Slashdot Mirror

His contribution to the swedish EFF (if such a thing exists?).

EFF Europe is a branch, they should try to employ more people though.. FFII is a similar organization that just figihts against software patents. Not sure why he would contribute to these organizations though.

Partial translation of FFII Sweden press release:
http://ffii.se/pr/2007-08-27-se-ooxml-vote-en.html

You think Peter Jackson should get a patent on some of those great battle scenes? They were original. They were innovative. They were art. It doesn't make them patentable.

Germany is a member of the EU where mathematical operations are specifically excluded from patentability

That would indeed seem to be the reasonable interpretation of the European Patent Convention which prohibits patenting of "programs for computers". In practice, several countries have built case law where you can patent, not "a program doing X" but "a computer running a program doing X" which very much amounts to the same thing in other words. (In the same way you can't patent business models "Persons A, B and C doing Y", but often "Persons A, B and C doing Y with a computer network").

For a start you can dive into this very humorous treatment of "as such".

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

But can you explain why the phrase "as such" (which doesn't really have very much meaning at all in normal English) should be interpreted in so fundamentally different ways when it's applied to computer programs as opposed to other things that are listed in Article 52.2, like films, books, or other aesthetic creations?

The text "Why can't I patent my movie?" expands on this question. So far, I haven't recieved one single sensible answer from any patent proponent or apologist.

Can you provide one?

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 UK anti-softwarepatent site Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure has already written up an excellent peice on exactly that point, except it works far better with trying to claim a movie patent than book patent. :) You'll see why.

It perfectly illustrates how they play wordgames in order to illegally issue software patents. A must-read for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

-

The UK anti-softwarepatent site Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure has already written up an excellent peice on exactly that point, except it works far better with trying to claim a movie patent than book patent. :) You'll see why.

It perfectly illustrates how they play wordgames in order to illegally issue software patents. A must-read for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

-

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...

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...

[A]ll the grunt work will be done offshore, including programming, but the IP will be owned here in the US.

That's why they're pushing so hard for these laws, it's the very basis of the new economy.

But the problem is that it's only going to work as long as the rest of the world plays along, and is prepared to both introduce and enforce the draconian IP legislation that the US is pushing for on all fronts.

Right now, perhaps it looks promising (from this perspective). Under the threat of trade sanctions, China is agreeing to take measures to reduce piracy of music, films, and software. Thanks to massive US-led lobbying in Brussels, the European Union may be on the brink of legalizing software patents, that will make it illegal to treat email addresses as objects or send video over a network without paying royalties to a US company.

If you look at the US as a single entity (and ignore the question of how the wealth will be distributed inside the US society), you may get the impression that pieces are falling into place, and that the strategy will be successful. This would then mean that the US could continue to run its massive trade defecit with the rest of the world, and make up the difference by collecting what would in effect be a global "IP tax".

But would a situation like that be sustainable? I think not.

If a small country on its own tries to defy the US over IP matters, it will be hit hard by trade sanctions and - utimately - the threat of military intervention.

But suppose Europe, China, India, and Brazil, and anybody else who cares to join the alliance, were to abolish the excesses in IP legislation once they realize that it only benefits a few US multinational companies. What could the US do about it?

The military option just wouldn't be an option in a scenario like that. Although it's not entirely unthinkable that the US has the military capacity to actually conquer the rest of the world, there's simply no way to sustain the necessary occupation forces indefinitely.

And trade santions wouldn't work either, since the rest of the world is much bigger than the US in economic terms. That would just be like the classic line "fog over the Channel, Europe isolated".

Which, incidentally, is a quote that stems from the days when the British Empire was the undisputed no 1, but was already on the decline, even if nobody had noticed it yet.

Which probably isn't just a coincidence.

We pretend that software is absolutely different, but all we can show are fairly relative differences.

For that matter, do we need to pretend? The patent lawyers have been asking the question "why is software different?" since the start of this debate. However, the question is loaded. It presupposes that software is in fact the same as hardware, and then challenges us to find reasons why it isn't.

I think we should challenge that presupposition. Show us why software should be lumped into the same category as hardware. People seem to be assuming that because software and hardware both end in "-ware" they are related above and beyond the simple fact that both can be sold. That's hardly a compelling arguemnt.

Neither ideas nor the expression of ideas should be patentable. Computer programs, I would maintain are expressions of ideas, in exactly the same way as books and films and music. In another branch of this thread, Christian Engstrom posted a link which presents this argument better than I can, so I'll just say that by any sane set of criteria, as well as the current law, software should be considered in the sam category as other creative works.

Doing so would prevent neither individuals nor coders from profiting from their labours in this field - copyright law has allowed this and the might of microsoft stands as testament to effectivness in this role. There is no need for software patents to reward individuals.

On the other hand, software patents can be, and are being used in an anti-competetive manner. This alone should win the argument. There is no need for software patents, and furthermore they are actively harmful, QED

Which brings me to the best counterargument to the "tell me why software is different" ploy. Software is different precisely because allowing software patents is demonstrably harmful to the competetiveness of the IT industry, and to the civil liberties of countless software enthusiasts, whilst at the same time being unnecessary to reward innovation in the field. And one of the functions of the law is to draw such distinctions for the benefit of the common good.

So challenge the assumption that software and hardware are in some manner similar -- it's very hard to defend if you get beyond the common suffix. Maintain that software must be treated as are other creative works, show that patents are both unnecessary and undesirable, and point out that the role of lawmakers is to draw such distinctions should they be required, based upon the need and benefit for the community.

That seems clear enough.

I guess the chicken is the part of this that is... ...'new'?

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.

Since the current law forbids the pateting on both software, books and films, but the lawyers and EPO bend the rules to allow the patents anyway, can you now patent your film?

This text is a bit old, but a good read anyway.

Enjoy!

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?

Roughly, the two largest parties, the social democrats (socialdemokraterna) and the right wing party (moderaterna), are in favor of software patents while the rest, the liberals (folkpartiet), the leftmost party (vaensterpartiet), the greens (miljoepartiet),... are against.

(I'm voting for Olle Schmidt of the liberal party but I'm not affiliated with anything above.)

Here's what some of the Swedish candidates had to say about software patents http://mnemo.nu/publicerat/2004/may/candidates.php . FFII Sweden also put together information brochure, which is perfect to print out and leave in strategic places around the office (coffee tables, lunch room etc.)