Slashdot Mirror

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."

i think you didn't follow the huge mobilization that already happened.

the ffii has been coordinating the different actions in all countries and they are getting pretty disgusted

Council050307 recordings

To: All pro-software patent lawyers inc. Carl Oppedahl

Dear Patent Lawyer,

You have claimed, based on your experience as a patent lawyer, that software patents can help even small commercial enterprises. Could you please explain why software patents are not harmful both to society and to freedom of expression given the case of an open-source developer who, as a result of 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 invention, which pre-dates the patent application of the IPX company.

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.

Last posted here without a reply.

Having said that, I see that most people on slashdot want to get rid of software patents, but what I'm wondering is, why only software?

I believe that the problem is not software vs. non-software patents, but the general quailty of software patents vs. the quality of non-software patents. It's not that software shouldn't be patentable, but that a great deal of the worst offenders are not patents on specific inventions, but entire ideas. In some cases, they're patenting the problem, instead of the solution.

One example is from the FFII wewbsite: A patent on trapping viruses. After a brief glance through the description and the abstract, it seems reasonable. Except when we look at the claims, this patent attempts to claim all virtual environments used to capture viruses. If you were asked to implement this 'invention', the patent wouldn't help much, as the difficulty of the implmentation is in figuring out how to make it work, and this patent is more of an overall design.

Examples could be given for good and not-to-broad software patents, but the general feeling is SW patents are usually too broad and too easily infringed. While not allowing any SW patents might be a bit extreme, but it's better than letting them in now and letting them to cause further harm to the software industry.

Oh, you mean brilliant new, intuitive interfaces like these?

http://webshop.ffii.org/

The problem is friend that any attempt at patenting software ultimately transpires as an attempt to patent an idea. Software patents are far more than just a threat to IT companies, it is a precedent for the commodification and monopolisation of all forms of human culture. Imagine if I could take a patent out on Literary devices, like Alliteration or the Rhyme, or methods like The Synopsis. Perhaps the latter isn't too far away from the absurdity of filing a swpat on the Preview Window http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=EP5371 00&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD

If programming is itself knowledge production (as so many agree), then we're all going to be pretty stupid in 10 years if Software Patents are allowed to take hold.

Yesterday, on 7th of March there was a decission of European Council that the wording of the directive is approved by council. Although DK submited a written declaration. As you said DK, PL and PT formaly assked moving it to B-item list. Are you saying that they were ignored? Did the president of council just stand up and said: "The A-item list is approved." and nobody said a word? That would mean not only that the decission is handed over to non-elected group of people (the council) but to a single person. Hard to believe. The opinions of all member states have to be available somewhere. It is ridiculous that the detailed info is not published on front page of servers reporting about the event.

Btw, I'm glad to see that JURI has asked for a full documentation (including minutes, declarations and transcripts of the recordings) of what happened in the Council today. I pray to see this information published.

http://webshop.ffii.org/

And fair enough too, Genius should be rewarded. I spend sleepless nights just trying to approach some of these unprecedented, tangential and visionary works - an inspiration to any developer seriously committed to nourishing the culture of software development.

Sadly, while my patent on "A Method for Entering a Room Before Someone Else" was granted, I simply can't afford to defend it; my own Mother claims prior art.

And to my fellow entrepreneurs: I ask you hereby consider this comment evidence of prior art for the invention of Sarcasm.

FFII link:
http://swpat.ffii.org/players/ibm/index.en.html

Have you signed the letter? I have. It took me five seconds. But there were only 30000 signatures when it was delivered. Slashdot alone has hundreds of thousands of members, for crying out loud! All of us waste time posting idiotic flames in every signle story about software patents, but how many of us have devoted five miserable seconds of our pathetic lifes to actually do something about it? 1%? 0.5%? 0.1%?

What have you done for the democracy, liberty and human rights? Yes, I mean you! If all you do is write on Slashdot then you have done nothing. that's what! People, when will we finally wake up? When will we understand that we, the people, have the responsibility for that failure? When will we understand that we are the ones who have the real power? When will we finally do something instead of bitching all day? When will we finally open our eyes? When?

" Luxembourg negated the Council's own Rules of Procedure, which state that a B-item (which is at the same time a request to remove an A item) can only be rejected by the a majority of the Council, and not just by the Presidency. (art 3.8) "

And as someone else already said: the Council has adopted its "common position" (although it was far from common in this case). It still has to get into the European Parliament, through its second reading (where it can be amended or even rejected, after which the whole game is immediately over).

Anyway, as far as I am concerned, the big news is not what they adopted (a directive text which codifies the European Patent Office's US practice), but how they adopted it. Three countries with the support of several others asked to reopen discussions, and the Luxembourg presidency simply denied that even though they have to let the Council as a whole decide about that according to their own rules of procedure (point 3.8).

Best information source for the EU patent-problem.

Here's the press release

If the parliament had made no amendments to the original directive on it's first reading, we would then be at step 5, and this A-list item would indeed be the final stage.

Heres a (very detailed) link to the differences between the the parliament's and council's versions.

This is a better diagram of our current status. So all is not yet lost, even if the council does pass the may 2004 agreed version (their amended version of the parliament amended version), as it will have to go a second reading in the parliament, because of their changes. However, it's much harder for the parliament to introduce new amendments at the 2nd reading, making it basically a vote to kill the directive entirely, or pass the council version. Plus of course, it puts us one step closer to software patentability. Here is a link detailing the process. Note the hefty requirements the parliament have to meet in order to modify or kill the bill at it's second reading - and even if *that* succeeds, the council still has to agree to those changes.

After the Council of the European Union has sent its common position to the European Parliament, a time period of 3 months starts to run. If the Parliament does nothing within this time frame, the common position enters into force as directive.

The Parliament can extend this time by one month if it decides so.

If the European Parliament does not agree, is has to adopt changes to the common position or reject the common position, the latter would end the codecision procedure at this point.

To change or reject the text in 2nd reading, the parliament needs an absolute majority of the 732 Members for a yes on an amendment - for each change.


Of course, if the council have a complete change of heart, and pass the parliament sept 2003 version, it goes into law - but we're ok, as that version blocks software patents. But that would require reopening discussion, which the Commission has so far put pressure on to block, both in the council, and as a total restart.

However, patents on ideas cannot be specific. In fact they will always be abused for precisely this reason by the paper pushing business that is any Patent Office.

Given your example in the thread below, do you imagine if another written medium, like literature for instance, would have progressed with a patent like "A method for building and resoloving the Protagonist's Catharsis." Or in music, the (algorithmic) 'Rondo' phrasal form (musical phrases A - B - A - C - A), prevalent in rock music since the 60's? These examples are analogous with the encouraged trend in what is considered patentable - where software is concerned.

Here are some examples of the current state of software patents today, the kinds of things people want to patent are in fact as loose as possible - eg a net made so large as to increase the likelihood of patent breach. In other words, the bulk of swpats are precisely not about protecting innovation so much as encouraging the possibility of legal action. Hence we increasingly hear about software development houses becoming legal offices; it is simply better and bigger business.

http://webshop.ffii.org/

Secondly a software patent is often used as a pre-emptive strike against a superceding product. Much of the software patents granted today for so-called inventions are registered precisely to protect the patent holders already inferior product - extending it's market cycle while ensuring the 'invention' never makes it to market. How does that encourage innovation, boosting the culture of software as a whole?



And from the perspective of the small developer (as you claim to be) , here is a testimony that makes the real danger loud and clear. SWPatents discourage innovation , but also creation itself:

Agarwal Associates Ltd

As the owner/manager of a small company employing 10 people I can not afford to do a full patent search every time I have an idea for a software product .

As a small company our strength is in being fast and flexible. We can not be either if every time we need to put together a bespoke solution for a clien t we would need to spend months putting together systems for our clients tha t avoid any software patent issues.

As a small company our strength is in being fast and flexible. We can not be either if every time we need to put together a bespoke solution for a clien t we would need to spend months putting together systems for our clients tha t avoid any software patent issues.

This has a direct impact on our Clients who are also SMEs. They would not be able to afford solutions suitable for them and would have to use a standard solution from the big players whether it was suitable or not.

UKPO claims that the new directive does not change anything but only clarifi es the current law. If that is the case, why oppose the clause inserted by t he European Parliament to explicitly deny patents for software? Make it expl icit and clear for everyone!

Added: 2004-12-07 http://protectinnovation.ffii.org.uk/read_testimon y

No, many engineers have been confronted with the same problems and not solved it. It takes skill to solve the problem, and hence the patent.

Society has made a bunch of rules which patents must conform to in order to get as little patents as possible for which the downsides outweigh the upsides, and "skill" is just one of those criteria (in the form of the "non-obviousness" criterium, although it is a very low barrier).

It does not mean that everything smart should be patentable. Nobody has an "inherent right" to a patent due to work he performed. Society has concluded that patents on e.g. mathematical methods and scientific theories are generally not profitable for them (although it can take an enormous amount of skill to develop those).

It's similar with computer-implemented mathematics, business methods etc. You can find a bunch of studies on that subject here

No, many engineers have been confronted with the same problems and not solved it. It takes skill to solve the problem, and hence the patent.

Society has made a bunch of rules which patents must conform to in order to get as little patents as possible for which the downsides outweigh the upsides, and "skill" is just one of those criteria (in the form of the "non-obviousness" criterium, although it is a very low barrier).

It does not mean that everything smart should be patentable. Nobody has an "inherent right" to a patent due to work he performed. Society has concluded that patents on e.g. mathematical methods and scientific theories are generally not profitable for them (although it can take an enormous amount of skill to develop those).

It's similar with computer-implemented mathematics, business methods etc. You can find a bunch of studies on that subject here

I see many posts about Europeans not being interested in politics and the European parliament in Brussels being corrupt.

I 'd like to remind everyone out there of the many Europeans who are very active in protesting against patents like the people of NoSoftwarePatents and the Federation for a Free Information Infrastructure, encouraging people around Europe to get a hold of their MEPs and making them aware of the importance of the matter.

Hey a lot of us went to Brussels (with bananas!) to protest February 17, there where busses organised even from Paris.

We write, fax and mail our politicians, even send them fresh fruit to show how much we care about this!

I see many posts about Europeans not being interested in politics and the European parliament in Brussels being corrupt.

I 'd like to remind everyone out there of the many Europeans who are very active in protesting against patents like the people of NoSoftwarePatents and the Federation for a Free Information Infrastructure, encouraging people around Europe to get a hold of their MEPs and making them aware of the importance of the matter.

Hey a lot of us went to Brussels (with bananas!) to protest February 17, there where busses organised even from Paris.

We write, fax and mail our politicians, even send them fresh fruit to show how much we care about this!

But those over 30000 illegally issued software patents give us an idea of the future.

They include basic user interface widgets like tabs (EP689133).

FFII has a list of the last 100 software patents they found.

If you look here: http://ffii.org/ there's some possibly better news.

I also don't have a TV, but I still consider it wise to follow the politics around things like mandated copyprotection.
Because the same people who clamor for TV brodcast flags today might clamor for mandatory TCPA in computers tomorrow. Which I would really dislike, even if I don't care much about TV. So I'd rather stay informed and, when necessary, support organizations like the FFII
http://ffii.org/
who try to prevent such abominations.

The televisions created at the Build-In are also computers, and they contain a TiVo-like device called a personal video recorder (PVR) - you can use them to pause a show, record it, sample it, and even save a copy to DVD. Using the TV she builds today, Brydon won't have any trouble loaning her friend a copy of Buffy.

I wonder how this works with their Dockable Toolbar Patent? That one hasn't been overturned yet, has it?

For example, tabs are patented in Europe, and they are useless unless displayed in the user interface. And a shopping basket cannot be hidden in closed source either.

For example, tabs are patented in Europe, and they are useless unless displayed in the user interface. And a shopping basket cannot be hidden in closed source either.

Can someone who is informed about these matters please indicate how concerned citizens can help in getting the directive turned back into a B-item?

The FFII are the main source of this kind of information. Consider joining the FFII and subscribing to a mailing list for your European government.

The most important point is convincing people in all areas that more discussion is needed. Read the unilateral statement from Poland regarding the Council text: http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st16/st 16120-ad02.en04.pdf

Getting replies from even supportive MEP's takes time - but MEP's won't be making this decision.

The people to contact now are MPs and ministers (and heads of party etc.) in your local European government and get them to issue public statements. We have to show that adopting an A-item (i.e., a non-discussion point) on 7 March at the Competition Council is not an option.

The Swedish liberals are asking for a B-item in the Council
http://wiki.ffii.org/Selib0502En.
We need to get a similar request from the Liberal Democrats or possibly even some Labour or Conservative MPs in the UK. If you live outside the UK (but within Europe) other European politicians should also be persuaded to allow discussion on the directive.

Online petitions, letters to members of the paralement, online demonstrations.. crap! What gets you attention is money. Pure, hard and cold money. But I'm not talking about corruption.

What changes the minds of those in power to decide is information. The information distribution, production, and presentation costs time and money, the time of lobbist and the money of the companies behind them.

Free software doesn't have a company nor do we have a big budget. But we are many. Let us slash dot the budget of the lobbists on OUR side.

Yes, there are such folks. The FFII is one of them. Just visit http://swpat.ffii.org - But don't go for online petitions or demos. Go to the donate section. These guys have to pay their office bills, their plane ticks and their printer paper.

Vote with $$$. Change the world. Just like Microsoft.

Online petitions, letters to members of the paralement, online demonstrations.. crap! What gets you attention is money. Pure, hard and cold money. But I'm not talking about corruption.

What changes the minds of those in power to decide is information. The information distribution, production, and presentation costs time and money, the time of lobbist and the money of the companies behind them.

Free software doesn't have a company nor do we have a big budget. But we are many. Let us slash dot the budget of the lobbists on OUR side.

Yes, there are such folks. The FFII is one of them. Just visit http://swpat.ffii.org - But don't go for online petitions or demos. Go to the donate section. These guys have to pay their office bills, their plane ticks and their printer paper.

Vote with $$$. Change the world. Just like Microsoft.

Whoops! We're not facing a second reading by the parliament (11) just yet. From http://wiki.ffii.org/Com050228En:

"In the mean time, highly placed government sources have also confirmed that the directive will once more appear as an A-item on 7 March, this time on the agenda of the responsible Competition Council formation. All hope for a democratic and balanced resolution now rests on the shoulders of the ministers and officials who will attend that Council meeting."

Like the article says, get in contact with whichever part of your government will be attending the Competition Council meeting: for UK readers, I believe that is these people: http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/footer/co ntact_points.htm.

Competition Commission
Victoria House
Southampton Row
London
WC1B 4AD

Although I doubt it will be possible to change Labour's mind on the issue, council decisions must be unanimous; that's how Poland and Denmark(?) managed to block the decisions before.

Otherwise, you'll soon be regarded as just one more truth-bending special interest group.

So, you're saying that we citizens will get to draft EU legislation like the BSA?

"
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 1991
This was quoted by Fred Warshofsky in "The Patent Wars" of 1994. The text is from an internal memo written by Bill Gates to his staff. Part of has appeared in another Gates memos.
http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html #bgates91

Meanwhile, one of the Directive's key supporters, the German Federal Ministry of Justice, has reportedly received approximately 500 bananas, shipped in more than 150 parcels, from constituents appalled by what they consider "banana republic style" disrespect for the national and European parliaments.

Meanwhile, one of the Directive's key supporters, the German Federal Ministry of Justice, has reportedly received approximately 500 bananas, shipped in more than 150 parcels, from constituents appalled by what they consider "banana republic style" disrespect for the national and European parliaments.

Meanwhile, one of the Directive's key supporters, the German Federal Ministry of Justice, has reportedly received approximately 500 bananas, shipped in more than 150 parcels, from constituents appalled by what they consider "banana republic style" disrespect for the national and European parliaments.

Meanwhile, one of the Directive's key supporters, the German Federal Ministry of Justice, has reportedly received approximately 500 bananas, shipped in more than 150 parcels, from constituents appalled by what they consider "banana republic style" disrespect for the national and European parliaments.

More of a flame than flamebait, but certainly not showing themselves as the voice of reason.

FFIIs statement was much better. While still being highly critical of the decisions it avoids personal abuse.

The reported reason was that if they do restart, they must produce a new text on which several other Directorate Generals (DG), such as Information Society and Competition, must agree as well. These other DG's would reportedly never support an extreme text such as the one currently on the table in the Council, or even the original Commission proposal from 2002. They would insist on a more balanced approach, which is apparently not desired by DG MARKT - Directorate General for the Internal Market.

In the mean time, highly placed government sources have also confirmed to the FFII that the directive will once more appear as an A-item on 7 March, this time on the agenda of the responsible Competition Council formation. All hope for a democratic and balanced resolution now rests on the shoulders of the ministers and officials who will attend that Council meeting. Turning the directive back into a B-item, i.e. a discussion point, seems to be the only proper way out now.

http://wiki.ffii.org/Com050228En

Any celebrations about the directive being thrown out were premature - the BBC site for one got carried away:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4274811.stm
The European Parliament has thrown out a bill that would have allowed software to be patented.

We wish! The headline was more accurate than the sub-text:
EU software patent law faces axe

Faces, but the axe isn't falling yet.

"
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.
"
This was quoted by Fred Warshofsky in "The Patent Wars" of 1994. The text is from an internal memo written by Bill Gates to his staff. Part of has appeared in another Gates memos.
http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/index.en.html #bgates91

...intellectual property granting, licensings is a legal oriented document of agreement. Though there are things in any legal document that might be non-binding due to priority of other legal issues, the point is, is that it is a document of agreement by those who use it.

No document should be able to allow the signing away of natural human rights or such rights that fit needed freedoms in any given economic environment, such as a fair competition economic environment (i.e. probably quite a few of MS's created agreements with OEMs, etc.. contridicting fair competition as was presented in the DOJ vs. MS case..)

But here is the key point:

"..if we didn't build upon what those before us have done, we then would not advance at all, but rather be like any other mammal incapable of anything more than, at best, first level abstraction. But we are more, and as such have the natural human right and duty to advance in such a manner."

from abstraction physics"

Wrong, I'm a small guy, I want 'em!

Anyway, UEAPME and CEA-PME represent respectively 11 million and 500,000 small guys, and they're both against.

Wrong, I'm a small guy, I want 'em!

Anyway, UEAPME and CEA-PME represent respectively 11 million and 500,000 small guys, and they're both against.

First off, lots of European software companies own patents.

75% of already granted European software patents are owned by US and Japanese companies. European companies have only something like 20% of all granted software patents.

Not specifically on software, but on processes.

US companies also patent processes implemented in software (to buy something with one click of a mouse, to load certain kinds of XML information, ...), and not individual computer programs.

A very nice report was published recently by the European Parliament's Directorate General on Economic and Social Policy, which completely debunks the "computer-implemented inventions are entirely different things that software", and which confirms that the European Patent Office's practice is not all that different from US practice.

The report is linked at the bottom of this PR.

These are permitted. Say for example an new process for compressing an image, or for searching. That is patentable, whheter it's software or not.

Compressing an image is generally plain maths, and "mathematical processes" are not (should not be) patentable in Europe. Of course, the EPO (with the help of enterprising lawyers appealing to its Technical Board of Appeals) has found ways to interpret the European Patent Convention to get around this. I'm also not sure how you can say in general that "searching" is patentable.

Secondly, most of these European software companies also patent their inventions in the US, and are thus protected by US law against infringment of their patents in the US.

I'd be very interested in seeing any numbers you have on this. Also, whether or not we have software patents in Europe is completely independent of those companies' abilities to get software patents in the US.

Thirdly, If a US company does the same, and patents their inventions in Europe, under the European system, and then nationalises their patent in any of the European countries, they are protected against infringment in the contries they have nationalised in. Thats fair enough isn't it?

Patents are not about fairness, patents are economic means which can be used to correct an economic system running haywire due to relentless imitation. You do not introduce artificial monopolies in an economic sector because it's "fair".

Finally, what we are talking about are property rights, which are generally protected in our western societies.

You might want to look at this presentation by a lawyer and law scholar specialised in software patents on that. Trying to paint it as a "communists vs capitalists" is sooooo last 5 years (although Bill Gates doesn't seem to know that yet either).

Lile most valuable posessions (wealth), thoes who have them, want them, thoes who don have their own want to take others!

Even if you unconditionally believe that any sort of intellectual creation should be associated with the broadest possible form of property rights, there's still the problem that software patents conflict with the property rights of software authors, granted to them by copyright. They prevent the normal exploitation of their works, which is even in conflict with the often cited TRIPs agreement.

In Europe, I hope we are sophisticated enough in our appreciation of the compeating rights involved to be able to balance theese rights and accept that there is a place for patent laws that incentivise and reward creative thinking.

Again, this has nothing to do with rewards, respect for work or whatever. It's

First off, lots of European software companies own patents.

75% of already granted European software patents are owned by US and Japanese companies. European companies have only something like 20% of all granted software patents.

Not specifically on software, but on processes.

US companies also patent processes implemented in software (to buy something with one click of a mouse, to load certain kinds of XML information, ...), and not individual computer programs.

A very nice report was published recently by the European Parliament's Directorate General on Economic and Social Policy, which completely debunks the "computer-implemented inventions are entirely different things that software", and which confirms that the European Patent Office's practice is not all that different from US practice.

The report is linked at the bottom of this PR.

These are permitted. Say for example an new process for compressing an image, or for searching. That is patentable, whheter it's software or not.

Compressing an image is generally plain maths, and "mathematical processes" are not (should not be) patentable in Europe. Of course, the EPO (with the help of enterprising lawyers appealing to its Technical Board of Appeals) has found ways to interpret the European Patent Convention to get around this. I'm also not sure how you can say in general that "searching" is patentable.

Secondly, most of these European software companies also patent their inventions in the US, and are thus protected by US law against infringment of their patents in the US.

I'd be very interested in seeing any numbers you have on this. Also, whether or not we have software patents in Europe is completely independent of those companies' abilities to get software patents in the US.

Thirdly, If a US company does the same, and patents their inventions in Europe, under the European system, and then nationalises their patent in any of the European countries, they are protected against infringment in the contries they have nationalised in. Thats fair enough isn't it?

Patents are not about fairness, patents are economic means which can be used to correct an economic system running haywire due to relentless imitation. You do not introduce artificial monopolies in an economic sector because it's "fair".

Finally, what we are talking about are property rights, which are generally protected in our western societies.

You might want to look at this presentation by a lawyer and law scholar specialised in software patents on that. Trying to paint it as a "communists vs capitalists" is sooooo last 5 years (although Bill Gates doesn't seem to know that yet either).

Lile most valuable posessions (wealth), thoes who have them, want them, thoes who don have their own want to take others!

Even if you unconditionally believe that any sort of intellectual creation should be associated with the broadest possible form of property rights, there's still the problem that software patents conflict with the property rights of software authors, granted to them by copyright. They prevent the normal exploitation of their works, which is even in conflict with the often cited TRIPs agreement.

In Europe, I hope we are sophisticated enough in our appreciation of the compeating rights involved to be able to balance theese rights and accept that there is a place for patent laws that incentivise and reward creative thinking.

Again, this has nothing to do with rewards, respect for work or whatever. It's

Patents are only property if they're valid. "Software as such" cannot be patented under the European Patent Convention. Since you rather want to talk of "process patents" I note that in the examples you give, the entire "process" consists in a general-purpose computer running software. I think they're great examples of what unpatentable "software as such" means. Unfortunately, the European Patent Office is more interested in its "customers" - the big patenters - than in the general public, and has made some really twisted interpretations of what "software as such" means.

Would you want someone to move in and take something that belongs to you, and not pay compensation?

What you describe sounds like "breaking. entering and stealing". That's (deliberately?) deceptive language when describing patents. Acacia Technologies can use their patents to stop me using software that I developed completely independently, or, as they in fact do, demand 2% of gross revenue from web-streaming companies. Who is taking something that doesn't belong to them without compensation?

"..that automatically look at every document a user creates, receives or views, transmitting messages to 'action' plug-ins - and even to the plug-ins' authors - that can be used to decide what info you'll be presented with, what options you'll be given, what price you'll pay for goods, and even who you'll be permitted to buy from."

Interesting that anti-spyware has shown fresh installs of MS windows OS has spyware that tracks online use ...

Where are our privacy laws and fair competition laws?

Or do we really know who has bought them away from us?

The only way for this to be faired up is to allow any and everyone who wants to use such a thing, to be able to. Just like the solution to the "trillion dollar bet">/a> was faired up, via exposure and wide scope use.

Or in other words: nobody gets an unfair (anti-competition) advantage in marketing via patenting some automated privacy invading information collecting marketing process.

Most software is NOT patentable as shown by abstraction physics", and that certainly includes this.

is my idea not my property?

Banning software patents cuts both ways. It erases any built up patents large companies have amassed but it also strips any independent or small developer from the protection he needs when he implements his idea or algorithm.

The small company protecting its assets with a patent from a large company generally simply doesn't work in practice. Suppose you do have the funds for a court case, even then the other side (e.g. IBM) will probably have ten times as many patents your programs infringe on, so they'll countersue you if you don't want to settle.

Have a look at how they treated Sun this way in the eighties...

This is false!

Read http://wiki.ffii.org/Restart050217En: for correct info: "The new Commission is not obliged to follow the Parliament's request and they might still try to "keep all options open" and ask the Council to adopt the zombie agreement of last May as an A-item without a new vote." and so on.

We are very, very far away from victory.

Here.

The European Parliament also has veto power to reject it (in either first, second or third reading). In fact, that's exactly what they'll do if the Commission and Council gang up against them according to at least one MEP.