Slashdot Mirror
EU & US Patent "Syncing"
Christian Treczoks writes "Software patents are threatening Europe, too. The EC said "we want software patents to harmonize with the US", but the public - private persons and small to medium businesses - objected. So they made an "Analysis" of the replies.
Effectively, 91% are against patenting software, but, as the majority of the proponents are important business figures, it's a draw. " Mmmm...corporate interests. "Fun".
The answer to this is to develope a GPL-compatable Patent licence. then all the OSS developers can patent all thier Ideas like crazy, but the catch is that there would be no financial restricitons on use, even to big corperations (to help encourage its use). no need to worry about the corp using the code and not giving back because that is what the GPL is for. this patent would just be used to keep big corps from exploiting new technologies.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Governements policiy in matters which don't appeal direcly to citizens because they feel that they are not informed or think that these things too complicated for them are mainly done by lobbies and big corporation. This is a really sad state of affairs, and a lack of democracy.
Obviously, the corporations will win this one. If anything, they have better (as in "more expensive") lawyers, and can lay the case in a form that will not even convince the government, but also the regular John Doe, that this is a good thing. ... whatever), but when we see it happening everyday ... ... but only when the regular John Doe had some other corporation backing him (in most cases, some media corporation).
Thats a regular history. In whatever for on shape (on Comunims, they are Political "Corporations"), the corporations hold the reins. And why should they think they should not ? After all, they are the ones that "elected" the politicians.
Yes, I know, that is quite a negative view to have about our government systems (capitalism, socialism, comunims
Oh yes, of course some Corporations have lost a few times
I'm not holding my breath. These patents will get through, and we will all suffer from it.
morcego
Isn't in interesting that the groups of people which traditionally are responsible for the funding of the greatest amount of innovation are almost unanimous in wanting to guarantee funding for more research?
the Amazon one-click thing is not bad because it's a software patent, right? it's bad because it's a patent on something that a lot of people here think is too simple to do, or already too common to be patent-worthy. right? the same with the LZW patent. people are more upset about the way Compuserve and Unisys handled the situation, not because LZW compression is somehow unworthy of IP protection. right?
people put thought into developing various processes; wether that process is physical or software-based should not matter, to IP laws.
of course i'm not talking about the moral validity of IP laws here. i'm only saying i see no reason why software should be any different than hardware under the current IP laws.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Here is a summary of recent US policy advances - and other notable mentions:
Fail to support UN effort to prevent Biological weapons via independent inspection (yet America sees fit to solely enforce the idea in the middle east) - rest of planet supports this effort.
Fail to support UN effort to limit and monitor the trade of Handheld weapons - rest of planet supports this effort.
Fail to support Kyoto protocol *EVEN AFTER* it had been reduced to half effectiveness - rest of planet supports this effort
Extends corporate control of Speech/Thought/Action into the monster known as DMCA. Leads fight via WIPO to have rest of world implement their own version of a law that would have them comply with the WIPO 1996 Copyright Treaty. (See : Understanding WIPO (down the page a bit)).
Has ridiculously looong copyrights. (see Disney-Bono Term Extensions)
Plan Columbia - a reaction to the mindless war on (some) drugs.
America's Solution to health care is to pass a 'patients bill of rights' which amounts to methods for people to sue one another - never mind universal health care (like Britons and Canucks (and some others) enjoy. Canadians/Britons: Is the present 'health care crisis' a pre-cursor to 'harmonizing' with Americans with regards to health care?? think about it...
Not to mention the archaic first-past-the post political system, Republicrat domination of all politics.
Unbelievable Media Concentration which self-censors in order to support present power-structure/re-enforces mindless consumption/limits public discourse/leads to the present soul-less pandering to the lowest common denominator (Brittany spears, daniel steele, sitcoms-of-all-types, clearchannel, AOL-TimeWarner, RIAA, MPAA)
Tolerance of Anti-Competitive Monopolies (M$)
Threatens world peace with idiotic chest-thumping missile - *miltiary-industrial-complex-political-kickbacks-p orkbarrel-terrorisim-propaganda* *bullshit* defence *bullshit* program.
Unbelievable 'energy policies' that would pump oil in nature reserves all in an effort to avoid a buying petroleum products in the same market as everyone else (read: maintain the public subsidy which enables unbelievable levels of mindless-consumption)
Before the rest of the world decides to model American-policy, they need to determine some priorities and try and evaluate which things are cause-and-effect. Basically, America seems happy to live in a Plutocracy - would you?
Where is the international effort, with this kind of *power* to harmonize Labour Law? Environmental Law? WorkPlace Safety Law? Public Safety Law? Health Care? Education? Why is it that seemingly more and *MORE* ridiculous efforts are being mounted and pushed on an staggering international basis that have no relationship to improving the lives of the Citizens of the Planet? On whose behalf are our politicians acting?
Almost 1200 of the 1447 responses came off of an online petition. Online petitions have as much credibility as a /. poll. What if MS sent out a company memo to all of their European employees to respond to this call for comments? Either way, it's astroturfing. (Ironic that this story follows the apology for astrotrufing.)
-sk
There are several major differences between software and hardware(physical mechanisms) that are revelant when it comes to IP. The first one is what software patents contain, as opposed to what hardware patents contain. A hardware patent will give you all the nessecary knowledge to build that peice of hardware. This is the primary reason patents exist in the first place, progressive statesmen instituted the patent system so that machines would be shared for the good of humanity, but those who would invent these processes would be rewarded for this contribution. Patents would encourage inventors to release their inventions, in their entirety, to the general public, without fear of having their ideas stolen.
Software patents do not follow this model. Software patents don't have to tell someone how to build the software, they just have to stake a claim to a process, how it is achieved is unimportant. Thus, if someone writes a code that, going about it comepletely differently, does what a microsoft program does, they are violating the software patent. This is contrary to the purpose of hardware patents.
A good example of this can be found in the area of pharmecutical patents, which is not the most perfect of patent areas, but still a hardware type patent. Prozac, the popular happy drug is a seratonin reuptake inhibitor, and the company that makes it has until just recently had a patent on their drug. But that didn't prevent Zoloft, Paxil and a host of other drugs that also are seratonin reuptake inhibators also come out on the market, acheiving the same results with a different chemical combination, this can't happen with Software patents. Now that Prozac is coming down off of patent, a host of generic prozac-clones are springing up, if some patented software with closed source came down off patent, they wouldn't be immediatly replicated by a host of generics using the same process to acheive the same result, becuase Software patents don't disclose the workings of the software.
There are more issues than just this one, but this is a primary failing of the system.
Erik
"You," Bite me.
"Each and every one of you." Bite me.
In fact, we're already seeing it in a few cases. RSA's public-key patents are an obvious example. Three years ago a lot of people were livid about the restrictions those patents placed on developing crypto software. Now the patents are over and we have software like OpenSSL which are better than the commercial alternatives. (Granted, development of much of this software started long before the RSA patents expired, but the point is, nobody is worried about these supposedly horrible, disastrous patents any more.)
Obviously 20 years is a long time in the software biz, but the point is, it's not forever, and the situation will improve over time even if the bad guys win.
Obviously 20 years is a long time in the software biz, but the point is, it's not forever, and the situation will improve over time even if the bad guys win.
You assume Free Software can survive, much less compete, in a world where the basic building blocks for software are patented and locked away for twenty years at a stretch. I am not at all certain this is true, and while a renaissance might become possible in twenty years (when many of us will be nearing retirement), it does not in any way diminish the coming dark ages such as victory for "the bad guys," as you so quaintly put it, might well entail, much less the two-decades of economic destruction such anti-competative monopolies will wreak upon the both so-called "new economoy" and the existing economy alike.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I'll post this even if it means that the EuroPol will knock my door down this night.
There are no "elections" in Europe. There are only local elections. In these elections people choose representatives to the European Parliament. Unfortunately this "parliament" does not have any legislative power. All power is concentrated in the hands of the European Commission which is not a democratically elected body.
How else do you think this "socialist" Europe would still stand?!
Things like Amazon's one click method aren't very clever or original and shouldn't receive much (if any protection). However, if someone were to come along and produce a cold-fusion device, this would be a wonderful thing, and the creators work should be protected. In reality, most patents today are just examples of someone winning the engineering race, and giving them a 20 year monopoly isn't fair to those who could engineer the same thing without much effort.
We should be working toward a peer review process to determine what amount of time is fair. I suspect that companies would realize that most of the patents they're getting for ridiculous "inventions" wouldn't be worth the time to file once the process is in place.
Patent protection for important advances is just. Patent protection for simple engineering is unfair to other engineers who could have easily developed the same thing.
It would be nice to take a different stand here in Europe but with so much US influence we find it difficult to fight the US owned corporations.
The French find it difficult enough to keep their language.
The European Superstate will no doubt crumble and nearly all pretence to be in the interest of European citizens will continue to crumble.
With standard of life being assumed to correlate with GNP we are in an awful spiral of more work less life as our leaders persue the self-destructive path of increased productivity.
Short term politics ensures that short term gains in GNP are the policies enacted upon and not the long sighted welfare of the nation.
And we can blame this on capitalistic thinking and being at the mercy of the futures, currency and stock markets.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Fine, have software patents, no problem, on one condition. All software patents must include the FULL SOURCE CODE. You wouldnt patent a steam engine simply by saying "well you heat up a liquid, and eventually it turns a shaft" That could apply to everything from steam turbines to the damn drinking bird. The source is the inner workings of your software, and no patent should be complete without it. After all, couldnt somone else come up with a similar function, but using a different method? THAT is innovation, and that is the kind of innovation that traditional patenting fosters. A patent on a specific type of steam engine means that either you liscence the patent, or you go out and you invent one that does the same thing in a different way, maybe even a better way. And god forbid we have beter software. Full source code or no software patents. You might as well patent a buisness plan otherwise.
I take it you are trying to imply that, since corporations are responsbile for funding the greatest amount of "innovation", their strong support of the current patent laws is justifiable based on a valid economic interest in getting a fair return on their investment, and this in turn supplies the incentive for continued funding of research.
One problem with this view is that the premise is flawed: in the US, the federal government, not corporations, are the source of the vast majority of research funding. Corporations often leverage the reuslts of this research into proprietary form, so that, in effect, government research funding oftentimes constititutes a form of "corporate welfare".
( Unless you are using the term "innovation" in the sense commonly attributed to MicroSoft, i.e stealing ideas.)
...But some are more Equal than others.
- George Orwell, Animal Farm.
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
If Europe is foolish enough to go along with the United State's efforts in "harmonizing" US and European patent law by essentially submitting to the American approach they will be handing the United States an unassailable advantage in the software marketplace.
Think about it. Which country has been bending over backwards handing out as many patents on software, business models, and the like as possible, as quickly as possible, and what percentage of those patents have been going to American firms such as Microsoft, Amazon, Dolby, and Adobe? The vast, vast majority.
Should Europe recognize American software patents virtually every European software house will find itself in violation of US software patents of one sort or another virtually overnight. If France, Germany, or the UK think they have a tough time competing against the likes of Microsoft now, just wait until the European Commission gives them this big club to whack them over the head with.
Europe currently enjoys a huge competative advantage over the US in not having its software industry tied up in litigation and government sponsored monopolies the way ours is. This has enabled Europe to rapidly advance from a relatively "backward" position with respect to the US in software to relative parity, and could be leveraged to outstrip us dramatically in the future. It would be profoundly stupid of the European governments to give such an advantage away, particularly to someone as powerful, and as self-absorbed, as the United States.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Reminds me of me and my brother when we were kids. We were playing video games, and my brother found some trick (dunno exactly what is was) that made it easier to complete the game.
he told my I could not use that trick because he was the one who 'invented' it.
offcourse this resulted in a fight in which I kicked his ass (I am 2 years olders *evil grin*)
The problem is that while the "industry leaders" are organized to fight for their own interests, those of us that work for these "leaders" are not organized. Rather than spouting off as individuals, if we joined together and used our collective economic power, we can turn the tables. We are the ones that create and run the computers and software that this is all about, and if we join together, we can shut it all down.
Yeah, I know a lot of managers will flame me for talking union, but it is our only hope.
It also takes time. Large corporations have lots of money to burn and they have people who's sole job it is to burn money by buying patents.
Individuals and small companies don't have those luxuries.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Well according to the timeline in 1985 all of your points already existed. Assembler was there far longer, also c was already existend, recursion was idead by some university professor if I remember right.
The C compiler was a major leap forward in computing, but was it developed by with a patent? No, it was developed to allow some guy to write an operating system kernel. The freedom of the language, and the way it was NOT protected made it to a major movement beside it's orginal intention.
You judge software development and patents, but actually did you ever do any software development, or do you earn you money at the patent office?
In example compare you writing a letter with me writting a program, can you imagine how it feels like you know you can't start you letter in example with "Dear Ladies and Gentlemen" because that phrase is patented by someone? Or you have to investigate every sentence you've written that it's special grammar is not patented. It's just like me writing an procedure and in example if recursion would have been patented have to think: hey I may not call the procedure with the same name, since this is patented recursion.
Why are it the lawyers, and the managers of big ones who think to know how softwaredevelopment goes?
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.