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...

Comments

Patents aren't inherently bad.

[Siqnal 11]

In the future, patents might be a way to protect protocol freedom. GNU is opposed to software patents, but a protocol itself really isn't software, and I see no reason why they could not create a patent version of the GPL. Just as GNU uses copyright law, in the form of the GPL, to protect software freedom, they might be able to use patent law to protect the freedom of protocols.

--

Re:Patents aren't inherently bad.

[DaveWood]

There's a simple reason why. Patents cost a lot of money and time and effort to get. Dealing with them is onerous except for the few large companies and organizations this blatantly corrupt process is intended to help out in the fist place.

Patent vs Copyright

[billybob2001]

Could someone explain why patents are necessary when copyright is automatically conferred when, for example, a book is written?

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?

Re:Patent vs Copyright

[DaveWood]

Copyright covers plagiarism, which in the context of source code means I could be violating someone's copyright if I cut-and-paste their code and call it my own, use it for my own purposes, etc... without their permission, that is. And open source authors effectively give that permission to everyone, pending a few small details (GNU, for instance, has a number of preconditions - such as that you have to distribute the sourcecode yourself, etc.) Of course, I can read someone's code, learn from it, and write my own code that does the same thing. It may even be very similar, but that would be legal (again, there are a few caveats here, but that's basically the case). Even as a relative radical when it comes to intellectual property law, this pretty much seems fine to me.

Patents are much, much worse. Software patents enable Compuserve, for example, to patent a compression algorithm or a program that reads or writes a specific file format. Once such a patent is granted, it is illegal for me to write a program that uses that compression, or reads or writes data compatible with that format - no matter how I implement it.

The fun part is what people patent: Windows, pull down menus, command-line interfaces, GIFs (you've heard about the infamous GIF patent, of course!), one-click shopping, word processors that can right align text, you name it, the US Patent Office will grant it to you. I honestly don't think they even read them anymore. And if someone from the USPO wants to show up and self-righteously say "Oh yes we do read them" then... my God, that's even worse.

The reason you can tell the EU is going to have software patents is because their argument - that the USPO is the problem, not software patents themselves - is patently false. An obvious placation.

In a world with software patents, every programmer is likely to violate hundreds of patents throughout their career. There is no way they can know which, since they cannot read and remember the entire patent base, no matter how well-maintained. Every program is a ticking time bomb of patent litigation, as you never know when someone might turn up and say, "Hey! My grandfather patented that in 1986! That'll be 70% of your gross please, or get ready to spend $100-300 thousand defending yourself in court!"

Enough said.

Drop in the bucket

[DaveWood]

Expect the comission to be subverted, and software patents to persist in Europe. Software patents are good for large, established players, and they are good for lawyers, two very powerful lobbies, here and across the pond. It would take a miracle for the collective interests involved to miss their mark.

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.

Fellow Europeans!

[Peter Dyck]

It's time to get organized and impose the slashdot effect on the European Commission.

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!

Patents and OpenSource not mutually exclusive

[volpe]

#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.

At least patents expire!

[bluGill]

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)

All we need now is action against the office.

[AFCArchvile]

"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."

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.

The Absurd

[Ektanoor]

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...

Re:They REALLY don't get Open Source!

[dbarclay10]

Finance Open Source projects through licensing fees?
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? :) 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.

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,

Re:So where does one add a comment?

[cybaea]

Here - there is even an e-mail address:

The public at large and all interested circles may direct their comments to the Directorate General for the Internal Market, either by mail to the following address: European Commission, DG Internal Market (MARKT/E/2), Rue de la Loi, 200 (C100 5/13), B - 1049 Brussels, or by e- mail to be directed to MARKT-SOFTPAT@cec.eu.int . Any comments should be received on or before 15 December 2000.

I recommend all EU slashdotters to comment. It is more important than voting! Get on with it.