Slashdot Mirror

I noticed a couple of interesting links on the UK Patent Office website that seem to pertain to that consultation exercise: Government Conclusions and Consultation Responses from citizens and industry.

There was talk in autumn 2000 about a 'consultative process' and the results were published in March 2001 (obviously an in-depth process) which effectively said: "Some think software patents are good, others think they are bad." (You get what you pay for, eh, what?).

In my humble and unprejudiced opinion, Patricia Hewitt is a brain-dead industry yes-woman ("...outsourcing is good. We have appointed the CEO of an Indian outsourcing company to determine the effects and will be reporting soon...").

Now all Apple needs is to find the boy's pal at the UK/US Patent Office, and the case is set.

Sorry to piss on your parade but the offical FAQ says you are wrong.

If I have a registered trade mark, does that automatically entitle me to use that mark as my domain name?

Not necessarily. Because the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services, someone else may also have legitimately registered the mark as their domain name

What can I do if someone has registered a domain name which I think should belong to me?

We suggest you take appropriately qualified legal advice. There are dispute resolution procedures operated, for example, by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) . And if you have a registered trade mark you may have legal remedies against someone who has registered the domain name simply for the purpose of profiting by its sale to the rightful trade mark owner.

Under American law maybe. Under UK law (which is what counts) no, the following is from the offical FAQ If I have a registered trade mark, does that automatically entitle me to use that mark as my domain name?

Not necessarily. Because the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services, someone else may also have legitimately registered the mark as their domain name

Do you see the diffrence?

IT doesn't matter what he does with it or even when he registered all that matter is the domain is legally his.

There's no requirement for someone (corporation or not) to run around the globe buying up every domain name they think they might need just in case.

No but in the internet age it would be a good idea to register the domain when you know that you are going to use a name.

if i wanted to i could tradmark iTunes for something completley diffrent from what apple's is.

from the offical FAQ

the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services.

Judging by your web site your not a lawer in the UK which has different laws from other countries.

First off that was a nice 404 you sent me to (check link). However from that website is was able to get the offical FAQ for Domain name VS tradmark disputes.

If I have a registered trade mark, does that automatically entitle me to use that mark as my domain name?

Not necessarily. Because the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services, someone else may also have legitimately registered the mark as their domain name. Seek advice from Nominet UK , who also offer a Dispute Resolution Service

If I have a registered domain name, does that automatically entitle me to a trade mark in the same name?

No. Even if your domain name has been properly registered, a similar trade mark may not satisfy the basic requirements for trade mark registration, or it may be confusingly similar with someone else's earlier mark. See our page "The examination process".

What can I do if someone has registered a domain name which I think should belong to me?

We suggest you take appropriately qualified legal advice. There are dispute resolution procedures operated, for example, by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) . And if you have a registered trade mark you may have legal remedies against someone who has registered the domain name simply for the purpose of profiting by its sale to the rightful trade mark owner.

info about what a trade mark is and what it covers. [hint] it doesn't entitle you to a domain name, also someone could legally trademark itunes as well so long as it was in a diffrent business[/hint]This is why in the first Apple corp Vs. Apple comp Apple corp didn't really have a leg to stand on but now that Apple have moved into music there second suit has a lot of legitamacy.

from the offical FAQ

the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services.

Judging by your web site your not a lawer in the UK which has different laws from other countries.

First off that was a nice 404 you sent me to (check link). However from that website is was able to get the offical FAQ for Domain name VS tradmark disputes.

If I have a registered trade mark, does that automatically entitle me to use that mark as my domain name?

Not necessarily. Because the same mark may be registered by different proprietors for different goods or services, someone else may also have legitimately registered the mark as their domain name. Seek advice from Nominet UK , who also offer a Dispute Resolution Service

If I have a registered domain name, does that automatically entitle me to a trade mark in the same name?

No. Even if your domain name has been properly registered, a similar trade mark may not satisfy the basic requirements for trade mark registration, or it may be confusingly similar with someone else's earlier mark. See our page "The examination process".

What can I do if someone has registered a domain name which I think should belong to me?

We suggest you take appropriately qualified legal advice. There are dispute resolution procedures operated, for example, by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) . And if you have a registered trade mark you may have legal remedies against someone who has registered the domain name simply for the purpose of profiting by its sale to the rightful trade mark owner.

info about what a trade mark is and what it covers. [hint] it doesn't entitle you to a domain name, also someone could legally trademark itunes as well so long as it was in a diffrent business[/hint]This is why in the first Apple corp Vs. Apple comp Apple corp didn't really have a leg to stand on but now that Apple have moved into music there second suit has a lot of legitamacy.

UK patent application GB0312175.3, someone already tried:

"The applicant appeared to be trying to protect the use of '0' and '1' in computer technology. [...] The applicant appeared to have completely misunderstood the patent system, and had not actually invented anything."

Via softwarepatents.co.uk. Well, at least *that* didn't get through. ARM's patent on the use of pointer arithmetic in CPU emulators *was* allowed, though.

No. The key phrase there is "temporary copy which is transient or incidental". Transferring the music from a CD to another format for storage is not considered temporary, transient or incidental, and is prohibitted by UK law.

More information is available here. (see the section "But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?").

Hrm... I think if you read a bit more carefully, as you'd see that she is located in the UK... I don't think that USPTO searches will help in that case.

It doesn't matter that she's in the UK because 1) Penguin's the one claiming rights (and they'd register everywhere if necessary, being an international company), 2) these things are generally protected by international treaty and 3), I couldn't find it in the UK either.

Seems like Penguin doesn't have the rights they think they do. And I don't believe book titles are automatically trademarked - I've seem some that were, making me believe the rest likely aren't by default.

I am pretty sure that his patent would have run out by now. Term on patents in the US is 20 years with a possible extension of 5 years if there was "Interference delay or secrecy orders [or] Extension for appellate review.1"

Also interesting to note that he just missed the first patent laws in the US. He died in 1790 and "George Washington signed the First United States Patent Grant on July 31, 1790, and the patent examiner was Thomas Jefferson.2"

Finally, as someone else mentioned, he was a British subject in 1752 when he invented the lightning rod and the earliest known British patent "was granted by Henry VI to Flemish-born John of Utynam in 1449. The patent gave John a 20-year monopoly for a method of making stained glass, required for the windows of Eton College, that had not been previously known in England.3"

1 - USC 35
2 - about.com
3 - UK Patent Office

Copyright only protects work that is distributed

*BBBZZZZZZZZT*

Wrong. Copyright protects any created work whether distributed or not. If I write a book and send it to a publisher who then publishes it without my permission they are breaching my copyright. I have not "distributed" my work but it is still protected. As soon as it it is "fixed" ie written down, it is protected by copyright.
UK Patent Office

US Patent Office

*lol* That is hilarious. For those that don't live in the EU I'd better explain the jokes.

Don't talk rubbish. The bad people in this are representatives of National Governements: they are the Bad Council Ministers. The good people are representatives of the people: elected members of the European Parliament, not beholden to National Government interests.

Your personal interests are pretty beholden to your nation, the freedoms it gives and the wealth it generates and you partake in. In the EU no-one has no idea who their EU representative and vote for their EU candidate along national party lines (which makes it doubly funny).

The European Parliament wants to guarantee my software and business method freedom. The freedom to write and share my creative work. And they frame it in quite noble and clear language too, so the good intent isn't easily twisted. It means I am free to do the work I want and invent and share all my best ideas, as much or as little as I want. It's my choice, I'm free, so I'm happy.

The European Parliament not just voted for software patents, taking away our (techie) freedoms, but the 'creative' works can also refer to the EU talking about extending copyright pretty much indefinately like the USA. The noble and clear language is a dig at the pathetic failed attempts at creating an EU constitution. Unlike the clear and noble US constitution, the EU one is a botched long incomprehensible one with the introduction being a self-congratulatory note to those that wrote it.

The UK Government wants to take away my software and business method freedom, making it illegal for me to publish my own code on my own web site and making it even more illegal to sell my own code. If I come up with an improvement to an existing idea, I cannot safely share my improvements in public. I can be sued, and go to jail if I cannot pay massive fines.

The UK government is one of the only government that came out clearly against software patents. You don't go to jail in the UK if you can't pay massive fines, you just declare yourself bankrupt. I know it's meant as barb against the US DMCA, but the joke falls a little flat as publishing crypto in the UK is still a bit of a touchy subject.

I have no special interest in being a member of the EU. But when the European Parliament would guarantee my freedom, and UK government if it was totally independent would take away my freedom, then I must support the European Parliament on that issue. Wouldn't you?

Again, mildly funny but the joke falls flat with the UK talking about ID cards. This subject comes around once every decade, and always falls flat on its face, but this time with 9/11 it's gone a lot further than it has ever done before :-(

Phillip.

In the UK, Lindows would also be in trouble under the doctrine of passing off. Canada seems to have that too, but not the US.

In the UK, Lindows would also be in trouble under the doctrine of passing off. Canada seems to have that too, but not the US.

No.

IBM Europe make it quite clear in its official response to consultations on the patentability of software in the EU, that it supports the patentability of software, and wants to see the software patents upheld, that have been controversially granted by the European Patent Office:

Patents abound in all areas of technology regardless of whether the technology is implemented using computer programs or not. Innovation in technology cannot be differentiated on the basis of whether computer programs form part of the invention. To adopt a more restrictive approach to patenting would prove a disincentive to innovation in almost all fields of technology to the detriment of research and development in Europe.

But IBM Europe thinks that things have gone too far in the United States, particularly as regards the patenting of business methods:

We argue that to require no more than a "useful, concrete and tangible result" in the broad sense currently being applied in the USA invites the patenting of ideas that may have been visualised as desirable but have no foundation in terms of the research or development to turn them into practical reality. IBM spends very substantial sums to develop products for the marketplace and must ensure the supply of products that are reliable, cost effective and meet the needs of the customer.

The quid pro quo in the grant of patents is the disclosure of technology that rests on the research and development activity generating the inventions. The rationale that applies for protecting technological innovation by patents is therefore absent for those business methods where no such technical contribution is made. It is important that the level of protection granted by a patent is commensurate with the technical contribution the inventor has made to the art. The danger of opening the door to the unrestricted patenting of business methods is that patents may be granted that foreclose business ideas with no requirement to disclose the technology that makes them practicable. Thus, whilst IBM supports the patenting of computer program implemented inventions based on technical innovation, we see no benefit to commercial activity in Europe from the patenting of commerce itself.

This register story gives the situation.

In Britain we have fair dealing, but it is quite restricted in scope, use appears to be limited to less than a "substantial part", ie if you can recognise the track from the clip it's substantial! Journalists it seems can do what they like (Copyright-wise) and claim it's research for a story.

The UKPO has this to say:

Do I always need permission to copy or use copyright material?
No, there are certain exceptions to the rights given to the copyright owner. For example, limited use of works may be possible for non-commercial research and private study, criticism or review, reporting current events, judicial proceedings and teaching in schools. But if you are copying large amounts of material and/or making multiple copies then you may still need permission. Also it is generally necessary to include an acknowledgement of the name of the copyright work and its author.

But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?
Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.

I'm not a trade mark lawyer, but this page seems to imply that there's no need for the word "Microsoft" to be used...

Step 1: Search Trademarks DB: for Fedora

Step 2: Note lack of registration for Red Hat Inc.

Step 3: Create 'Fedora the Magician'

Step 4: Sue

Step 5: ???

Step 6: PROFIT!

Please do a trademark search next time. Like here. And notice that Mandrake and Mandrake the Magician are both registered. So yeah, at least Mandrake "went to the trouble of Trademarking the name before announcing and using it."

this should be a wake-up call to ANYONE ... do your homework before settling on a name. (emphasis mine)

heh

There is a lot of EU laws like this that get proposed and never are passed. Even fewer that ever get adopted by the individual countries.

You know, that's exactly what people told me when I was campaigning against GATT and the formation of the WTO.

It's also exactly what people said when the even-more-extreme EU version of the DMCA was passed.

Guess what? Both pieces of legislation were adopted wholesale by the UK government; one by a Conservative government, the other by the "opposing" Labour government.

There are always plenty of complacent fools who sit around and say "Oh, it's just some EU law, it'll never actually happen." They were wrong then, they're wrong now.

When you go home from work you don't automatically stop thinking about it, even if you want to. Therefore I think it's fair that anything you invent that is related to your job should be owned by your employer, even if you think it up at when your tucked up in bed at night.

Here in the UK it is actually written into patent law so it's an automatic term everyone's employment contract.

Take a look at this part of the Patent Act 1977. Section 39 basically gives rights to your employer, but Section 40 gives you rights to compensation if it makes your company a fortune.

In Europe there are few cases ongoing, where a company Fixtures Marketing (who decides when and where the football (soccer) games are played) wants money from gambling comapnies because they are using the publicly available information about the games.

The Hogsta Domstolen seeks a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

1. In assessing whether a database is the result of a "substantial investment" within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 96/9/EC of 11 march 1996 on the legal protection of databases (the "database directive") can the maker of a database be credited with an investment primarily intended to create something which is independent of the database and which thus does not merely concern the "obtaining, verification or presentation" of the contents of the database? If so, does it make any difference if the investment or part of it nevertheless constitutes a prerequisite for the database?

AB Svenska Spel contends in this case that Fixtures Marketing Limited's investment is primarily concerned with the drawing up of the fixture lists for the English and Scottish football leagues and not with the databases where the data are stored. Fixtures marketing Limited, for its part, argues that it is not possible to distinguish the work for the purpose of planning the game and that the purpose of drawing up the fixture lists.

The rest of the story...

" Excuse me, but Big Mac is a registered trademark of McDonald's" ...lest consumers get confused between a burger and a supercomputer?

Trademarks are not unique: The patents and trademarks office returns 13 results for big mac, most of which are owned by McDonalds. As usual, you get a more accurate picture by looking at the official register, rather than running to the mcdonalds.com website for legal advise, but you can have many trademarks all using the same wording for different products.

On a related note, anything with a TM after it means that the company is trying to claim something which is not a trademark, as opposed to the R which indicates that they do indeed 'own' the trademark.

No, IP goes back thousands of years - it's copyright laws that were a radical idea in 1709 -they were largely adaptations to the fact that the growth of the printing press in the previous 200+ years had made the circulation of knowledge (specifically, the reproduction of texts) a hell of a lot cheaper than it had been back when every copy was the product of one person working for weeks with a pen. Intellectual property - ideas that are protected, as trade secrets, for instance - goes much, much further back. You see, way back in the 8th century BC, there were special groups who only taught certain texts, or certain scientific methodologies, to members of their group. The Homeridae (those who recited the Iliad and Odyssey), the Asclepiadae and Hippocratics (doctors), etc. This fact - that IP goes back to the ancient Greeks at least - is not a secret, even the British Patent Office knows about it.

Contact your local MEP (you have one, you know that?) explaining the problems with the US DMCA, and how the EU should avoid them in revising its own legislation . The subject is due to come up in the EU parliament again next month, so you'll be timely and on-topic.

You think it's simple to take a human process and automate it?

The innovation happened because the inventor was promised, by the patent system, a monopoly on the innovation. Without that promise, the innovation wouldn't have happened.

Furthermore, intellectual property rights aren't intended to do anything. They have no goal. We offer legal protection to intellectual property rights because it's the right thing to do. Period.

Indeed, that's why you have to make sure your wording can be interpreted as broad as possible.

How many patents have you written?

Seriously; I'm asking. Because, you see, you don't do this.

I guess you'll retard^H^H^Hort (look, it's infectious!) by throwing another bunch of petty insults in my general direction, so I'll leave it at this. If you really want to document yourself better, then stop worrying about job security for a moment and read a bit about it. Then maybe the next time you can reply with arguments instead of with insults.

I have no doubt about your knowledge of the patent system (and probably IP in general), but you sound like a mindless drone just repeating his mantra's over and over again, not listening to anyone else because he's convinced he's right and anyone who disagrees with him cannot possibly know what he's talking about, or is a "self-hating apologist" or some such (I'm honestly surprised you haven't called me a communist yet). I really do hope you have some happy moments from time to time as well.

Patents are as American as Apple Pie and Baseball as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, patents are as British as spotted dick and cricket. ;)

I'm an American too, but you have to lay credit (or blame) where it is due.

Europeans, please do something. Phone you MEPs on Monday (or leave a message today and phone again on Monday).

Patents are going to ruin the software industry by handing even more power to the companies that have vast bank accounts and legal team (i.e. the ones that really don't need this extra power).

Read about the affects of patents at:
http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/

Read the UK patent office's "consultation on software patents":
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/concl usions.htm

Examples of bad or missused software patents:
http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.html

Bad EU patents that have already been issued:
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/samples/index.en.htm l#pag
(these aren't really enforcable until software patents become clearly legal)

A good proposed amendment:
http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/index.en.html
(tell you MEPs to look at this, we have to unite with a definite proposal. Simply saying "we don't want software patents" doesn't give an MEP much to say)

Use the phone. Email is easily ignored. You'll often get answering machines so think of a short useful message to leave, mention the proposed amendment and tell them your sending them an email with the details.

Ciaran O'Riordan

The European Patent Office and the UK Patent Office both categorically state that "An invention is not patentable if it is: ... a mathematical method ... or a computer program.

Can someone please explain just which UK patent numbers apply to LZW or even better, explain how LZW circumvented the exclusion clauses. I note that Unisys did not mention the European patent numbers in their article.

A particularly interesting comment they made (with respect to business method patents, but equally applicable to software) was:

The Government's conclusion is that those who favour some form of patentability for business methods have not provided the necessary evidence that it would be likely to increase innovation.

This states that there has to be a clear benefit in order to change the status quo; businesses should have to show that without software patents they are unable to innovate. This is clearly not the case.

You can read an interesting summary of user comments here

A particularly interesting comment they made (with respect to business method patents, but equally applicable to software) was:

The Government's conclusion is that those who favour some form of patentability for business methods have not provided the necessary evidence that it would be likely to increase innovation.

This states that there has to be a clear benefit in order to change the status quo; businesses should have to show that without software patents they are unable to innovate. This is clearly not the case.

You can read an interesting summary of user comments here

I know it's bad form to follow up one's own reply but here's an interesting a record of a discussion last year about Software Patents in Europe.

Basically, at the moment, the EU doesn't recognise them!

Shows you how much you know. The *UK* Patent Office's defines a patent as so.

Notice the important bit:

An invention is not patentable if it is:

* a discovery;
* a scientific theory or mathematical method;
* an aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;
* a scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;
* the presentation of information, or a computer program.

US patents are *NOT* enforceable in the UK. You need a UK patent for that and as the UK doesn't recognise software patents, software patents are unenforceable in the UK.

Ok my statement about Europe may be a little broad but it's true for this country.

The German parliament which has just adopted DMCA-style provisions to outlaw the circumvention of technical protection measures that control and curtail the fair use of intellectual property (and only needs the other House's assent for part of the new legislation) makes Germany the third country, following Denmark and Greece, to implement the highly controversial "monstrosity" known as the European Union Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC.

This move, allegedly a "propaganda victory" dubbed "lex Bertelsmann" (after the giant media conglomerate expected to line their corporate pockets under the new laws) in furious disapproval by tech-savvy parts of the news media, makes Germany one of the early adopters setting an unfortunate precedent for further European countries like the UK and France whose citizens, and notably developers like Linux kernel guru Alan Cox, will probably not be spared from similar legislation for much longer either.

Although open-source researchers, cyber-rights activists and even the ruling Social Democrats' very own IT experts as well as hardware manufacturers underlined the severe dangers and inconsistencies of this new and doubtful philosophy extending copyright law to reduce many of the general public's rights to insignificance, in a debate focusing only on academic exemptions from the publishers' power grab, the opposition even tried to tighten the government's bill, ignoring widespread experiences of Chilling Effects such as censorship and assaults on the Freedom to Tinker during the past four years under the EUCD's U.S. counterpart of draconian "bad law and bad policy", the flawed Digital Millennium Copyright Act, another overreaching implementation of the

All hope abandon, as far as Europe is concerned...

...or could these developments still be stopped before setting a bad precedent for further countries such as the UK, which will probably not be spared from similar legislation for much longer either?

While this article assumes that Wednesday's approval by the Committee on Legal Affairs makes adoption of Germany's "DMCA" bill in plenary session on Friday "a mere formality" (as even the opposition's sole regret seems to be that fair use rights should have been curtailed even further), many of you sure wish to recount some experiences of the Chilling Effects from Four Years under the DMCA to the Members of the German Parliament about to repeat most of the DMCA's mistakes in their attempt to implement yet another overreaching implementation of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, the highly controversial "monstrosity" known as European Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC.

Article 6
Article 6 as a whole deals with the provision of legal protection for technological measures used by right holders to protect their works against unauthorised reproduction and other copyright infringements. As noted above under Article 1, Article 6 cannot apply to computer programs and Article 7.1(c) of Directive 91/250/ECC continues to have effect. The existing provision in the Act (s.296 as amended by SI 1992 No.3233) is therefore retained in respect of computer programs only (paragraph 5.1 of Annex A). (emphasis added)

I've seen lists of US top patenters, but don't know where they all are.

However, for an international perspective, you might look at the biggest patent-earners in the UK (primarily Japanese tech firms). It's on the last page of this PDF.

(And, it's a few years old...)

Quite strange that IBM doesn't show up there at all, when we know that domestically, it gets more patents than Kodak. (right?)

What is the copyright laws applicanle in the UK ?

Copyright Act 1988 states the following :
Duration of copyright in sound recordings and films.

13.--(1) Copyright in a sound recording or film expires--

(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is made, or

(b) if it is released before the end of that period, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is released.

(2) A sound recording or film is "released" when--

(a) it is first published, broadcast or included in a cable programme service, or

(b) in the case of a film or film sound-track, the film is first shown in public;

but in determining whether a work has been released no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.

source

or taken from the patent office

Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (including a photograph) lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. The duration of copyright in a film is 70 years after the death of the last to survive of the principal director, the authors of the screenplay and dialogue, and the composer of any music specially created for the film. Sound recordings, broadcasts and cable programmes are protected for 50 years, and published editions are protected for 25 years.

Source

So which is it ?

Why cant legislators just make up their minds and give us a definitive answer ?

It's extremely cool when someone VIOLATES the DMCA and could have potentially ruined their livelihood and end up in jail. Personally I don't understand how someone would be stupid enough to crack a program and release it non-anonymously

Simple. He's posting from a UK site, and has broken no local law. He might need to take legal advice before visiting the US though. MS lawyers might try some stunt but if I were them, I would just wait for the legislation to come into force then tweak the format again.

Coincidentally, it appears that the EUCD (Euro-DMCA) was meant to be implemented by now. However, it appears that the Patent Office had been lobbied into oblivion.

The European Union has passed a resolution for all its member states to implement DMCA-like copyright laws by the end of this year.

The European Union has passed a resolution for all its member states to implement DMCA-like copyright laws by the end of this year.

...And I tried to submit a story about it at the time. I guess jonerik has more luck than me.

My origonal submission, I think it is still relevant:

The UK Patent Office celibates it's 150 year anniversary this week.

A BBC Radio news show has decided to commemorate this by holding a poll of the public's favourite, and least favourite inventions of the last 150 years. The poll closes on Monday 21 October, so vote now.

In the radio item on the subject, the inventor James Dyson (of vacuum cleaner fame) was interviewed (text, audio), and gave his favourite and least favourite inventions. There was also an interview of the patent office's director of copyright

It is interesting to note that James Dyson chose to highlight as his favourite invention the example of Rubber vulcanisation where (in his opinion) the patent system failed because the inventor Charles Goodyear was refused a patent and died in poverty despite the value of his invention.

...And I tried to submit a story about it at the time. I guess jonerik has more luck than me.

My origonal submission, I think it is still relevant:

The UK Patent Office celibates it's 150 year anniversary this week.

A BBC Radio news show has decided to commemorate this by holding a poll of the public's favourite, and least favourite inventions of the last 150 years. The poll closes on Monday 21 October, so vote now.

In the radio item on the subject, the inventor James Dyson (of vacuum cleaner fame) was interviewed (text, audio), and gave his favourite and least favourite inventions. There was also an interview of the patent office's director of copyright

It is interesting to note that James Dyson chose to highlight as his favourite invention the example of Rubber vulcanisation where (in his opinion) the patent system failed because the inventor Charles Goodyear was refused a patent and died in poverty despite the value of his invention.

Drifting a bit off topic but....
"...This lead Jefferson et. al to set up the first patent board some 200 years ago..."

Of course, outside of the US, patent systems have been in existence much longer much than that. For a history of the UK's (one of the oldest stretching back about 500 years) try: Patent Origins

Sadly, I don't think the person your are about to see is likely to be impressed by reading Slashdot.

However, I DO think they might be impressed by The UK Government's Conclusions to the question: 'Should Patents be Granted for Computer Software or Ways of Doing Business'

I am active in the X-Box Linux effort, and based in the UK, it makes me very sad to read the summaries of this law here.

King Canute-style the people who make money from restricting availability of digital content have gotten more bad law made. As there is no technical fix for the erosion of their ability to overcharge, they instead try to bludgeon their customers into lying still.

The resources of the state, including the unique powers to punish and deprive citizens of money and liberty will soon be being applied to individuals in the name of enriching the copyright holders. This is so inappropriate its ludicrous.

I admired Janis Ian's second article reminding the legislators that they are voted in. But look at the incestuousness between these 'copyright holders' and the media that politicians need to influence the masses that vote for them! How far would a party get if it stood on a platform of de-emphasising these laws (I say that because no one country can strike them from the books, this being an EC law).

However, there is one bright light untouched by this. Linux, GPL software in general, stands as the opposition to this IP world. At the cost of 'dropping out' from using programs and media that is not free, you can still get by. So my prediction is that this historic force of giving hugely excessive power to copyright holders across the world will polarize people all the more and give the whole free knowledge philosophy a huge boost, turning many of us into mini-Stallmans.

Today's Internet is a poor respecter of national boundaries, as many repressive governments have found to their cost. Unfortunately this freedom has been so extensively abused by the United States and its politicians, lawyers and programmers that it has become a serious threat to the continued survival of the network as a global communications medium. If the price of being online is to swallow US values, then many may think twice about using the Net at all, and if the only game online follows US rules, then many may decide not to play.

Go ahead and think twice about using the internet, even think about it three times, if you like. I don't think I would even mind all that much if you don't "decide to play."

We have already seen US law, in the form of Digital Millennium Copyright Act, used to persuade hosts in other countries to pull material or limit its availability. US-promoted 'anti-censor' software is routinely provided to enable citizens of other countries to break local laws; and US companies like Yahoo! disregard the judgements of foreign courts at will.

Instead of complaining about the DCMA, why don't you complain about the EUCD, the European Union Copyright Directive, the equivalent EU legislation to the DMCA? Do you believe that it won't be used to persuade hosts in other countries to pull material or limit its availability? And as for the anti-censor software, heaven forbid if a few Chinese are actually able to read the BBC News, in violation of their local laws. You are right, that is a terrible thing.

Congressman Howard Berman's ridiculous proposal to give copyright holders immunity from prosecution if they hack into P2P networks is the latest attempt by the US Congress to pass laws that will directly affect every Internet user, because no US court would allow prosecution of a company in another jurisdiction when immunity is granted by US law.

This isn't law yet, and probably will never get passed, but even if it did, I am sure this power would only be used on machines within the U.S., since those activities would be illegal in those countries.

Unless we can take back the Net from the libertarians, constitutional lawyers and rapacious corporations currently recreating the worst excesses of US political and commercial culture online, we will end up with an Internet which serves the imperial ambitions of only one country instead of the legitimate aspirations of the whole world.

Rapacious corporations? Don't you think that is a slight over-statement of the situation? How would a whole corporation actually rape you anyway, some sort of giant cluster-fuck?

While this would greatly please the US, it would not be in the interests of the majority of Internet users, who want a network that allows them to express their own values, respects their own laws and supports their own cultures and interests.

US domination has been going on for so long that many see it as either inevitable or desirable. 'They may have their problems but at least they believe in democracy, free speech and the market economy', the argument goes. Yet today's United States is a country which respects freedom so much that if I, a European citizen, set foot there I can be interned without any notice or due process, tried by a military tribunal and executed in secret.

Yes, that is our standard operating procedure for handling all European tourists. First, you get to see the Statue of Liberty. Second, you get to go to Disney World. Third, you are interned without any notice or due process, tried by a military tribunal and executed in secret. It is a very popular bundle deal, available from any good travel agent.

It has a government which respects free speech yet tries to persuade postal workers to spy on people as they delivered their mail. Its Chief Executive illegally sold shares when in possession of privileged information about an impending price crash. ICANN, the body it established to manage DNS, had to be ordered by a court to let one of its own directors examine the company accounts for fear he may discover something untoward. And elected representatives -like the aforementioned Howard Berman -are paid vast amounts by firms lobbying for laws which serve their corporate interests.

Heads are rolling from all of the stock market mess, and I am sure many more will. What you accuse Bush of doing, if it is true, will most certianly bring him down. As for ICANN, they were ordered to release the records. If they weren't, then there would be a problem.

These are clearly not the people who should be setting the rules for the Net's evolution. Unfortunately today's Internet, with its permissive architecture and lack of effective boundaries or user authentication, makes it almost impossible to resist this technological imperialism.

Who trusts you, baby?

Fortunately the technology itself - in the form of trusted computer architectures, secure networks and digital rights management - can be used to rescue the Net from US control.

These developments, reviled and criticised by those inside and outside the continental United States who hold on to an outdated and unrealistic view of what the Net was or could become, are the key to its future growth and usefulness. Whatever the libertarians say, they must be defended, promoted - and properly controlled.

You were just complaining about the DMCA, but now you are in support of digital rights management? That is rather contradictory. Something you seem to fail to realize about libertarians is that, above all, the seek personal liberty, hence their name. A popular quote for libertarians that sums up nearly all of their beliefs is "better to die a free man than to live a slave." They will never be "properly controlled".

I believe that the time has come to speak out in favour of a regulated network; an Internet where each country can set its own rules for how its citizens, companies, courts and government work with and manage those parts of the network that fall within its jurisdiction; an Internet that reflects the diversity of the world's legal, moral and cultural choices instead of simply propagating US hegemony; an Internet that is subject to political control instead of being an uncontrolled experiment in radical capitalism. It is time to reclaim the net from the Americans.

For you to reclaim something, you need to have had a claim on it to begin with. The American claim to the Internet (it was developed by the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Administration, originally for the U.S. Department of Defense) is tenous at best, but the European claim is non-existant.

This will not be easy. In order to do this we have to reject two beliefs that underpin our current understanding of the Net, and these beliefs, although wrong, are dear to many.

The first is the idea that the Internet is somehow outside or above the real world and its national boundaries. If I phone someone in Nigeria and suggest a money-laundering fraud then it is obvious to all that I am breaking the law in two countries, not in 'phonespace'. Nobody has ever suggested that the content of the telephone network -all those voice calls -should be somehow privileged and treated as outside the normal world.

Why, then, do we act as if our interactions with screen, mouse and keyboard are different? If I send an email suggesting that I am in possession of $50m and will hand it over in return for your bank details, why can't it just be that I also am breaking the law in two countries, not in some mythical 'cyberspace' with its own legal system?

If you were to do this, even via e-mail, you would be breaking the law in two countries, and if that e-mail message were found, you would be convicted, regardless of the message being e-mail. Where did you get the idea that you wouldn't?

Losing the idea of 'cyberspace' simplifies things greatly.

Quite correct, losing ideas, in general, simplifies things greatly.

The other thing we need to lose is the ridiculous belief that when we are online we are somehow in 'another place' outside the real world. We need to reject the philosophical bullshit which argues that there is an equivalence between being simultaneously a 'citizen' of Maine and of the United States and our co-existence in the real world and the online world *, and accept instead the mundane reality that nobody has any real form of existence online - either now or in the foreseeable future.

How is this idea any different from the first? Idea 1: the Internet is somehow outside or above the real world and its national boundaries. Idea 2: that when we are online we are somehow in 'another place' outside the real world. They sound like the same idea to me.

This makes our discussion a lot simpler because we no longer have to grapple with the idea of having two forms of existence - the one that involves breathing, pissing and fucking and the one that involves typing. We don't have to stretch our legal or constitutional thinking to cope with the apparent contradiction of being in 'two places' with different standards of behaviour at the same time.

We can also deal with the problems of jurisdiction for online activity in the same way as we deal with it elsewhere: in the UK we're perfectly happy to prosecute someone for war crimes committed fifty years ago in another country, so why are there problems if the crime involved the Internet? Under English law a sex tourist can be prosecuted here even if he has sex with a child in Thailand: surely prosecuting someone for promoting racial hatred on a US-hosted website can't be that different?

You were complaining about the possibility of being tried and convicted in the U.S., for committing a capital offense (one great enough to warrant the death penalty), yet you think Americans should be tried and convicted in England for presenting a dissenting viewpoint in a public venue?

This is not to claim that these issues are all simple, resolvable and determinate, just to point out that we already have legal systems - admittedly imperfect - in place that can deal with them mostly adequately, most of the time. In general the few exceptions are not allowed to be used as arguments for making bad law. We must not allow the Net to be the biggest exception, creating the worst law of all.

Brave Old World

This is hard for many old-time Net users to accept, because we like the idea that being online takes us into a new space, a new world. But it is simply not the case: we are not creating a brave new online world out of our electrons and pixels. It is all one world - the only difference is that we currently lack the ability to map our online activity onto our real-world lives with any degree of certainty. The result is that cyberspace appears somehow to be divorced from the physical world - but this is just an artifact of our current technologies and not a fundamental principle.

Actually, the program Xtraceroute can show where a computer is physically (in 3D), and show the route your data is taking to get there, rather easily.

Once we clear our minds of these erroneous beliefs we can see that the US has no right to determine how the whole Internet is run. Each country should decide for itself. All we need to do is to mark out the network, using trusted computers and secure networks to locate servers, hosts, networks and people within geographically-defined areas - or nation states as they are usually known - and let the countries get on with it. We can establish the rule of law, national sovereignty and local values in those parts of the network that fall within the jurisdiction of a particular country, and let normal diplomatic, cultural and commercial channels deal with the interaction between countries.

This would not stop the US treating its Constitution as the only true source of wisdom or framing their discussions in terms that draw only from the US political and economic tradition. But if they decide to run their part of the Net according to the principles laid down two hundred and fifty years ago by a bunch of renegade merchants and rebellious slave owners they would not be able to force the rest of us to follow suit.

My ancestor at the time was both a renegade merchant and a rebellious slave owner, not just one or the other. I guess he was something of an over-achiever.

If they want a First Amendment online, or to let some gun-toting nut argue that writing viruses is the online equivalent of carrying a concealed weapon and so counts as a constitutionally protected right then they can go ahead - the rest of us can do things differently. ('Viruses don't trash hard drives - people trash hard drives.')

Why don't you just use an operating system that doesn't get viruses? I personally recommend FreeBSD. Oh, and that reminds me, I need to clean my rifle.

A cyberspace in which each machine is 'within' a jurisdiction and where actions can be mapped onto physical space will be very different from today's Internet.

In the mapped network we will not have the absolute freedom of speech which cyberlibertarians claim they want, but neither will we get absolute oppression, absolute free market capitalism or even absolute communism. We will instead get compromise, and regional or national variation, just as in the real world.

Heaven forbid an internet with absolute free speech. It is a good thing you came up with a solution to that problem.

Many will see this as a loss of freedom, but the freedom they value so much is also the freedom to act irresponsibly, to undermine civil authorities and to escape liability. It is the freedom to release viruses, abuse personal data, send unlimited spam and undermine the copyright bargain. It is not a freedom we need.

It is easy to see why this approach will be resisted by US activists, of whatever political persuasion, who see the 'one world, one cyberspace' approach as a convenient way to establish an online constitutional hegemony. It will also be resisted by many of those who see any attempt to create trusted software running on secure processors as the network equivalent of the arrival of the black helicopters from the UN World Government Army.

However their position is untenable, because the vast majority of Internet users need and want a secure network where they can use email, look at Websites, shop, watch movies and chat to friends, and they are happy to accept that this is a regulated space just as most areas of life are.

To quote one of those renegade merchants and rebellious slave owners, Ben Franklin, "He who gives up a little liberty in order to gain security, deserves neither liberty nor security." Do you actually think that your ability to shop online is more important than my freedom of speech?

Even if we don't act we will still get a regulated network, because the commercial interests which dominate the US know that it is a prerequisite for a digital economy. However the shape of that network will be entirely determined by US interests, just like today. It is therefore vital that a different approach to the development of the Internet is proposed -and I believe that Europe is the place for it to start.

Bring it back

Europe is the birthplace of the Web, with a wealthy, technically literate population, a network infrastructure that rivals that of the US and a rich cultural and political tradition which can counter US constitutional imperialism.

The U.S. is not under constitutional imperialism, that would require an emperor supported by a constitution, similar to England's constitutional monarchy. However, we dislike monarchs greatly.

An important factor in Europe's favour is that we retain a belief that governments are a good thing, that political control is both necessary and desirable, and that laws serve the people. These beliefs are now lacking in the United States, rendering it incapable of acting to create any sort of civic space online or allowing its government to intervene effectively to regulate the Net.

Does this mean that the broad control of the Internet by the U.S. government that you were talking about earlier will never happen, since we would hang our Senators before even half of it was put in force?

The recently-agreed .eu ccTLD could be a rallying point for a serious attempt to extend the EU online, adopting new standards for trusted computing, regulating their use within EU countries and establishing a European dataspace which would grow over time to become a major node in the emerging trusted network that will replace today's Internet.

It will take political will and technological skill to do this, and it will not be achievable overnight. But if we are to escape a world where corporations build systems which are only capable of supporting US-style online government, or where trusted software is a trojan horse carrying the US constitution into our online life when we neither want nor need it, then we need to act now.

That's right folks, all software written in America secretly contains the entire text of The U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. For example, in Microsoft Word you can access this dangerous material by pressing Control-Alt-U, Control-Alt-S, Control-Alt-A.

A trusted network will not stop the Americans - or anyone else - opting out and remaining with their existing unregulated Internet. Just like the survivalists heading out to Oregon with their assault weapons and dried food, those who don't want to be part of the great online civilisation could establish their own enclaves, where they would be free to run the code of their choice.

Do you mean like an isolated enclave from the "great internet civilization" for all of Europe with methods in place to avoid pesky freedoms like freedom of speech?

But inside Europe our values, our principles and our legal system can determine how our part of the Net is run. Personal data would be protected by law, and those who abused the information provided to them by individuals would be prosecuted. Data flows into and out of Europe would be properly regulated and controlled to ensure that neither spam nor viruses came in, and that no personal data went out without explicit consent.

This would, of course, work wonderfully, because there are no spammers or virus-writers in Europe.

In Europe our copyright laws allow lending of material, and so media players licensed for use within the dataspace would not restrict personal copying or lending, although they would respect other rights.

So that you can "lend" American media content to your friends?

In Europe community standards for freedom of speech differ substantially from those of the United States, where any sensible discussion is crippled by the constitution and the continued attempts to decide how many Founding Fathers can stand on the head of a pin.

Yes, standards for freedom of speech do differ substantially in Europe. They apparently seem to be rather lacking. As for Founding Fathers standing on the head of a pin, 27 will fit, exactly.

Over here, human rights legislation, interpreted by judges who are able to use their intelligence instead of just relying on textual analysis of the Bill of Rights, gives us a much better chance of tying online action to the real world and integrating cyberspace with real space in way that benefits both.

In the end, William Gibson was wrong: cyberspace is not another place, it's just part of this space. There is no 'there, there' : in fact, it isn't really there at all. The illusion is, in the end, only an illusion, however consensual it may be. Not only does 'meatspace rule', but 'meatspace rules rule' - the laws and regulations that govern the Net, whether they are legal, social, architectural or code-based, will all come from the real world, where judges, lawyers, programmers, politicians and - in some way -citizens get to decide how our online activities and our real world lives mesh and are linked.

The United States is incapable, for the reasons I've described, of understanding this or of escaping its constitutionally-determined destiny to attempt to establish hegemony over cyberspace.

It cannot be allowed to succeed, and so those of us within Europe need to begin to work now to extend our culture onto the Net in all its complex glory. We need to build our borders online and offer our citizens protection within those borders, and escape from America.

If the U.S. is incapable of achieving it, then why does Europe need to go out of it's way to make sure the U.S. doesn't succeed? Is anyone making Europeans go to American wevsites, or do they just provide better content?

* Much as I like Lessig's work, he just goes too far here. I blame law school. Being a Cambridge philosopher manqué I tend to have a more brutal constructivist approach to this sort of thing.

I am sure Cambridge is real glad that you are serving as an example of what they will let graduate.

© Bill Thompson.

Should that copyright be viable outside of Europe? Can I "lend" your work to others in the U.S.?

For all you cynics out there that think you can't do anything to stop this:

1) The UK Patent Office undertook a consultation exercise into extending European patent law to cover software and business methods in the same way as in the US. They only had 285 responses - 241 individuals and 44 organisations. See their conclusions from the exercise. In particular:

"To extend patentability so that these developers have to divert time and effort into making sure they are not infringing patents, and seeking and enforcing them, would impose a major burden. The necessary case for believing that a significant extension of patentability would increase innovation in this field simply has not been made. In fact, as many respondents suggested, it could have the opposite effect."

They will have an influence on the European patent office. Other influences may prove stronger - the battle is not yet over.

2) A couple of months ago, the government in the UK was planning on making everyone's phone records (including mobile phone location data) and internet data (URLs visited and emails sent and received (header details, I think - not sure) available to many government departments, local councils and even private utility companies. There was a large outcry here. People were encouraged to fax and write to their MPs. What happened? The legislation was withdrawn, and the minister responsible, David Blunkett (a SENIOR government minister) even apologised about it.

Yes, these ARE different issues. But when a change in the law like this is being proposed, if you go about it in the correct manner you can have a (small) influence on what happens. If enough people get involved, you can have a major influence.

Let's see if I can summarize (sorry I don't have the specific links/cases anymore):

• in many countries, pretty much everything is copyrighted even if I don't put all the (C), all rights reserved, yada yada. By default all websites are copyrighted.
• Claiming anything on the internet is 'public use' or the like is total crap. It does not absolve you of copyright law breaches.
• keeping copies of copyrighted things is a Bad Thingtm to do
• If you sell technology that does keep copy of stuff, as well as going after your customers, they can go after you.

Sure, the google cache is useful. I use it myself. It's always amazed me that it is that useful, because the only reason they have anything in the cache is due almost entirely to the good will of anyone who owns that content.

There's some good sites around, including UK gov't, Stanford and the copyright website. I'm not affiliated with any of them...