Slashdot Mirror
Europe Starts Debate On Patents
Anonymous Coward writes "According to this
paper on Wired News, a tremendous
battle between pro- and anti-patents in starting this week in Europe.
Countries that seem to be ready to vote for software patents include
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Switzerland, Greece, Italy, Lichtenstein, Monaco
and the Netherlands, and countries opposing them are currently: Denmark,
Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and the U.K."
Flash File System
Visualising a Process
Multitasking
Creating dynamic webpages by invoking a script
etc.
Why? Because (quoting the article) "patents can be granted for software that is an integral part of a new machine, if the software -- such as an operating system -- controls the functions of that machine."
Cheers
jb
Copyright means I cannot freely use the fruits of other peoples interlectual achivements. I dislike this, but it does not limit how I can utilize my own ideas.
However, patents means I cannot use my own ideas, if somebody else happens to have had the same idea before me, even though I had never heard of the other persons work. Limiting my right to benefit from *my own* ideas is a much more fundamental violation of my personal freedom than copyright.
This violating is the primary reason for the strong anti-patent views, but even if you don't care about personal freedom, the practical arguments go against software patents as
well.
The economic arguments for patents in general don't hold for software, because most progress in software technology is incremental. Thus, the claimed benefit from encouraging large investments on revolutionary new technology, is by far overshadowed by the dampering effect license and legal costs have on evolutionary progress.
I guess this assumes that they are recognizing the validity of software patents in the US even when they don't allow such patents in their own society. If they didn't recognize the validity of the US patents, then they wouldn't have to worry about needing to trade patents.
:)
Maybe they can finesse the situation - have patents which are ONLY applicable relative to US patents (so that US companies have to deal with them if they want to enter the European markets), but allow European-based companies to mix & match their own software ideas freely
Which means in Europe terms it doesn't exist.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The UK patent office is curently seeking opionions about software patents. Your views may count.
Go to their homepage and follow the links.
We want our views heard, so keep replies polite, considered etc. etc. (you know the drill).
- Blah blah blah, missing scientist. Blah blah blah, atomic bomb. -
at least something like the formula for Asprin is patented so that I don't die..
I think you've got something wrong...
Example: In South Africa people die because the AIDS medicine (actually, medicine lifting some of the symptoms of AIDS, as you'll know there isn't a cure) is patented. Local companies tried to produce cheap AIDS medicine, but got sued for it by the company inventing it on the grounds of patenting. If they had continued production FN would have taken action against South America. So now South-Americans die because they don't have the money to pay for the way-too-expensive medicine.
On the other hand, perhaps those medicines wouldn't have been invented in the first place if the company didn't see a golden opportunity to patent it and make big money...*shrug*
Bernhard Lang writes:
is proposed by EPO, so that it can change the EPC (european patent convention, i.e. the very text under discussion) to put it in agreement with other international treaties. Agreement is of course what the EPO considers as agreement. For example, if EPC 52.2 modification does not pass, but EPC 33 does, EPO could decide that its interpretation of the TRIPS agreement requires to remove EPC 52.2 and allows patenting software, or what else. Given the past record of the EPO, their propensity to bend rules that have been fixed, you can guess what will happen if you give them the right to change the rules according to their own assessment of the situation.
By the way, it is not clear that all countries are aware of what is hidden in the proposed modification of 33. More national lobbying and information has beenshould be done on that issue.
Isn't the patent on nuking in either US' or Russian hands? If the French or the Brittish would try and deploy those tactics they would be sued their pants off ...
Given that, why on earth do you need to give corporations property of ideas too?
Amazon has warehouses, fulfillment systems, tons of workers madly trying to keep up with demand. If you gave J. Random Hacker the right to do a one-click web ordering system does that make him therefore equal to Amazon as far as his capacity to handle business? I think not.
Hell, give J. Random Hacker rights to the source code to Office- a zillion dollar business, even if it is slumping- and see if he's able to do that sort of revenue on it. I promise you he can't. The support structures for distributing, producing, marketing Office are _humongous_, requiring lots of people working fulltime just to handle the volume. Only a corporation or _big_ company can handle that kind of volume on a product.
So again where is the justification for software patents and _intellectual_ property? I don't see it. If you think for one second that some hacker will be able to replace (for instance) "Office"... even if you GAVE HIM the EXACT source to office and rights to sell the product!.. you're out of your mind. Do you have any idea of the workload involved with supporting a product in that kind of volume?
The corporations _could_ give away all the 'ideas' for free- it would make little difference as what the corporation/big company has to offer is support structures, distribution, fulfillment structures that will support that kind of volume. If everybody got to legally release a clone of Office- we're talking the EXACT CODE of Office- then every shop would have 'Jim And Bob's Office' in ziplock baggies with photocopied instructions.
And beside it- the same MS box as always- in every shop, everywhere in the world, unlike Jim and Bob's version. Jim and Bob won't ever have that kind of distribution.
Your desire for software patents is ill-founded.
this might be interesting for many non-us /.ers
any foreigner can apply for a patent in the u/s
and it's rather cheap, too.
even better, the uspo has a so-called 'provisional patent' option.
this permits you to submit a draft patent of sorts, pay about $200 and you are automatically granted a provisional patent for one year.
that gives you a whole year time to come up with a decent patent application, company structure, etc. should anyone else, have the same idea afterwads, then you are already protected as if you has a full patent.
check out the uspto site for details or mail me and i might give you some tips. we bought a software that helps us drafting patents and we patent just about everything we can think of to pre-empt big-bad-corp to do it.
we have no intention to ever enforce a patent, but are looking forward to kick the likes of amazon.com all the way to court and back, if they ever infringe on a patent of ours - we even denied accepting royalties from a big corp when they tried to get away with stealing an idea from us - instead we hired their programmer and forced them to drop the new feature completely... after a year we let the provisonal patent die.
the law says that if a provisional patent application is filed and later abandonned that the technology is the considered being in the public domain and therefore noone can patent it ever again - our contribution to a free Internet: act, don't chat.
I am involved with some software patents at my company - even though I am relatively opposed to them based on the grounds that they can cut-off one's right to use one's own ideas by preventing the application of same ideas even if you've never read/heard about the other's.
Some small companies, like ours, use patents defensively to prevent larger companies from suing us for using our own ideas - that is, we'll patent whatever we can afford (that our engineers say is crucial to our technology, and that our GC feels will hold-up) and use these patents as part of a defense against others if they try to restrict our R&D. A portfolio also helps boost our valuation.
Now, interestingly, our lawyer and I happen to agree on two points of software patents:
1) The fact that patents bar you from using your own ideas is ridiculous - and indeed this very idiocy is why the patent system can self-perpetuate through defensive patents
2) Software patents, indeed any patent in an area where a lot of incremental design and rapid innovation is occuring, are pretty easy to get around because you can patent things that are "improvements" to other patents relatively easily (we're filing patents that will look a lot like those of our competitors, to defend ourselves against their patents by saying we were aware of their work and have improved upon it)
The theory is that patents are supposed to advance the pace of development, and thus the economy, by giving a limited monopoly to innovators in return for making their ideas known and thus spurring on improvements (which is part of the reason why you can patent improvements)
The system is supposed to encourage industry to fund R&D in return for a guarantee of some protection of the innovation gained by this investment.
It is an interesting theory, but one which seems to have outlived its utility (indeed, if it ever had any). Large corporate R&D groups at places like IBM, Xerox, M$, and Bell Labs have been publishing innovative papers for a while, as have university R&D groups. While I was at Bell Labs, Lucent still patented everything they could, but they did so defensively... they had begun to understand that you get back most of your R&D investment by quickly getting into the market and using first-mover / innovator advantage to capture a greater market share, no longer was protectionism sufficient to beat competitors (unfortunately for Lucent, they have some other problems...)
So, really, the argument that companies have spent millions or billions on R&D and deserve patents does hold some weight - but the benefit they get no longer seems to necessarily outweigh the negatives of the system...
And the system is so screwy, anyway, that most companies keep many innovations as trade secrets until they're in the market, anyway (except defensive portfolio builders and long-term strategists like IBM and Bell Labs), and then file a patent within the year (in the US) granted to do so once you start selling your innovation...
It seems like, at least in the software market, that market forces and trade secrets are more actively used to protect companies from competitors, and getting the ideas out in the open happens primarily through journals, conferences, and other voluntary efforts once the innovations are already integrated into products (or if the company decides for some other reason to publish)... and nobody but lawyers even seemst to bother to read most patents...
However, as long as the game is played, companies will have to play it to protect their rights to use their own ideas, and open source / free software folks and individuals will have to keep finding ways around these patents either through their own innovations, fighting specific stupid patents, the good graces of companies that aren't idiotic about what their patents mean, and, of course, fighting the system...
o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
With the extreme amount of stupid and insanely simple ideas patented here in the US, these other countries need to look long and hard about what to allow and not allow. Things to think about: Software patents with short lives; NO process patents (IE the one-click crap); no retroactive and stealth patents (IE Rambus's sneaky tactics); no overly broad or "rubber" patents (BT's 'hyperlink' patent); no totalyl unenforecable patents, and patents that are not enforced for x amount of time ar invalid (Unisys's LZW/GIF patent). This is dangerous territory.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Bigger armies. Although those Greeks are nothing to scoff at it in a fight.
If it comes down to it, both the French and Brits have nukes, though I doubt they'd use 'em unless they had to go on the defensive.
Vegas odds say 3:1 for the big guys.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
- are concerned by the current plans to legalize software patents in Europe, considering their damaging effect on innovation and competition
- are concerned by the possible use of software patents to patent business methods, education methods, health methods, etc
- are concerned by the current track record of abuses from the European Patent Office, especially by their tendency to abuse their judicial power to extend the scope of patentability
Please, go and sign the Petition for a Software Patent Free EuropeAlthough software patents seem bad at first, they get even worse when you look at them! Seriously, the only way that I could see software patents work is if the patent issuers are required to run all patent requests through a small team of programmers. This would prevent someone from patenting "innovative routines" like: for (i=0;i>iMax;i++) { ... your code here
}
This is our proprietary "loop construct" which allows one to execute code within a repeating sequence while allowing each sequence to be indexed. :)
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Basic review of why patenting software is a bad idea. It is not the code necessarily that gets protected but some hair brain marketing person's idea-essay of what the software does. It is as if the idea of, say, a Web browser were to be patented. All you capitalists say you want competition? If you patent an idea for a software application you exclude a firm from developing a better mousetrap, or browser.
They wont make any money that way anyway. If patenting becomes the main way to protect software anybody with a relatively small innovation could claim a new patent, standing on the shoulders of whoever came before.
Goat sex free since 2001
This seems the opposite to the US where there seems to be a push for protecting IP, even at the expense of consumer benefits and rights.
Maybe its because the smaller economies are worried about losing innovations they make to larger ones. A fair response I suppose. If this is true, it still doesn't explain why the US is acting like a small economy...
Microsoft's legal department!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Until just the last few years, there was a drawn out debate going on between the US and European countries about whether patent priority should be "first to invent" or "first to file". This is a false dichotomy. Until the virtually universal availability of Usenet, inventors had enough trouble just inventing the damn widget, let alone going through the expense of a patent filing -- a process during which they would frequently have to give up their rights in exchange for capital to cover the patent process -- thus gutting patents of one of their two original purposes which was capital formation by inventors. I find it fascinating that at almost exactly the point when inventors could self-publish on Usenet and have a reasonable expectation that this would make their disclosure available to others skilled in the art, a treaty was signed by the US giving up its traditional support of the inventor's priority under "first to invent" and capitulating to Europe's anti-inventor "first to file" policy.
Seastead this.
I have developed a number of new algorithms and software methods, both while working as a consultant and while working for various corporate research labs.
In my experience, trying to patent software methods is pointless for the individual inventor. For two methods that are in fairly wide use now, I actually tried going through with it as an individual. The legal costs just for getting the patent are staggering and you do not have a prayer of enforcing your patent without devoting your life to it. Besides, most individual inventors do not want to become lawyers, and the process of trying to get patent protection is not only very expensive, it's also very time consuming.
In my corporate life, I hold several patents. My company likes them because they can trade with other companies. That's of great value to them, even though the patents themselves probably each cost them as much as a year's salary. Corporations make patent applications really easy: you write an informal note, corporate lawyers get to work on it fleshing it out in legal language that will hold up in court, and the patent gets submitted. Afterwards, there are lots of efforts involved in marketing the patents, trading the portfolio, and looking for infringements.
While companies like to point at their patent revenue stream and say "this is all the money we get from patents, and it funds further research", in practice, I have my doubts that purely financially, it results in a net gain once you add in all the administrative costs. I think the reason why big companies like software patents is because they allow them to limit competition from small companies, and that is very attractive even if it costs lots of money.
Based on nearly two decades of experience in the software industry, as far as I can tell, the net effect of software patents is to:
In March 2000 I tried to get a patent on something that I myself found reasonably obvious.
A friend of mine had suddenly seen a way of doing something which noone has thought of in the past 20 years, obvious though it might be. There is simply no software that does it.
To start a new company and produce the software ourselves, we will have to compete with market leaders, some of which are multinationals operating in Germany and Belgium as well as in Holland.
So the way to go seemed to get a software patent. This would ensure that we would get 3 to 5 years to make our product and set up the company.
However, the Dutch patent office told us that one can not get a software patent unless it is a new algorithm or something like that.
So basically I have two messages in this post:
1. The Dutch software patent office is probably better than the ones I have seen so much ado about
2. I am now well buggered to not get my patent, while other people in the world get a patent for one-click shopping. My "invention" was obvious, but at least nobody has done it in the past 20 years!
So please think of this what you may. My view on the matter is perhaps clouded because I want my patent, but ya'll might view this as the way to go. If all of Europe will deal with patents the way Holland does, you don't have that much to worry about.
My opinion? I don't really care. Every government I have seen has a way of abusing every rule they ever made. They will probably be taxing patents by the year 2002.
For:
Cyprus, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Switzerland.
These countries are well known for being the "bank countries" where large amounts of many, from all over the globe, rest in their safes. Switzerland is also known to be the "patent country", due to its well developed patent system and for the most well known patent officer in History of Science.
Austria, Belgium, Italy are known to be in the "average" wagon of software development. They possess excelent programmers but in general they are not enough to give a strong status to the country.
Netherlands goes on the "soft countries". While a small country, there the contingent is strong enough to give a weight worldwide.
Greece as far as I know is the poor brother of this group. But it is not completely alone. With exception of Switzerland, all other "bank countries" have poor contingents of software developers. Even poorer than Greece.
Against
Luxembourg -"Bank country" that does not follow its cousins. Maybe solidarity with its two big neighbors, France and Germany?
France, Germany, Denmark+Sweden - "soft countries". Specially Germany that it is becoming the "European Sillicon Valley". Specially to note the strong position of OSS & Free Software in these countries.
Spain, Portugal - Countries that go on the average wagon. However it should be noted that its ex-colonies possess a significant power in the software world and some are strong supporters of OSS & Free Software, for example: Mexico & Brazil. And this may influence the position of these countries in this game.
It is admirable that UK and Finland abstained. At least knowing the strong US influnce in UK and the fact that Finaland possesses a strong position in software development exactly on the side of Free Software.
What would be interesting to know the position of other european countries. It would be probable that Bulgaria & Czechia would be against, while I fear that Poland and the Balts would step on their sickening "follow blindly America" trend. Russia would be against. Its law forbids the patenting of software and sends everything to Copyright Law.
I get to see all sorts of patents roll across my desk (its part of the background research for what it is that I do - which is not computer related) - and I'll tell ya - shitty patents are everywhere... not just in software. I think the patent office needs a good beating - their stance seem to be "pass 'em all and make the companies / lawyers sort out the real details". Well, gee - thanks for doing NOTHING. Such a useful organization...
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
Microsoft signing software before it gets released?
"Office 10 looks clean. What about Office 10-21? Look bug free to me. Sign here."
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
It's good to hear that at least there's a debate! Somehow in the states it seems that the only people that are aware of the issue are computer programmers or lawyers, and only a subset of those groups at that. And, to make matters worse, the patent skeptics don't seem to have any sort of organized voice. Sounds like there's more of a chance for the side of sanity to get a hearing in Europe....---Bruce Fields
A comparison: what if book authors could patent their 'intellectual property'? Certain plots could be patented (patent for 'butler as the murdererer' anyone?). Big publishing houses could start hoarding literature patents, and only authors under their wings would be able to write best-selling books. Newspapers would have to use lots of money to license catchy headlines (patent for headlines that use only words that begin with the same letter? patent on headlines that use double-meanings of words or phrases?)
Why is it that even though pro-patent people talk about intellectual property, they don't really compare software to culture, arts or other forms of non-physical production, but to physical engineering? (for which patents were designed in the first place)
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Does anybody else wonder why the biggies (UK, Germany, France, Spain, ...) are all against the patents? All of those for them are smaller
countries, both politically and in sq-km (largest probably Italy).
How does that explain Luxembourg being in the "against" group though.
What are the reasons the small (perhaps not-so-much-IT-developed ?) countries want software patents?
Maybe that they don't have software industries of their own to be damaged...
A comparison: what if book authors could patent their 'intellectual property'? Certain plots could be patented (patent for 'butler as the murdererer' anyone?). Big publishing houses could start hoarding literature patents, and only authors under their wings would be able to write best-selling books.
This kind of thing is already going on, e.g. Paramount tradmarking everything they can to do with Star Trek. Imagine what they'd be doing if they could use patents too.
I've never quite figured out people who are opposed to software patents. Sure, they can be abused (like Amazon's "one-click" patent), but is that any reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Large corporations, though they are much maligned on Slashdot, invest billions of dollars in research and development. And the standard Slashdot reader seems to think that the result of that billion-dollar research should be free for the taking for anybody who wants it. Does this even remotely make sense?
.. I think Linux and open source are great things, but the problem is that once people get accustomed to getting things free, on demand, and their way whenever they want, they start thinking that everything should be that way. And as I have said, when a corporation has invested billions of dollars in an idea, the notion that they should just up and give it away to everybody for free is just plain stupid.
This, I think, is one of the negative impacts that Linux and the whole "open source" software movement is having on the industry. Don't get me wrong
I think we can have our cake and eat it too. High-quality open source ventures such as Linux can co-exist in a world where reasonable software patents exist and are enforced. Enforcement is important because it guarantees a corporation's right to continue to innovate (stupid buzzword, I know) without fear of theft. But we should not get into a situation where big government tries to assume too much power and attempts to strangle business. How much blood has been spilled by oppressive government in the last century? This is precisely what we do not need.