Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

From Legal Wordings to Economic Reality

Posted by michael on from the reality-is-a-consensus-illusion dept.

Holger Blasum writes "The directive on software patents in Europe is (currently) scheduled in the European Parliament mid June, so the 7-8 May parliament hearing on Software Patents: from legal wordings to economic reality might be a good opportunity to make your views heard in Brussels. There is some support for accomodation, and hitchhikers or taxistop might ease getting there. If you cannot attend, find (and invite) your EU representative here (hint: this database does not include so many email addresses, so it would not be wise to go for this in the very last minute; if the options overwhelm you try the "Legal affairs committee", and/or the persons you are likely to vote for in the 2004 elections)."

78 comments

  1. Re:Yes well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    No no, when state and corp combine, it's called fascism, and the US has had it most of the 20th.

  2. Uh oh by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny
    During this two-day interdisciplinary conference in Brussels, near and in the European Parliament, we will bring together programmers, engineers, entrepreneurs, law scholars, economists and politicians

    I think we'll soon see XOR masks patented in the EU ...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Uh oh by Blaine+Hilton · · Score: 1, Funny
      It makes you wonder what will happen when the patent basic life functions like breathing.

      Need to create a mySQL table?

    2. Re:Uh oh by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ..."entrepreneurs, law scholars, economists and politicians"...

      Read as extreamely wealthy C?O's, their lawers, lobbyists, and the polititions they "donated money to." ...respectively of course.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    3. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You spammed your site twice in one post asshole! Once in your sig and once by pasting it manually.

      Quit that shit out you shameless fuck!

    4. Re:Uh oh by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      IBM estimate that the value of being able to work without fear of patent claims is worth ten times as much to them as the value of the patents themselves.

      The software industry in the U.S. was created without such burdens. Were software patentable 30 years ago, we would not have PCs built by competing suppliers, nor would we have a choice of PC operating systems other than that supplied by the hardware manufacturer.

      Software patents are uniquely dangerous, as it is not the result of years of expensive research which is patented, rather it is a half-day's problem solving which grants a typical software patent, and thus prevents anyone else from solving the same problem by virtue of this "right of monopoly on an idea"

      Patent offices cannot adequately review software patents, for the simple reason that much software literature is not published in journals. The source code to a 1970 operating system, for example, would not be considered suitable reading material for a patent examiner investigating a new patent in that area.

      Currently, the patentability of software in the US has laid waste vast areas of research, in which companies dare not innovate for the fear of patent claims. It is not even theoretically possible to investigate all relevant patents before starting work, as patent applications are secret.

      Free software is especially vulnerable to the destructive effects of patents, because free software cannot obtain a license from the patent-holder, even if the author wished to. Nearly every supporter of patents will assume that licensing patents is easy, cheap, and always on offer. These arguments do not apply whatever to free software, upon which much of European business depends.

      Anyone who has the time to visit Luxembourg this thurday should do so, and I encourage anyone else to write to each of their MEPs by fax and by surface mail, informing these representatives of the economic damage they are being asked to perform by deceiptful organisations seeking to cripple European business.

  3. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Each representative has a declaration of financial interest in his page. ANyone knows where I can find that for US senators/congressmen?

    1. Re:Heh by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Each representative has a declaration of financial interest in his page. ANyone knows where I can find that for US senators/congressmen?
      you basically can find that information at opensecrets.org

      --
      my pet machine
    2. Re:Heh by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Go to Open Secrets and look up the offending polly wanna dollar politition's political donations.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  4. can someone ban this guy? by silicon1 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think this guy should be banned, his whole subnet as well.

    --
    Natural-Selection Be
    1. Re:can someone ban this guy? by silicon1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ya and ban you too.

      --
      Natural-Selection Be
    2. Re:can someone ban this guy? by silicon1 · · Score: 1

      ya, they're all a bunch of cowards, just like their username says!

      --
      Natural-Selection Be
  5. Can't be... by matthieu.boyer · · Score: 0, Troll

    An article on Slashdot that is actually European-centric ?
    Curse them to hell, damn european commies !

    --
    - Matthieu
    1. Re:Can't be... by lowieken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know... if software patents get approved of in Europe, there will be an influence in the US, too.

      As in "killing Free Software". Which I guess is why Lawrence Lessig and Richard Stallman travel around the globe twice in 24 hours to come to this conference...

      And hey, even if this were actually just about the EU, it might be worth reading!

  6. Re:Yes well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well I'm talking about the legislation PASSED by the US govt. Technically speaking, the Gov't doens't HAVE to listen to private interest groups.

    That post was NOT meant as a troll, BTW.

  7. Patents by Dashmon · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain what the effect of introducing patents will be? In normal English please, not Legalese. :)

    1. Re:Patents by Dashmon · · Score: 1

      Ehm, to clarify: I ment "what exactly could be patented?". Like, individual apps, or app ideas, or software frameworks, etc?

    2. Re:Patents by Ponty · · Score: 1

      Dibs on the bubble sort!

    3. Re:Patents by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 3, Informative

      > to clarify: I ment "what exactly could be patented?"

      Whole applications won't be patentable, algorithms will.

      This sucks because M$ could patent the algorithim used to write a certain file format. Then we wouldn't be allowed to reverse engineer, say, MS Word Docs.

      This makes their monopoly much tougher. For a great read, try:
      http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-pate nts.ht ml
      or
      http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-mec -india.h tml

      Stallman gives a very clear explanation of the history, stupidity, uselessness, and problems of software patents. (he's really an excellent speaker & writer.)

      Ciaran O'Riordan

      --
      Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
    4. Re:Patents by Dave10000 · · Score: 1

      Any realization that is novel can be patented. This means that ideas cannot be patented. But, any code can be patented. This can be a component, a DLL, a framework, a program, an application, or a system like a client-server system or multicomponent application. But, here is the kick in the head. The patent examiners have no experience with software patents. There is no body of knowledge for the examiner to draw from to know what is prior art or not. So they are issuing many software patents that are bogus. This means that someone has to sue the patent holder and the patent holder must defend the patent. The courts ultimately decide what patents are valid. Eventually, the patent examiners will get a grip on what is prior art. A patent is only as good as its ability to be defended in court. When you do a patent search you will see an entry called claims, which tells you how many times the patent holder got sued and successfully kept his patent. Patents consist of separate claims. This is something different. In the patent a claim is one of the assertions regarding who the artifact works. Patented artifacts are combinations that might be prior art. What is important is that the function be novel. As far as algorithms go, only algorithms that have been made into a realization, i.e. executing, debugged code can be patented. Copyrights protect ideas, text, and algorithms in the mathematical sense.

    5. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if you want to know the economic impact of software patents, I'll give you my take. I remember having an argument with an attorney about how you couldn't patent software. But, the attorney insisted that you can. My reasoning is that everything is prior art. I can say that I was wrong. The attorney is obviously correct. But, what gets lost economically? It used to be that a guy could sit down at his computer and build a better mouse trap that people would pay for. That guy didn't have to be anybody. He just needed to be able to program. Programming was a wide-open discipline. But, with all wide-open disciplines maturity happens. And, you know it happens when wealth becomes the driving factor of success in the discipline. Software patents transfer control from the programmer to the owners or the wealthy. Certifications and degree programs are a function of this process as is lawyers and patents. If you watched the dot com boom, then you saw this discipline maturity process at work there as well.

    6. Re:Patents by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      The article you cite makes some good points, but the author also says some pretty broad statements that I don't believe are true. For example:

      Every patent covers some idea. Software patents are patents that cover software ideas, ideas which you would use in developing software. That is what makes them a dangerous obstacle to all software development.

      Property rights are indeed an obstacle to use of the property, but consider where software development would be if there were no patents at all? Patents are property, and property is value that attracts investors. If you can't protect your product, why invest? Also consider that patents require the disclosure of novel ideas for protection. In this way they tend to promote release of information that would otherwise need to be kept secret. This is a basic argument for property rights which the author ignores.

      You may have heard people using a misleading term "Intellectual Property". This term, as you can see, is biased. It makes an assumption that whatever it is you are talking about, the way to treat it is as a kind of property, which is one among many alternatives. This term "Intellectual Property" pre-judges the most basic question in whatever area you are dealing with. This is not conducive to clear and open minded thinking.

      Here he makes no sense. Patents make property out of ideas. Copyrights make property out of expression. To consider them as anything but property is to miss the main point.

      There is an additional problem which has nothing to do with promoting any one opinion. It gets in the way of understanding even the facts. The term "intellectual property" is a catch-all. It lumps together completely disparate areas of law such as copyrights and patents, which are completely different. Every detail is different. ... None of them has anything in common with any of the others. Their origins historically are completely separate. The laws were designed independently. They covered different areas of life and activities. The public policy issues they raise are completely unrelated. So, if you try to think about them by lumping them together, you are guaranteed to come to foolish conclusions. There is literally no sensible intelligent opinion you can have about "Intellectual Property" .

      I bolded the most egregious misstatements. Though copyright and patents are indeed different, historically and as to the subject matter they cover, their policy justifications are nearly identical. Both were enabled by the same phrase in the constitution, which specifically allows congress to grant monopolies in order to promote public access to useful arts and sciences. In both cases, the monopoly is intended to (1) prevent free riders on ideas or expression, (2) allow safe investment in creators of ideas and expression. Their legal justification, public access to the property (art or science), is identical. I would even argue that pretending they are as unrelated as he says is "foolish."

      It takes typically some years for the application to get considered, even though patent offices do an extremely sloppy job of considering.

      Now he's bashing an underfunded office that does a better job than any of its foreign counterparts and is severely overburdened while having its funds siphoned away. And still, most patents are handled professionally and given much more than a cursory examination.

      When you hear people describe the patent system, they usually describe it from the point of view of somebody who is hoping to get a patent- what it would be like for you to get a patent. What it would be like for you to be walking down the street with a patent in your pocket so that every so often you can pull it out and point it out at somebody and say "Give Me Your Money!". There is a reason for this bias, which is that most of the people who will tell you about this patent system have a stake in it, so they want you like it. There is another reason- the patent system is a

    7. Re:Patents by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      Any realization that is novel can be patented. This means that ideas cannot be patented

      Patents protect ideas. There is no requirement that an idea be reduced to practice before patenting. All you need do is describe your idea well enough to enable a person with ordinary skill in the art (e.g., a software engineer in the relevant subfield) to practice your idea.

      In the patent a claim is one of the assertions regarding how the artifact works. Patented artifacts are combinations that might be prior art. What is important is that the function be novel.

      Claims can be directed to an apparatus or a process/method. An apparatus claim would include all the necessary novel features that comprise the apparatus. A process or method claim would include steps that comprise the invention. "Function" itself need not necessarily be novel, as a new device might perform the same function as an old one.

      Copyrights protect ideas, text, and algorithms in the mathematical sense

      Copyright doesn't really protect ideas, it protects expression only. I can copyright the instruction manual for a process (for example), but that copyright would not prevent anyone practicing the process--it would only prevent them literally copying the words of the manual. Sometimes copyrights can effectively protect an idea (e.g., if I can't copy the expression of the idea, I may have trouble using the idea), but this is counter to the intent of the copyright laws and there are provisions to limit these cases.

    8. Re:Patents by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

      Dear nerdlyone,
      I felt obliged to reply since you wrote such a long post. I started off by explaining each problem you had with Stallmans essay. I couldn't understand how you could have missinterpretted so much, it was as if you were doing it on purpose. I was so shocked at you ability to miss the point that I decided to look at your previous slashdot postings (to see if you were a M$ or IBM employee or similar).

      It turns out that bashing Stallman, promoting patents, and not understanding software patents are three of your call signs. I notice that all of your posts (with one exception) have a score of 1, so obviously you're not convincing others.

      Also, you're posts are often quite long. Is this because you are passionate about the software patents issue? How could you be so lost if you are so passionate? Are you a mechanical engineer who knows the patent system but doesn't know what computer programming is like?

      Answer these:
      Amazons "one click shopping": how much did they spend to think of this? is it unobvious? is a 20 year patent on ideas this simple necessary to promote research?

      The no-patents argument that Stallman presents probably seems impractical to you but this is only suggested as a better solution than the current hyperactive patent system. If patents were really only allowed for "useful, unobvious, and original" ideas and they only lasted 3 years (for software) then they would not be a problem.

      On Wednesday (7th May) I'll be meeting up with a bunch of europeans for a hearing/conference/demonstration against software patents. The venue is the European Parliment in Brussels and the speakers include Stallman, Lawrence Lessig, and Alan Cox. As a Free Software developer, I'm looking forward to this event.

      Ciaran O'Riordan

      --
      Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
    9. Re:Patents by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      I couldn't understand how you could have missinterpretted so much, it was as if you were doing it on purpose. I was so shocked at you ability to miss the point that I decided to look at your previous slashdot postings (to see if you were a M$ or IBM employee or similar).

      I see. If I disagree with you or Stallman, I must have a monetary interest in the outcome.

      It turns out that bashing Stallman, promoting patents, and not understanding software patents are three of your call signs. I notice that all of your posts (with one exception) have a score of 1, so obviously you're not convincing others

      I did not intend to bash Stallman, and I conceded he makes several good points. Maybe you didn't read to the end of my post? I do maintain his bias and his inaccurate statements, particularly when he says the public policy issues raised by copyright and patents are "completely unrelated." I would also argue that my post was not as rude as Stallman's insults of patent examiners (IQs of 50?) or your post to me. I am not an examiner, but this kind of thing does not help his credibility with me. And having my posts rank low on slashdot is not a bad thing.

      Finally, I wish you had posted your original reply, where you say you addressed the issues I raised, rather than your actual post questioning my intelligence and honesty but ignoring the issues.

      As to the one-click patent, stupidest thing I ever heard. Business method should not be patentable IMO.

  8. SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pass!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm an American, and since I know how much you Europeans despise us, I think the best wake-up call for you guys is to remind you that SW patents will completely and utterly favor us Americans.

    MSFT is American. IBM is American. Oracle is American. Americans have had years of experience developing patented SW technology. The only pieces of SW that I can think of that is European is SAP and MP3.

    If Europeans decided to adopt SW patents, the US would eat you guys alive! They would send all their lawyers to Europe and patent everything and your mother. Not because we are smarter, but because we have much more experience in thinking of how to patent things.

    How the hell could Europeans trust US technology, especially after things like Echelon being used to provide business intelligence against European bids?

    The only way to do it is to keep Europe SW Patent free and allow Linux to develop unfettered, including using American patented SW technology freely. Right now, the only way that Europe will ever get an edge over the US is through Linux. European govenments don't have to worry about any backdoors in Windows, they don't have to worry about paying extra fees, or being held hostage by the patent developed by US companies.

    The way it's going now, with all this patent tyranny that is going on the in the US, the only safe haven for Linux is in Europe, if and only if they keep patents out of Europe!

    Call your representative and stop this insidious process of patentizing Europe!!!

  9. Re:Could this be.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The timing on this story sucks. It's somewhere between midnight and 1:00am for the people this is going to directly impact.

  10. Re:SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "american companies"

    that term always cracks me up, just like "american cars"
    haha

  11. Realy needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People of EU you are realy needed there. Or feel the consequence.
    Patenst will kill of small bis.
    Patents will kill free sofware and yes Linux (GNU/Linux)
    patents will make you pay like hell for software
    patents give the big boys al the power.

    Please make suer EU will be counter weight against USA.

    Think about SCO vs IBM and free software. Well think of hunderd more cases against GNU/Linux.

    Its time to ACT NOW!

    SW Patents will lock programers after bars.
    SW Patents wiil kill innovation.
    SW Patenst will get you to pay the big boys more!

    So come to Brussels and sowe the parlement that you don't agree!

  12. Re:SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patents and copyright laws could have been what actually built a software industry in the United States. European countries just aren't known for their software prowess. In fact, it's possible Fraunhaufer would have never developed the MP3 format had they not been able to file patents in the United States. They couldn't seek royalties for the algorithm in the European Union but they could make money in the States. Basically, Americans got stuck with the bill to pay for the MP3 format while the rest of the world got it for free.

  13. Patent showdown between Europe and America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    MSFT is American. IBM is American. Oracle is American. Americans have had years of experience developing patented SW technology. The only pieces of SW that I can think of that is European is SAP and MP3. If Europeans decided to adopt SW patents, the US would eat you guys alive! They would send all their lawyers to Europe and patent everything and your mother. Not because we are smarter, but because we have much more experience in thinking of how to patent things.

    I'm an American, and since I know how much you Europeans despise us, I think the best wake-up call for you guys is to remind you that SW patents will completely and utterly favor us Americans. How the hell could Europeans trust US technology, especially after things like Echelon being used to provide business intelligence against European bids?

    The only way to do it is to keep Europe SW Patent free and allow Linux to develop unfettered, including using American patented SW technology freely. Right now, the only way that Europe will ever get an edge over the US is through Linux. European govenments don't have to worry about any backdoors in Windows, they don't have to worry about paying extra fees, or being held hostage by the patent developed by US companies. Call your representative and stop this insidious process of patentizing Europe. The way it's going now, with all this patent tyranny that is going on the in the US, the only safe haven for Linux is in Europe, if and only if they keep patents out of Europe.

    1. Re:Patent showdown between Europe and America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40% Redundant
      30% Insightful
      30% Underrated

      OHHH YOU GOT OWNED!!!!

  14. As a student mechanical engineer... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm damn tempted to get my voice heard. I have three innovative ideas which I feel will make me money.

    Now it costs quite a bit of money to implement even one of these ideas. That and about a year of my time. Thing is, that will mean I just don't really have the money to patent my invention!

    Not only that, but most innovation is done by younger people (yadayada exceptions, yadayada). These people create new companies, employment and wealth. But patenting (and it's related cost) impedes this process and favours established, already wealthy companies.

    And I'll go one further; patenting used to make sence, but for a number of reasons is making less and less sense. Not only do we see the so-called 'submarine' patents, but also a profilation of IP companies which do not even produce the IP (just buy it in...that's how MS-DOS happened, btw). Patenting in this way stiffles innovation, which is what it was supposed to engender to start with!

    Then consider the fact of paralel invention. It happens a lot...two people think and/or devellop the printing press, the telephone, the airplane etc etc etc, at roughly the same time, independent of each other. There are just certain ideas who's time has come.
    Couple that with the fact of population growth and you'll find that that sort of thing will happen (and is happening) more and more often.

    If you have an idea, I think you should (help) develop it. If you just sit on it, you should get squat.

    Hmmm...I'm gonna think this out a bit more and put it to paper...

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    1. Re:As a student mechanical engineer... by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...I'm gonna think this out a bit more and put it to paper... too late, i already patented it

    2. Re:As a student mechanical engineer... by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      Now it costs quite a bit of money to implement even one of these ideas. That and about a year of my time. Thing is, that will mean I just don't really have the money to patent my invention!

      It is much much cheaper to create and patent an invention than it is to create, develop, manufacture, promote, and sell your invention. Patenting allows you to own your idea, then shop it around without the need to have an entire manufacturing facility. Without patents, you would require a non-disclosure agreement with anyone you told the invention about. Or else they would be free to make, use, and sell your invention without your permission.

      In other words, patents are just about the only vehicle by which an individual inventor can get to market. It is most certainly the cheapest vehicle. For a few thousand dollars you have presumptive ownership and a right to exclude others from your idea. I myself have not seen any better deals.

    3. Re:As a student mechanical engineer... by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      And I'll go one further; patenting used to make sence, but for a number of reasons is making less and less sense. Not only do we see the so-called 'submarine' patents, but also a profilation of IP companies which do not even produce the IP (just buy it in...that's how MS-DOS happened, btw). Patenting in this way stiffles innovation, which is what it was supposed to engender to start with!

      I disagree with you on the "proliferation of IP companies" part. Making IP more of a commodity makes it more valuable. Companies such as this add value, just like banks add value by freeing up personal savings etc. for investment in the economy.

      If you have an idea, I think you should (help) develop it. If you just sit on it, you should get squat.

      This idea makes perfect sense and is the primary justification of patent law. Patents encourage people to develop their ideas (which costs time and money). If your idea is something that, once known it is easily copied, would you spend money developing it when your first disclosure would mean everyone could make, use, and sell your idea without your permission?

      Patent law is not all good, but it seems there are some justifications for it that get overlooked frequently on these boards.

    4. Re:As a student mechanical engineer... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Now that really depends. For development of my idea(s), all I need is time. That and about 8000. I just don't have the extra money for the patenting process.

      As for shopping my idea around...selling my patent (or production rights) will mean I lose out on a huge percentage...we are talking anything from 50-80% here, most likely towards the high end.

      True, if I had a capital intensive product, that would be the way to go...but I don't.

      PS: even with a patent, you really want an NDA when talking to someone about it, commercially.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:As a student mechanical engineer... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Thing is: you have the head start. You are pumping out your product and can have it on the shelves...if someone does it better/cheaper than you, well, then one hasn't done ones job very well.

      And NDA's can help for disclosure when meeting companies.

      As for companies adding value to IP: they buy it cheeap, sell it expensive...the original patent holder sees nothing of that added value, and anyway, it's an enron-y way of adding value...nothing has been added to the idea except that a richer buyer has been found.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    6. Re:As a student mechanical engineer... by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      PS: even with a patent, you really want an NDA when talking to someone about it, commercially

      Why? If you have a patent, the invention is published. Some other consideration?

    7. Re:As a student mechanical engineer... by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      Thing is: you have the head start. You are pumping out your product and can have it on the shelves...if someone does it better/cheaper than you, well, then one hasn't done ones job very well.

      A head start is not much of an advantage when you consider R&D that the free rider avoids.

      As for companies adding value to IP: they buy it cheeap, sell it expensive...the original patent holder sees nothing of that added value, and anyway, it's an enron-y way of adding value...nothing has been added to the idea except that a richer buyer has been found.

      It also moves the IP into a position to be exploited, where before it might have languished. And increasing tradability of IP does increase its value, even if only marginally. And Enron, to me, means cooked books, not mere usury. Usury is OK. Fraud is not.

    8. Re:As a student mechanical engineer... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      But that's the whole point: you never avoid the R&D. Bringing out your ptoduct doesn't mean you have to write white papers detailing the whole production process, publishing code or saying that widget a should be more than x milimeters from slot b.
      A freerider sees the finished product...only if it's a simple product would they be able to get theirs out in a small timeframe. And even then, that takes time; planning, material, production facilities and people don't just 'happen'.

      If we were talking mere IP tradinghouses (a la ebay), I wouldn't have much of a problem. But the problems inherent in the current structure is that these IP firms actively block idea's from happening if they don't hold the patents and also pocket a large amount of cash in the process which should have gone to the inventor. More to be said on this but I gotta go...I'll finish later...

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    9. Re:As a student mechanical engineer... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Yup; there are more ways than one to skin a cat. If you solve a problem no-one's even thought of solving, the company you present to can figure out a way to solve it which circumvents your patent. Not only that, but they can figure out a number of ways to make your life difficult if they're so inclined.

      A patent can be set up so that what it solves isn't immediately obvious. And even though a patent is published, it's still buried in a million others, so the company won't immediately see what's out there.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  15. Re:SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pas by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patents and copyright laws could have been what actually built a software industry in the United States.

    Not by a mile. The current crop of big boys grew up in a far more lenient environment. Phoenix reverse engineered the BIOS from IBM's PC, which was a major contributor to the PC explosion. Nowadays, they'd be convicted felons. Sure, there was also a lot of patented stuff, such as the stuff from PARC, and the mountains of patents that IBM holds, but we didn't have to contend with any of the foolishness that we have today, like one-click patents, BT claiming rights to all of hypertext, and a small company staffed with lawyers holding a major part of the industry hostage for years (guess which one and win a prize!). Do anything innovative today and, should it be marketable, you may find that someone has filed a patent for it based on your product.

    In conclusion, America is a land of contrasts.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  16. Re:SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pas by istartedi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's funny. I'm an American and I don't feel the least bit "favored" by software patents. AFAIK, all of those corporations aren't really American anyway. I'm sick and tired of the US being criticized for the actions of multinationals who only remain in the US because that's where they got started, and who will readily reincoroprate on some tropical island if they think they can save on taxes.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  17. Re:SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pas by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    I'm American by birth and will somebody

    *PLEASE MOD THIS GUY UP*

    That's probably one of the most truthful things I've ever seen anyone say here. Just IMHO.

    Also BTW, said multinationals already exhibit no problem with outsourcing....

    --
    C|N>K
  18. Re:SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pas by spyfrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am afraid that you are preaching for the wrong folks. We all know that - the problem is that our politicians is stupid enough to not know that. They take their advice from the lobbyist that is paid by the american IT-firms..

  19. Re:SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pas by Groote+Ka · · Score: 2, Informative
    MSFT is American. IBM is American. Oracle is American. Americans have had years of experience developing patented SW technology. The only pieces of SW that I can think of that is European is SAP and MP3.

    True.

    However, you forget all the embedded software that companies like Infineon, Philips and ST Microelectronics put in their ICs. A lot of this is patented as well and might even work against e.g. MZFT.

    Furthermore, a European Software Patent Directive is nice, but for most countries, patents are issued via the European Patent Office (EPO). This Office grants some software stuff, but has more than once made very clear they definitely will refuse anything that does not have any tech stuff in it. This kind of applications doesn't even get searched. It happens, I have seen it more than once.
    And when an examiner makes a mistake, you can always file an opposition, in which you can actively fight the patent before the EPO (instead of the passive re-examination before the USPTO).

    Furthermore, the EPO is not bound by EU legislation. I do remember a previous discussion that this was wrong, but in this case, it might be a good thing to free software. (ok, there are some 'buts')

    As a sidestep, please think about the following question: why should something that is patentable when you implement it with hardware, not be patentable/ protected when implemented in software?

  20. Gratis Stay At Hotel by dfgdfgdfg · · Score: 1
    I participated in the petition against software patents. Last friday I received a mail offering a gratis stay for one night at a Brussels hotel. The offer was only valid for a few hours until 3 o'clock pm. I didn't register (I live in Berlin), but that seems very interesting. Here's the e-mail that I got:


    From: phm@ffii.org
    Date: 2 May 2003 09:51:44 -0000
    To:
    Subject: Software Patents Brussels 2003/05/7-8: Hotel Beds for Free

    Dear FFII/Eurolinux Supporter[1]!

    For the

    Software Patent Hearing/Conference/Demo at the European Parliament 2003/05/07-8
    http://swpat.ffii.org/termine/2003/europarl/05/

    you get

    a bed in double room for free
    a single room for 50 eur
    both in a 3-star hotel

    if you register today (friday) before 15.00.

    We subsidise your stay, because we really NEED YOU to be there. Please
    try everything to make it possible.

    Your presence alone makes a strong impression, as the parliament is
    approaching elections. We would not have achieved multi-partisan support
    for our amendment proposals, if there had not been a full room at the Nov.
    26th hearing. This time we are staging a demonstration of quality
    (well-reasoned support of science and software leaders) and quantity (e.g.
    rally on Luxembourg Square)

    Please try to be there at least on the 8th. Note that Lawrence Lessig,
    Brian Kahin, Richard Stallman and others are travelling twice around half
    the globe within a few days because they know how important this is.

    To register, you just reply to me or to hotel@ffii.org.

    Please tick:

    -- Which nights do you want to spend in Brussels?

    [ ] 5.-6.
    [ ] 6.-7.
    [ ] 7.-8.
    [ ] 8.-9.

    -- [ ] I want one room for myself alone
    (50 eur, 70 if you don't show up)
    [ ] I prefer a room for myself but wouldn't mind sharing
    if there is a shortage of beds.
    [ ] I prefer a bed in a double room.
    (0 eur, 40 if you don't show up)
    [ ] I bring a sleeping bag and would like to stay at the home
    of supporters in Brussels.
    [ ] I already have a place to stay in Brussels.

    -- For the entry to the European Parliament on May 8th, we need your
    personal identification data[2]:

    Name:
    sex (m/f):
    nationality:
    domicile (address where you live):
    date of birth:
    passport or identity card number:

    Thank you very much for your support!

    --
    -- 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Sc3 de4: 4.Se4: Sd7 5.Sg5 Sgf6 6.Ld3 e6 7.S1f3 h6 8.Se6:
    1. Re:Gratis Stay At Hotel by nerdlyone · · Score: 1

      What does your sig mean? Crazy chess?

  21. economic reality by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

    i'm no economist but to my untrained eye, measuring "economic reality" is at its heart a relative (comparative) activity. kind of like a related rates problem w/ many many many factors. one thing i have found interesting is to look at the historical behavior of the exchange rate between the EUR and the USD and speculate as to reasons for the parity flip since mid-late 2002.

    i think if the EU follows the IP lunacy of the US, the graph between EUR and those currencies of countries that don't adopt such race-to-the-bottom thinking (e.g., east asian "2nd world" countries) will begin to look similar to this, and not long after that, the parity flip will place US/EU in 2nd world status.

    if you can make it to brussels, i suggest printing this graph out and prodding people w/ the question "how do you really measure economic reality?"

  22. Re:SW patents favor Americans - don't let this pas by Conor+Turton · · Score: 1

    "Patents and copyright laws could have been what actually built a software industry in the United States. European countries just aren't known for their software prowess. " You're kidding aren't you? Two of the top 3 Linux Distros are European. Most of the best games come from European Software Houses.

    --
    Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
  23. THe E.U has a better track record by Conor+Turton · · Score: 1

    The EU has a far better track record of protecting its citizens than the US. Many of the practices of the MPAA and RIAA would not be allowed to happen because it is impossible to have the Euro MP's in the pockets of groups such as the aforementioned due to the transparency of funding as prevuiously mentioned by another poster. Also you have over a dozen different countries and therefore cultures deciding on any proposal.

    --
    Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
  24. Re: (OT) Gratis Stay At Hotel by dfgdfgdfg · · Score: 1
    (offtopic)

    1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Sc3 de4: 4.Se4: Sd7 5.Sg5 Sgf6 6.Ld3 e6 7.S1f3 h6 8.Se6:

    What does your sig mean? Crazy chess?
    It's german chess notation of the beginning of the game Kasparov-Deep Blue that made Kasparov lose the match in 1997.
    --
    -- 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Sc3 de4: 4.Se4: Sd7 5.Sg5 Sgf6 6.Ld3 e6 7.S1f3 h6 8.Se6:
  25. Audio recording of the hearing? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Will there be an audio recording of the hearing anywhere (preferably in Ogg Vorbis or Ogg Speex format)? I'd love to play the hearing on my radio show "Digital Citizen" that focuses on issues of interest to the Free Software community. Perhaps a transcript I could read on the air?

    If you happen to live in or near Champaign, Illinois, and you don't mind staying up late, you can hear my show on WEFT 90.1 FM at 2a-5a on Wednesdays (or late night Tuesdays, if you prefer). I generally focus on technology issues that have a social component to them, and this topic certainly qualifies. To help bring the issue of so-called "software patents" (more accurately, patents on algorithms used in computer software) I will air Stallman's patent talk after a brief rundown of some headlines.

    --
    Digital Citizen