose the law in Brussels (e.g PCP Motion against Council's "Political Agreement" on Software Patents

The problem is, not only is the representation rather small, but also the way the laws are passed and approved in the EU defy any logic. If they want to approve it, they will, even if they have to put it in an addendum of a work paper in a meeting about livestock vacination. The whole process is more or less guaranteed to lead to the approval of the law. If it goes to the parliament national possitions (if any...) will probably be blured by the political blocks, and even countries that are against the law can be made to review their position... we must remember that it's the EU that decides which ammount of, say, fish or fruit a country can explore.

Having said this I think that just because the whole situation appears as a done deal that shouldn't prevent all those against the law (of all countries and political spectrums) to fight it as much as they can.

While your example's not bad in a sort of hypothetical sense, the Japanese patent you're referring to doesn't exist.

That patent (which belongs to Matsushita) covers a process whereby you click a help icon, then drag it over another item. On dropping the help icon, you are given context-sensitive help about the second item.

The patent is here (albeit in Japanese) with further explanation in English here. It's not nearly as simple as "ANY help icon linked to ANY help file."