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".
So those people who are primary to developing software, the engineers, the programmers and the companies that pioneer new software approaches, are all against software patents. In other words, those whose intellectual work will be patented, are against patenting it.
Compared to the primary producers of software, lawyers, lobbyists, bueorocrats and corporate controllers, those who are secondary to the software are in favor of patenting software.
Those who didn't actually make the software want it patented, those who did, don't want it patented. This is a very messed state of affairs when the producers choose to give up these IP protections of what is really their intellectual property, though maybe not in a legal sense, and those who are leeches, who don't actually make it, want these patents. Obviously software patents are not made to help those who do the intellectual work, but the corporate interests. And the sad thing is, the leeches are winning.
Now, I'm not a major fan of Ayn Rand's ubercapitalist ideas, but her assement of the morality of leeches in Atlas Shrugged is pretty accurate, and useful here. The corporations are asking for government welfare to the rich, and that's a bad thing. This isn't the way that value gets added to a system, it's a way those who leech can keep their lower-value systems the standard. No sensible economic or moral philosophy is in favor of this, so why does everyone follow it? The only answer I can think of is greed and stupidity make an excellent team.
Erik
"You," Bite me.
"Each and every one of you." Bite me.
It was discovered that the PDF had a virus..
..Oh, and that virus was protected by international copyright law. By spreading the virus without charge, you may run into some legal problems.
air and light and time and space
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.
Restrictive Approach - Opposed to most software patents Members - Students, academics, engineers, start-up companies
Liberal Approach - Apply traditional patentability criteria to computer-implemented inventions Members - Lawyers, established industry players, government agencies
Isn't it interesting that the groups of people which traditionally are responsible for the greatest amount of innovation are almost unanimous against the idea of software patentability. Yet the rhetoric used by the other groups to defend software patents always seems to revolve around "protecting the interests of those who innnovate". Are we really to believe that the segments of the population responsible for the greatest volume of innovation are that clueless as to their own interests and the interests of continued innovation?
While there is something to be said for harmonizing policies, I am not sure that it is in anyone's interest (other than that of large corporations) to use US laws as the basis of that standardization.
We cannot achieve a global concensus on REALLY important things like environmental issues (not that the politicians have ever really tried) and this is the sort of thing that they are working towards?
Ask yourself - does the world really need a global DMCA?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
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
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.
For myself I think that some sotware patents are just plain silly. What about the amazon one click buy patent, that is just stupid. (Not really differnt from pressing the coke button on a vending machine.)
I think the problem is that the people that looks trough the patent applications in some cases have no clue on what they are reading. Hence a large number of stupid patents slip trough. Did you hear about that Russian compay that managed to patent the use of a regular bottle?
One idea would be to make all patent applications public availabe, that way anyone could send the patent officials their input if they thought the patent was faulty. Only problem with this approch would be if a patent didn't go trough because of some minor detail, and sombody precived this and send in another application. But that would really be a minor problem in contrast to what's happening right now.
--
Slashdot signature: 'Laugh assist to nerd'
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
Merely reading the executive summary, it seems that the commission has already sided in favor of software patents. This is probably a combination of the influence of the pro-patent side, the somewhat neutral or negative view of open source advocates, and potentially immature responses on the part of open source and free software advocates. We could definitely learn some lessons on how not to advocate our position in the future.
At the same time the review appears to have a very negative view of the anti-patent side. Opposition is limited to a three or four word summary (at best), and the Eurolinux coalition's work is somewhat summarily dismissed as a "petition" (quotes from original document). And for chrissake's people, when writing to an important review like this, don't resort to childish tactics like "Micro$oft"; it just gives the other side opportunity to point out (possibly correctly, at times) what a childish bunch those open source freaks are.
Overall, I'd like to applaud EuroLinux for organizing the petition. In the grand scheme of things it may not have made that much of a difference, but we do need to keep trying.
-jdm
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'd say if you get a new idea, you have one week to exploit it and then it's public domain.
Patent Laws, have the potential to move us into the high tech version of the dark ages, where science ceases to move forward for fear of persecution from the church...er I mean corporations.
besides writing my congressman, I see civil disobediance as the best way to resist this. I don't have the time or resources to loby congress because I have to make a living and barely do that well. Companies HIRE POEPLE to work on lawmakers FULL TIME. how can this reflect the vote of the people?? please hackers, keep on hacking, break those codecs and protocols wide open and save the future of humanity!!!
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
And considering I will never be in "fair market" position to sell my software like Microsoft does, how is any patentability helpful to anyone except companies who have large war chests and near-monopolies?
Until the focus of innovation is understood to be Intellectual Process and not Intellectual Property, we will remain in a legal morass under the thumbs of corporate giants.
Too bad more big corps aren't politicized AGAINST sw patents. Back in the Iron Age IBM led the charge against sw patents, rationalizing that they could make their money in hardware if they could more easily incorporate ideas from other's software. Today many businesses are in a similar situation, but they're not lobbying effectively in their own interest.
Well here in Ireland we will be having an election in the next year or so ... guess what the canvassers to my house will be asked about ... software patents, reverse engineering, government expenditure on proprietary software (including training), fair use and internet censorship/monitoring. I am sure not one will be able to convince me they have a clue but it will be fun to see them try!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
...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.
I think the U.S. should sync up with Europe. We should drop software patents to match up with Europe.
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.
From the article:
From our research we conclude:
There is no evidence that European independent software developers have been unduly affected by the patent positions of large companies or indeed of other software developers. (We return to this point below when discussing the position in the USA.)
European independent software developers are making disproportionately little use of the patenting possibilities open to them compared with the use made by large companies and by US SME and even independent software developers.
There is increasing but still relatively low use by European independent software developers of patents in raising finance or in licensing i.e. in getting an invention through to being an innovation of benefit e.g. to consumers.
There is considerable evidence of concern by European independent software developers about the potential effects of patents on the development of computer program related inventions.
If you don't protect yourself with available laws, who do you think is going to?
Dancin Santa
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.
I've got a syncing feeling about this.
the official info is here
a good example of how TRIPs can be a Bad Thing is here
dense analysis in small font size is here
don't like how any of that sounds? fight it. come to kanaskis g8 2002. info here
2 1337 4 u!