Slashdot Mirror
EU Study Looks At Software Patents
Cardinal Biggles writes: "A study into software patents commissioned by the EU seems to conclude that software patents are OK, it's just the U.S. Patent Office that sucks. It addresses Open Source, but seems to suggest that Open Source projects should get patents of their own, and finance their project using the licensing fees. Meanwhile, the European Commission has opened a public consultation on whether software should be patentable. The request for comments itself, IMHO, sounds not very neutral about software patents. You can get your comments in until 15-Dec-2000!" The study appears to be pretty thorough. And I advise any European developers who care to get their comments in about software patents! It's your career...
--
--
You are a fucking moron.
I know people try to steal copyright, but authors have caught on, and now assert their copyright explicitly.
If copyright is breached, the owner can sue for plagiarism etc, without needing to get involved in patents at all.
I always though patents were meant to be applicable to products/processes, rather than documents - which is what source listings are.
Apart from from the copyright expiring (which may not be relevant in a fast-moving environment) what else makes this impractical?
There are much larger problems at hand in government's relationship to industry anyway (i.e. bribes seem to be de facto legal). Focus on solving those first, and then worry about details like patents.
We're on the road to Tycho.
I for one am going to write a snailmail letter both to my representative in the Parliament and the Commission (lucky to have one) and urge him investigate this matter and act against software patents. I've got a couple of friends whom I've managed to get to act as well.
The time to act is now!
This is why Stallman's Free Software vs. Open Source Software argument is so important. Free software can go to hell, as far as this study is concerned.
Screw the poor! Line the pockets of the rich!
#include <IANAL.h>
Patents cover the use of *methods* of doing something. And, in many cases, you need to use it commercially in order to infringe. OpenSource refers to a particular *implementation* of that method. It is possible to keep a method patented, and still release an OpenSource implementation of that method. People can get the software and play with it all they want, but they need to license the *patent* if they want to use the method embodied in that patent, regardless of whether they use the OpenSource implementation or roll their own. One example of this is the Visualization Toolkit (VTK) software library. Some components of this toolkit contain methods patented by GE Corporate R&D (where VTK was originally developed) and Kitware , a company started up by two of its original authors. The vast majority of VTK does not involve any patents, and all the code is OpenSource, but if you need to use one of the pieces that implements a patented technique, and you want to use it in a commercial product, you need to license the patent from whoever owns it.
I've submitted about this study 4 days ago, but then it got rejected. Nice to see that it was about me, not the US-centered bias of the ./
okay, in theroy caopyrights expire too, but there will be none (in the US) that expire for the next 20 years or so... Patents expire, and in a fairly short timeframe.
When I think of all the old games that I used to love on my 8 bit atari, well all are copyrighted, and so I cannot legally copy them anymore. with 5-1/4 disks going bad all the time there isn't much that we can legally do to save those classics. If those games were patented instead, at least I could legally copy them. (Note, that I still don't think patents should apply to whole games, maybe the concept, but not the game)
I think that software patents should be allowed, but not yet! That is until we get to the point where a new software takes a lot of work to devolpe, and most concepts are worked out we shouldn't allow patents. Once things have settled down, sure you can patent your auto-spell checker in your word processor, because word processors as a concept a mature. However you shouldn't be able to patent a GUI menuing system because these systems are still undergoing research and are not mature. (This is an example, please don't disagree with the examples, disagree with the idea behing them)
From the article:
It is clear however that the United States provides the best test case as the United States has the greatest experience with patents on computer program related inventions.
1.On the one hand there is abounding evidence that the profitability and growth of independent and SME software developers in the States has often been to a significant extent dependent on possession of patent rights. (For how patents help, see above.)
2.On the other hand, there is deep concern
2.1 that patents are being granted on trivial, indeed old, ideas and that consideration of such patents let alone attacking such patents is a major burden, particularly on SME and independent software developers
2.2 that patents may strengthen the market position of the big players; and
2.3 that the computer program related industries are examples of industries where incremental innovation occurs and that there are serious concerns whether, in such industries, patents are welfare enhancing.
Perhaps we should adopt the UK's method of registering patents. Allowing BT to patent hyperlinking (in spite of prior art) would help 'the little guy,' as opposed to the oh-so-cruel-and-different US patent process.
Yes, our patent system is very f'ed up. So is yours. Have a nice day.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Damn right. With blaring examples like the Cue:Cat's base64+XOR "encryption method", and Amazon.com's "One click shopping", it's a wonder that the government hasn't taken action to refine the requirements for a patent. Then again, Congress is really delayed as it is (debates, quorum calls, and filibusters; oh my!).
On a side note, for the person who wanted to patent the "no click banner ad", you've been beaten to the punch. A web casino already did something like that two years ago with a Java applet; whenever you hover your pointer over the banner ad, your browser goes there. However, it got annoying as hell and died.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
From the article: Interested parties, the public at large and Member States are invited to comment until 15 December 2000 on the basis of this consultation paper.
Most /. readers work with free software in one way or another; therefore we are interested parties. So where do we add our comments? I saw no "Reply" button or anything on the page.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Ok I think US Patent Office has been doing the MOST STUPID THING. However the proud of the European Commission on claiming that US Patents fail because they are technological arts is even more dumb.
What is software? A technological art. The windows, mouses, clicks, arrows, links, pages are all ABSTRACTIONS. Once I wrote here to pick some guy from Amazonia and to show him what we see on our screens. I wonder what he would say.
All software and even hardware is a mixture of mathematics, logic, empirics and our capacity to abstract. Tell me what is the command ping. Can anyone tell me exactly say what this thing is? Yeah most would say "it tests the link between two computers". But take a look at your early days and try to remember how hard it was to understand the "ms", the address names, the IP numbers and all the sequence they made. Ignorance? Correct. Until the abstraction reached you. So that you forget to remind that "ping 127.0.0.1" may not fitunder such definition. So you correct to "link between devices". However lo always remains a software abstraction as it possesses no real device.
I think that US Patent Office had VERY GOOD INTENTIONS when first it started to patent software. And it was correctly patenting them as they are in fact a technological art. Only short-sightness spoiled things. US Patent Office should clearly not to be blame on this. No one could ever dream on what computers would turn into. Yesterday, they were simple algorithms you launched through punch cards and got results in a printer terminal. Today they are Second Reality. A world that even substitutes our existing one and even dominates it. A world getting deeper and deeper into Abstraction. A world no Dali would ever imagine in his wildest dreams.
Now technocrat Europe tries to make a bigger error. My, my, software development will be possible only in Russia. No wonder that now we are already on the top. No kidding people! Try to take a look at this:
http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i08/08a04301.htm
And btw: Patenting software and even hardware is FORBIDDEN here. They are considered as Works of Art and fall into copyright laws...
... and it wouldn't be an open open source platform. Nor would any license that tried to do such a thing be enforcible in any real way. I'm sure if RMS thought he could get away with it, he would try it.
I wonder who they talked to about this. The comments about open source are really glaringly ignorant. Even the trade rags haven't said anything this stupid in a _long_ time.
Oh, and how do you propose to pay for your open source patents?
The EU are right on the ball with this, referring to Open Source. Open Source projects have money, from IBM etc.; they can pay for patents, which suits the Vested Interests just fine.
It leaves out every kind of Free however. Tough.
I was talking to someone from WIPO yesterday about the importance of supporting people like me: free software programmers. Small inventors (in effect) who do not want to make pots of cash through monopolising our inventions. I prefer other ways to make pots of cash.
The person from WIPO really believed that WIPO's work towards easier world-wide patents will help the small inventor. Sometimes true, for those who want to make pots of cash through a monopoly on an idea. But for me? They take away my freedoms and give me what I don't want in return.
We must fight for our intellectual property rights. I.e. the right to think and create independently, and to freely share our thoughts and creations. That right is never really taken away, but there's a big difference between world-wide agreements to permit it, and world-wide agreements which punish you for it.
Even if the world's governments, economic systems and means of administering "justice" change for the better, agreements like the international patent treaties have a powerful long-term effect that will take a long time to reverse. Because everyone will have to agree to undo an unfortunate promise they made earlier. It's reversible, but difficult and much pain is to be had. Much better to avoid the mistake in the first place.
Dearest EU, your economy and quality of life are developing very well without software patents. You do not have to emulate the US of A to attain what you see as its successes. You can do it yourselves, as you are doing already. There's a great deal of strength, wisdom and heart among your members. And a great deal of good, lucrative technology is blossoming right now, within the EU's tradition of technological collaboration. Take a look at your own successes. They are where your strength lies. Enjoy.
Finance Open Source projects through licensing fees?
:) Well, if you hold the copyright(and if you're the author, you do), and Mr. Big Software Company Exec would like to make a proprietary app that links against your code, you can let him, either for free or for a wad of cash. You own the copyright, you set the licensing terms.
Further proof that the Eurocrats are basically nitwits who couldn't get work in their own countries!
Oh, pay attention. An open-source project can make money, TODAY, using the same principle.
You have a GPL'd library. A good one. No proprietary app can link against it, either! Sounds great, eh?
It's the same idea with patents. You patent a rather ingenious algorithm, and make an open source(GPL) implementation. For anyone else to use that algorithm, they have to get permission from you, else they'd be in violation of patent laws. In this case, EVERYONE has to ask permission(unfortunatly, this includes Open Source initiatives). It's really no different than with the regular GPL using copyright laws. Except it applies to everyone, so you can deny other Open Source initiatives the priveledge of using your patented algorithm.
Yeah, that's not the best, but it's not like you make it out to be.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Then the corporate attorneys would speak. I specifically remember Borland's corp attorney saying what a wonderful thing software patents would be. Towards the end of the "hearing", a developer pointed out the fact that the overwhelming majority of developers present had testified against the idea and Lehman, an attorney, mused about how interesting that was. Damn lot of good it did - he knew a great welfare-for-attorneys scam when he saw one.
They really shouldn't call them "hearings" - "ventings" would be a better term since the outcomes tend to be pre-determined.
Software patents - did I mention I'm agin em?"
I highly respect Dali's works and they are among those I like most. However I think that the father of Surrealism would get pretty scared about what we are doing now. Sincerly it is a pitty that he died too early. In terms of computer revolution I mean. I wonder what he would think about this mess we have today...
:)
S. Dali in 2000: "You see? I was right!"
For everyone that didn't know, there is an online petition which is trying to stop exactly this. Everyone go and sign it to try and make sure that software patenting doesn't happen in Europe
--
SaZZer "Life is a lesson, you learn it when you're through", Limp Bizkit, M:I-2 Theme
Of course, to do the first scenario, you have to make sure that you own a copyright on ALL of the code in your project. Right now if I write a GPL'd library or app, I can cut and paste from, say, emacs or gcc or some random GNOME or KDE stuff. If I want to be able to sell it, I can't do that, since I don't have permission to let other people use the code in a proprietary way.
It seems like this removes one of the big advantages of free software, code reuse. You can't reuse ANYTHING GPL'd that you don't own if you intend to sell proprietary rights to the final product.
--
Um, yeah - the original author can literally do whatever they want with their code. When they place it under the GPL, their rights are unaffected; however, they are granting you permission to use the code as long as you do so in accordance with the GPL.
So the original author can place the code under multiple licenses, if they wish - as an example, consider the perl code, released under the GPL and the Artistic license; you get to choose which license you would like to comply with when you use the code. If you write some software, you can do the same thing - release a version under the GPL, and license the same version to someone else under different (either more or less restrictive to them) terms.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
On the EPO webpage, you can find a breakdown of the costs of a patent in Europe.
The total cost of an average patent is listed as 29800 Euro or about 25000 USD. While I agree that this is still outside the scope of most open source projects, it's quite a bit less than the 100k you quoted.
And no, these are not only the fees, but 'professional representation before the EPO' is included.