Slashdot Mirror

it needs the "http://" in front of it. Slashdot.org's servers think it is a link to a local page, because there of the no "http://". Here is a working link

NoSoftwarePatents.com

Great HTML wizardry there, Slashdot.

Here is a clickable link: htttp://www.NoSoftwarePatents.com.com

what happens if somebody sues a Chinese company. Can't China just claim that they will not honor any software patents on any software or on Linux specifically? It's not like they have a history of respecting other countries IP rights.

Listen to this speech (mp4 audio, 3.9 MiB) given by David Martin from M-CAM at the FFII conference on software patents from last week. His company is specialised in assessing the value of patent portfolios and technology transfers. Here's part of a transcript of his speech:

For the last five years, the United states has had a very active policy of actually the alleging the Chinese steal things. They steal things, they're bad people because they steal things. That's a very funny position, and it's couched in the "you don't respect intellectual property".

So what you have is, you know Chinese don't respect intellectual property, therefore they steal things, therefore because MPAA and RIAA say that they steal things, we have to all tell the masses "yes, in fact, they steal things".

There's a funny reality unfolding. The funny reality is that the Chinese are actually saying "I wonder if you can pull the pin out of the grenade and throw it back". And by that I mean this: what if the patents that are being asserted to be stolen or copied or infringed aren't actually worth the paper they're being printed on and what if the Chinese using their sovereign rights actually challenge those patents.

What would happen then? Well let's play that tape for a little bit more because I think at last calculation 43% of the US currency is actually owned by the Chinese, because we are very fond of debt. We're extremely fond of debt, so much so that we've sold our currency to the Chinese and they currently own our debt.

Now add to that the fact that they also have a lot of people and a lot of resources to call into question the due process of all bad patents. Guess what happens. Who wins? I'm gonna submit to you that everybody loses.

Listen to the rest of his speech for more. I guarantee you it'll be worth your while. For the record, he concludes his speech with

"If we don't actually confront the integrity problem, which says that we are stimulated to issue garbage (...), we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."

Nice to hear that from someone in the field, isn't it?

Poland just recently decided against supporting software patents in the EU. Does that mean they will not respect other countries' patents on software or just that they will not go along with Europe issuing them?

Unlike in the US, the introduction (or not) of software patents in Europe is being handled via a legislative process (as opposed to purely via case law). For an overview of the legislative process, have a look here. The bottom line is that it's currently the turn of the European Council of Ministers, which has to reach a qualified majority for one text or another. The current text is hardcore pro-unlimited patentability.

Now Poland has confirmed they do not support that text (they weren't even formally asked after a break in a meeting in May where some fake compromise amendments were introduced, and where a political agreement was reached). Together with a change of voting weights that went into effect on 1st November (because of the expansion of the EU), this means there is no longer a qualified majority for the current text.

So it has nothing to do with not respecting other countries' patents. Besides, a patent is always only valid in the country it has been granted in, that's how pat

• ZDnet: Patent opponents claim success
• Infoworld: Polish rejection may derail EU patent directive
• The Inquirer: Poland scuppers EU software patents directive
• EDRI: Poland blocks EU Software Patent directive
• NoSoftwarePatents.com: Polish Cabinet Against Software Patents

See also FFII's Breaking News wiki

The Council of Ministers' first reading text had been scheduled for fast-track approval before the end of the year, probably by Agriculture and Fisheries ministers.

• ZDnet: Patent opponents claim success
• Infoworld: Polish rejection may derail EU patent directive
• The Inquirer: Poland scuppers EU software patents directive
• EDRI: Poland blocks EU Software Patent directive
• NoSoftwarePatents.com: Polish Cabinet Against Software Patents

See also FFII's Breaking News wiki

The Council of Ministers' first reading text had been scheduled for fast-track approval before the end of the year, probably by Agriculture and Fisheries ministers.

"In May, Belgium voted to abstain, and though I cannot speak for the Belgium government, we have been extremely encouraged by meetings we have had with officials in Belgium and are cautiously optimistic that they may change their vote to yes," MacGann said.

Should Belgium decide to approve the Council's version of the directive, Poland's change of heart would not keep the "Patentability of Computer-implemented Inventions" from being formally approved and the legislation would then move to a second reading in the Parliament, where the contentious debate would continue, MacGann said.

According to NoSoftwarePatents.com, MacGann has got his sums wrong.

But this vote won't be over until it's over.

Anyway...does anyone know when the big showdown in the euro-pariament is going to be?

Patents on software are just as wrong as expanding the patent system to literature.
With patents on story elements, no movie could be published without having to firstly check whether there is any general idea in the storyline that someone patented during the last 20 years. Here's an example: At first sight, Dirty Dancing and Titanic are two very distinct movies. However, if there were patents on story elements, then the makers of Dirty Dancing could have sued the studio of Titanic. Both movies have a scene in which a poor boy takes a rich girl from a party of her social peers to a dancing party of his group, and she enjoys it. Dirty Dancing came out only nine years before Titanic, so any patent would still have been in force. No one knows whether James Cameron had that Dirty Dancing scene in mind as he wrote the Titanic script. Maybe Cameron never saw Dirty Dancing but the patent (if it existed) could be used against him anyway.