Slashdot Mirror
European MP Responds on Software Patents
Wolfbone writes "The Guardian newspaper has a contributed article from the European politician Arlene McCarthy in which she responds to a previous article in the same organ by RMS and Nick Hill on the issue of software patents. If the appalling mixture of misrepresentation, non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete does not make your blood boil, you are a cold fish indeed."
That sentence was enough to make my blood boil.
Everybody knows European MPs (Member of Parliament) are next to useless anyway... I don't even need to read the interview to tell you she is a fscking moron.
Seriously, though, almost *anyone* can get elected to the European Parliament, and the *real* decisions are not made in Strasbourg (Euro Parliament home town) they are made in Brussels, Belgium, either through the European Commission or through high-level talks between the different European governments.
Of course, this might change in the near future, with the new European 'Constitution', but it will probably change for the better, by making sure more intelligent people are elected.
Just my Euro 0.02...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
IMHO, this is just a lame attempt to ridicule RMS et al.
--
Interesting... this seems to be saying that, through the use of the GPL, the FSF is, perhaps unwittingly, attempting to create a monopoly. I'm not sure her statement holds water... how does the GPL stifle competition and innovation? I mean, releasing software under the GPL is the choice of the developer... and as for "imposing" the license on users, aren't *all* licenses imposed on users? Isn't that really part of the definition of a license? It's still the user's choice whether or not to *use* the software. Simply because they can't take GPL'd software and package it without the source and sell it doesn't mean that the software is part of a monopoly... geez! The GPL certainly is another form of *contract*... but monopoly? Give me a break.
B
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
She certainly doesn't sound as evil as the submitter of the article would suggest.
"It is infinitely better for the EU to harmonise laws across the EU with a view to limiting patentability, than to continue with the mess of national courts and European Patent Office (EPO) systems, and the drift towards US patent models."
Sounds sensible to me, but then again, no one has ever shown me a computer program or business method that merited a patent, so I'd like to see the strictest possible limits on such patents.
In the end, it's EU directive that will have to speak for itself. I'll try and dig up a copy of the draft.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
So, she does the normal M(E)P thing of speaking without saying anthing. Looking at this report, though, it appears that what she is trying to say is that the rules will only allow software to be patented as part of another system.
So, patents like the Amazon one-click patent wouldn't be allowed, but you could for example patent a novel ECG machine along with the software that is 'part' of it.
While the majority of the UK is balking because of losing the pound, the fact is that deferring local economic decisions to a centralized management structure is moronic. If we have learned anything from cybernetics and information theory over the last 50 years, it is that decentralized systems are the only viable option. But for some reason, European politics is progressing as if the opposite were true. It's cognitive dissonance on a horrendous scale.
We're best out of the Euro for now. If the other EU states don't think free trade is enough, they are of course welcome to boot us out.
The newspeak description of Free/Libre Software as "a different sort of monopoly" suggests to me the phrase passed through the Rt Hon MEP having come from a briefer.
So can anyone pinpoint the briefing person, company, or interest concerned?
I recently followed up such a lead in one of the 12 references to Linux in the record of the Houses of Parliament (Hansard) and determined that the Shadow Minister for Media etc had got his disinformation on DeCSS from the Daily Telegraph but I have yet to track it back through the Torygraph to wherever it was injected.
(This I believe is true, you can see the patent offices in the EU's national states approve less and less technical "inventions".)
It appears, EU wants to link a certain technical device with its software, which could be patented for the use in this case, and only in this case, together with the device, but which is not covered by the patent.
The main problem with the US patent laws is likely that the officials are ignorant laymen; not patents per se are evil, but their (lack of) interpretation is.
This article is, generally, totally irrelevant. The European Parliament holds virtually no power, and is, generally, merely a talking-shop. The Council of Ministers, and, to a larger extent, the Commission hold all power. There are attampts to change this with the work-in-progress that is the Constitution.
This lack of power of the Parliament leads many single-issue candidates, washed-up politicians, and other power-hungry novices to run for election to European office in the Parliament. Very few serious politicians will be found there, bar those who lead the political factions present. As such, we can safely ignore the warblings of this MEP.
If only we could find a similarly talkative Commissioner. It's what the EU needs
((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
His article may have boiled her blood, but it seemed pretty spot on to me, the quote from Bill G especially.
His point is this law was written by the Business Software Alliance in such a way and to use such vague language that it will be up to 'interpretation' only to the richest corporates with the most expensive lawyers. I.e., they are taking a space where there is a need for a law and plugging their law - dress up as "free and good" to placate those with a call for it but engineered to benefit only them.
Also, she mentioned "With many of our traditional industries migrating to the Far East leaving behind job losses, we Europeans are having to rely on licensing out inventiveness to generate income and create jobs."
Since when does Amazon having a patent secure that patent to the country it was registered in?! Either she is grossly incompetant, plain stupid, or cunning and devious.
Euro MPs are next to useless because the European Parliament is virtually powerless.
That's not to confuse them with MPs in the individual member states' parliaments, who occasionally do have some power.
Well that's it. First they're joining but don't want to have anything to do with the common currency (euro),
and now this...
Where "this" is a UK paper publishing two articles, one opposing a particular proposed directive and the other supporting it?
In her article, she says that:
So I've written her a letter, suggesting that open source software explicitly be made exempt from patent enforcement. If what she says in her article is true, this would have no effect, so she's got no legitimate reason to oppose it.
My weblog has an article that goes into this in more detail.
If you want to contact Arlene McCarthy, and politely tell her your views, she has a website.
While the majority of the UK is balking because of losing the pound, the fact is that deferring local economic decisions to a centralized management structure is moronic. If we have learned anything from cybernetics and information theory over the last 50 years, it is that decentralized systems are the only viable option.
I agree. Kent needs its own currency; deferring local economic decisions to a centralised management structure ("the Bank of England") is moronic. Decentralised systems are the only viable option. In fact now I think about it a single currency for the whole of Kent might be too much too... maybe one currency per person...
Perhaps, but it does seem a debatable point. The GPL specifically imposes restrictions on what can be done with software under it. In order to extend any of the software, you have to agree to those terms, some of which are quite restrictive. It could be argued that the GPL community holds a monopoly on GPL software development. You're free to join, but you have to do so under their rules, some of which are more restrictive than some commercial contracts. Is that fair? Sure. But it's not total freedom. The BSD license is much more "free" in that sense, and putting things in the public domain is even more so.
That said, I completely agree that her article seemed quite factual. Her assertion that she is trying to prevent US-style business-method patents is extremely encouraging. Nothing RMS said directly challenged this claim. He just argued "patents bad; EU doing patent stuff; bad bad bad." I didn't see any specific claims about the current EU directive under consideration except one unsubstantiated claim that the BSA wrote it. What does he mean "we detected it?" Based on the radioactive signature perhaps? Maybe the smell?
The proposed directive was written in a Word file, and the original author information appeared in the metadata - that's how they know the BSA were involved.
I thought Arlene's response was more anti-Free/Libre/Open Source Software than anything I've seen in a long time, and it's bizarre because rms and Nick Hill didn't raise that issue at all. Her article wasn't factual in any way, shape or form - she said she was against business methods, for example, but offered no actual example of actions which back that up - in fact, her previous actions indicate she's in favour.
Useful URLs for people in the UK: FFII UK, More info on software patents. We can still stop them putting these things in place.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
we can safely ignore the warblings of this MEP
Yes, until they make copyright or patent laws that criminalise a good deal of Free Software.
People, this proposal, and similar laws in other countries, are a serious threat to Free Software. We ignore them at our peril.
Some MP: "Does not!"
You may think I'm being facetious, but I'm actually just being concise. She literally doesn't say anything else.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
We're a US company with a development office in Canada (which is where I write from). We're staying out of Europe partly because of the multitude of languages, but mainly because (I'm told) it's a morass of different regulations; I have no doubt patent law is one of them. The complexity is not worth our trouble of going there. The first ocean we crossed was the pacific, to Japan.
I have very ambiguous feelings towards software patents, but the European Parliament is probably going in the right direction if they're harmonizing business regulations.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
But when she argues later in her article, it's not clear at all that she has any sophisticated definition of how software patents are different from what she's arguing. (RMS's article was clearer on that, and it was a chief criticism of the legislation.) In summary, she didn't refute or define anything.
It's exactly the reverse: if there are no software patents in Europe, then European businesses (and inventors and every one else) can still get software patents abroad (e.g. in the US), while foreign businesses can not enforce their software patents here in Europe. So if there are no software patents in Europe, the Europeans actually have an advantage over foreign (big, small and everything in between) companies.
Donate free food here
"His point is this law was written by the Business Software Alliance in such a way and to use such vague language that it will be up to 'interpretation' only to the richest corporates with the most expensive lawyers."
I don't know how this will work in the EC, but many of the member states have a good tradition of throwing out overly vague laws. Furthermore, it's often the judges that provide interpretation of vague laws, not the lawyers. Also, our legal systems generally work different compared to the US. If Microsoft decides to sue me for infringement over here, I will not be forced to settle for my live savings, but I could cheerfully take them on in court. Finally... should the judge find that he has to follow the letter of the law in violation of the spirit of the law, parliament is generally quick to revise the article so that it will have its intended effect.
But again... European legislation works somewhat differently. I find the process to be rather lacking in transparency, which makes me think that Stallman did have a point saying that the law was (partly) drafted by big business.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The UK doesn't need the EU (or want it) and the EU does need us. Not only do we have a very storng currency, we have the 4th biggest economy in the world, and judging by the last 2 years we've certainly had the most stable out of America and all of Europe, so... how would joining a currency which is more shakier than an 140yr old parkinsons sufferer meant to help us out more, cos right now I can't see how our economy could be any better.
Not only does the EU want us for our Economy, they want us for our international power. We are a strong currency, and a nuclear power at that, we have a seat at the UN security council, the EU doesn't like that one bit (and infact in the constition they're attempting to make us lose that seat so there's just one EU representative instead).
Please do dump us from the EU, we don't want you, we're happy to sit by and watch it crumble over the next 3 decades.
WTF is a sig?
To me, she seems to make some sense. I know software patents are bad on slashdot, but maybe that's because slashdot's only familiar with the insane US patent system. She actually makes it clear in the article that she doesn't want a US system.
..." gDict only knew 1.5 of those words, but I'm assuming it's a fancy way of saying anyone being pro software patents are morons. Did the poster notice that the article was pretty moderatly worded and forthcoming? Did he RTA?
I don't think software patents are evil by nature, it can be applicable in a few cases. However I see a problem of patents limiting the users legal rights to contents. Say firm M gets a patent on a fantastic text compression algorithm which they use as a part of a de-facto file format that stores formatted text. Now developer S can't legally develop a reader of this format to use on his operating system that isn't supported by M.
Maybe if someone could solve this problem then software patents could be feasible. Maybe - as someone else proposed here - open-source should be excempted from patents. Some sort of a patent system limited to commercial activities. Patent infridgement would be easy though with the code legally as open-source.
Btw.: "... non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete
Look a monkey!
Actually, yesterday's NTK included quotes of the Guardian article, and a link to this weblog entry, which is a further comment on the article and does include a link. The NTK issue does not have a direct link, that's true, but the original poster certainly is right in saying that the situation was "covered" in the current NTK.
In my experience, he's also correct in saying that NTK stories often get reported here on Slashdot the next day - although I'm not saying the author of the story got his inspiration there (and if he did, so what, it is news for nerds after all).
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
lol, that was good response...
But he does have a good point. Control of every resource is becoming more centralized. Just like merging all of the media companies into a giant aol/time/warner/etc can be a bad thing, the merging of authority from several local authorities into one centralized government can be a bad thing.
What if the whole world merged into the EU? Where could you go if you didn't like the way your economy/religion/social programs/etc were being regulated?
Decentralize everything to a reasonable degree and you'll have better protection against totalitarian government. The main idea being that megacorps won't be able to bribe the legislative branch of every country or state.
This idea doesn't just apply to government, but to companies that provide needed products or services as well. For example, if there were a thousand ISP's and the government wanted to monitor just about everything their customers did on the internet it would have to pass some laws allowing it to do that, provoking some debate. But if AOL were the only ISP they wouldn't have to pass any legislation at all. With only one company to strongarm they could secure the permissions they needed with just a phone call:
"Hello, AOL CEO?, Yeah, well regarding that 'request', you see we'd really like your cooperation on that. Btw, we need to schedule an IRS audit ASAP. How's next Tuesday for you?"
hmmm, If I thought for a while I could probably think of a dozen ways that one company could be kept under thumb without any legislation being passed.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
If you think she needs to have it explained I suggest you email and explain why she is wrong about free software and software patents.
In the heat of the moment I was very rude to her but can I suggest others be moderate.
amccarthy@europarl.eu.int or
arlene.mccarthy@easynet.co.uk
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
She's calling a system with more opportunities for imposing patents more "liberal" and a less patent-drenched society more "restrictive".
/bin/cp doesn't exist might be an appealing idea to some but it is just a game of pretends these days. Things can be copied. Deal with it.
That's pretty weird. If I were to choose such politically loaded words to describe patent systems, I'd have 'em switched the other way around, but I probably wouldn't use them at all.
She also writes: "With many of our traditional industries migrating to the Far East leaving behind job losses, we Europeans are having to rely on licensing out inventiveness to generate income and create jobs."
That's pretty silly and not likely to work in the long run. Imagine a future where non-european countries provide all goods and services needed - why should they want to trade with Europe? Because we have "inventions?" That's supposed to be Europes schtick, that Europeans are "smart"? Even if we'd have a fraction of the worlds inventiveness, what's to stop the aforementioned Asian countries from declaring our patent system null and void? (Along with some other IP practices like say, copyright.) Because "otherwise we won't trade with them?" That's just silly. If all we have to "offer" is slick ad campaigns and ruthless corporate practices along with a few good "ideas" - basically "ownership of ideas" - why should they want to trade? They could just copy it (assuming their own inventions weren't enough - there's plenty of good ideas coming out of Asia).
(And please don't talk of using military might to enforce an IP system internationally. My every fiber and cell tell's me that's not a just cause.)
Just saying that "we own this!" and pointing at words, ideas... you might argue some intellectual property practices are just but you can't expect everyone to agree (I certainly don't, and I even live in Europe), especially not when it could be a dumb move in international economics for a country to blindly abide by another's IP claims.
And if she's not talking about IP as an export product, then why bother? Selling each other "air" would jack up the GNP but it sure wouldn't raise living standards, it would only be a pointless excercise in number juggling. Same would apply to selling "ownership rights to ideas". Note that I'm not saying that the ideas themselves are without value - having someone on the payroll to sit and make up ideas might be worth it - but once the cat's out of the bag the ideas are easily copyable. Preventing that
Lastly, she's calling free software (she seems especially focused on copyleft software) "[A] form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users".
That's just not true.
Unlike patents, anyone's free to reimplement copylefted software any way they choose.
And unlike plain copyrighted proprietary software, anyone can use the copylefted software (both the program and source code) as long as they don't prevent others from doing the same.
Sure, the GPL has some practical problem (for example enforced warranty disclaimers, and problems with compability with other copylefted licenses) but it's definitely not a "monopoly". More like an "omnipoly" where every man, woman and child on the planet has the same right to the program.
The European Council doesn't have any real power either! However, unlike the parliament, it *does* get taken seriously...
 : : : : : :-- George Bernard Shaw
Say what you like about the guy, the computer industry would be a colder, harsher, proprietry place without what he's done to open it up.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Let's assume for the moment that you are not a troll and honestly would like your question answered.
While I'm not a programmer I do understand that programs are made up of several functions that cooperate to perform a given task. Even a simple clock program that displays the time in your kicker panel will have more than a few functions, or libraries.
Shit, will someone respond to this ac cause I think should be articulated better than I'm able to.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
What I don't understand is why some people have such a problem with patents. Can anyone please explain this to me?
Well, to be a little RMS with you, it's not only about making money, and thats about everything it comes down to. You see, there are people out there who wish that software is free so that consumers and developers can share and develop it further and faster than with a closed propriotary software solution. It's the same method used for development of science.
The reason for being against software patents is that software is fundamentally different from classical "inventions". RMS equates it to composing music. Suppose there were musical patents when Beethoven lived. Although he was no copycat at all and was actually quite revolutionary in his time, he wasn't that great that he reinvented music from scratch and still could make something that people liked to listen to. He used a lot of "musical techniques" used by other people before him.
However, just like you can't just throw a couple of existing "musical techniques" together and get something that sounds good, you cannot throw just a couple of algorithms and data structures together and get a great program. As such, allowing patents on these components doesn't make sense because that way, they hurt innovation instead of encouraging it.
They make you scared to produce anything, because almost everything you think of, has probably already been thought of by someone else before. If e.g. IBM would enforce all of its software patents, I don't think a lot of companies would be left making/selling software in the US. Some of the bigger ones would be, because they also own a lot of patents and they could cut software licensing deals. The rest would be out of luck.
Donate free food here
I find it amazing how many people have a "problem" with the GPL and see it as "restrictive" - when it's aim is quite the converse.
We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users.
So are we expected to believe that the GPL restricts the rights of users? Firstly the GPL doesn't restrict what you can USE the software for - business, is quite acceptable.
It doesn't even restrict the rights of developers, they can extend the software however they feel. What it does do is PROTECT the rights of users and developers to have the same rights from derived works.
So if I extend some GPL program that's fine, if I wish to distribute the derived work that's also fine, BUT I must make my changes under the GPL. If I don't want that then I can't work with that product. Seems easy.
Compare that with "traditional" software (actually open source is older than the closed model, but you know what I mean), here I can't extend the product because I don't have the source, and I am not allowed to decompile it (for any use).
In short the GPL restricts a right that traditional software DOESN'T give me! Even that restriction is only that I cannot take that right away in derived works.
You can make money from GPL software, it is not "anti-business" you can charge for services, and additions to the software, but you make those in the environment of the GPL.
I am not saying I think the GPL is the right way to go for ALL software, clearly it isn't - but the GPL is not evil, and end users have nothing to fear from it. Developers should understand the legal impact any license they agree to (but this should not be a problem, as long as one takes care to check the details).
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, fucking liars and warhawks. Go become a US state instead, oh wait, you already are.
This is a point that seems to be lost on many people. If you choose to use a GPL'd piece of software, you generally have three choices: You can agree to use it under the GPL, you can limit yourself to "fair use" of the software, or you can contact the copyright holder and negotiate a seperate licence.
With proprietry software, the first of these options is absent. Indeed, quite often the second option is also absent because most commercial software requires the agreement to of an EULA which further restricts "fair use".
The GPL is an addition of a package of extra rights that's entirely optional. If you want to use software like GNU, Linux, MPlayer, etc, without ever agreeing to it, you're welcome to do so.
I don't see how it's the replacement of one monopoly with another.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
In her article, Arlene McCarthy wrote:
To me, this is the most blood-boiling point. I was there at the parliamentary hearing in Brussels in early May. Arlene McCarthy was not. The hearing was a forum for SMEs (Small-to-Medium Enterprises) to present their take on the proposed software patent directive. The prevailing opinion was so unanimous it was boring: software patents are bad. Enterpreneurs and investors pleaded lawmakers to stick to and reaffirm the spirit of the 1973 Munich convention. Yeah, supporters of Free Software were there too (strong Debian contingent, hi, guys!), but by no means in the majority.
I could hardly muster the willpower to talk to anyone during those two days, it was so depressing. No one of the opposing viewpoint showed up, effectively reducing the conference and the hearing to a feel-good get-in-our-of-your-systems-then-go-home kind of event. The only supporter of the directive was Elly Plooij van Gorsel (chairwoman of one of the three committees in charge of the directive), who showed up for the last thirty minutes, took some notes, evaded answering any questions, then left. An enterpreneur even said to her face: I'm the one who's supposed to be protected here, and I'm here to tell you, I don't want your protection. This went wholly unanswered.
So allow me not to suspend my disbelief in Ms. McCarthy's comment quoted above. BTW, Ms. McCarthy is also a chairwoman of a committee handling the directive (of the most powerful of the three). What I saw and read and got to know so far all point into one direction: she's entirely aware of what she does, she just doesn't care about flushing the European SMEs down the toilet. The American multinationals sure can pay for more educational opportunities taking place in Hawaii.
Posted as AC on purpose.
Ladies and Gentleman, a stereotype of a pro-european ^.
WTF is a sig?
Software can be patented, but not "Software as such."
I've read this expression in many pro-software patent texts, and after having seen it discussed on various mailing lists, it appears that it doesn't mean shit.
I've been seeing it a lot lately, first (in recent times) in Penny Arcade but since then a gazillion places.
Yes! Isolate us from Europe! Let's go to war with the EU, let's stand here alone with our Swedish supremacy and high moral. Let the world tremble at our words (coming from 9 M people in a world of soon 9 G people).
That sounds sane... NOT
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
...as RMS asserts, there are 39 different patents on playing MPEG-2 video, then there is likely a 40th and it is up to the OSS community to develop this method and make it available under the GPL. For once I'd like to see RMS think instead of react. I'm not going to hold my breath though as he might have book snarts but his lack of common sense really shows in articles like this.
I accept that rewarding the first might motivate a person to work harder. However, it does this by forcibly preventing everybody else from using that same solution to their problems. How can we demonstrate that the possible motivational effect on the one is worth the limitations on the potential of so many others?
What the hell are you talking about? She's saying the exact opposite. Her major point is that she (and presumably others) are trying to hammer out some legislation that would stop the EU patent system from heading right down to where the US one is, to wit, shit creek.
She isn't saying the patent system doesn't have problems, she's saying it does, and she wants to fix it before it gets too bad.
She makes a few other valid points too, about "free" software. I don't buy her argument about it being a monopoly, but she's right enough about it not being free. Truly free software would just have its source code available online, with no restrictions as to redistribution (such as the GPL).
Of course, this sort of thing would only be abused, which just goes to show you that "free" does not necessarily equal "good".
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
You my friend do not get it.
Besides the EU company could patent it in the US and sue the US company when it tries to compete in the european marketplace, where everyone else is allowed to use the patent.
It is time some of the "computer rights campaigners" got real. Patents for software inventions will not go away.
Why not? Patents are purely a legal construct, change the law, and it's done.
We keep fighting to get rid of crime and it is even less likely to go away.
Sorry the helpless arguement is garbage.
She clearly has the view that patents allow one to level the playing field, if the system worked right that would be true.
But as an employee considering a patent fight the lawyers say "don't bother", you can't prove obviousness. Prior art doesn't count if they are good and tune their claims right. And governments don't like to let home companies lose.
The EU really does need a universal intellectual property regulation system. In order for businesses to operate efficiently in Europe, there really needs to be a common court where intellectual property issues can be addressed.
In theory, patents are needed to protect those who can't compete financially with larger, more capable corporations. A patent is the intellectual stick you can use to beat off unfair business competition in a market place. In theory, of course.
In practice, it's a little different. I'm sure we're all aware of the potential for abuse with poorly designed IP regulations (the Stallman/Hill article does a good job outlining some of those issues).
What we needed are universal IP regulations designed to protect the the individual who doesn't have the financial resources to fend of giants like Microsoft or IBM, AND a much narrower definition of what can be patented in software.
Exactly my thoughts!
The stupidity of the lady is worrying.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
But hey, McDonalds, Monsanto, Exxon et al do the American reputation a world of good.
On the other hand, it gives European companies an advantage as they are already used to dealing with the complexity of trading within Europe.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Please do! It's been a total waste of time and money being a member of the EU. For a few billion quid a year we get told how to run our country for the benefit of French farmers. Whoop-de-fucking-do!
Meanwhile, it's hard to go shopping without getting several items made in China and huge whacks of the service industries are under threat from cheap labour in India.
What are the advantages of being in the EU that the poor Chinese and Indians are missing out on? They must be kicking themselves for having to only trade with us and missing the opportunity of having their laws overruled and their fiscal policy interfered with by a bunch of witless jerks on six figure job-for-life salaries.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
For a few billion quid a year we get told how to run our country
Of course you'd rather be told be president Bush how to run your country
Arlene sounds pretty reasonable. She isn't. With one hand she writes articles like this one, with the other one she is relentlessly pushing the patent inflation damaging innovation and competition. The European Patent Office has for many years granted illegal patents on software and business methods, and now they want EU to bless this practice. (Never mind hurting innovation)
Let me point out a couple of points:
First, the EU directive is not proposing to patent all software, it is limited to genuine inventions.
Then what about an "invention" like converting Win95 filenames to WinNT filenames?
To stop the drift towards the US practice of patenting business methods.
Well, if you had been to this meeting you could have learned how to patent business methods under Arlenes proposal.
this directive will not have any adverse effects on open source software development. Even in the US [Linux] declares a 50% growth
And how about the whole GIF/Unisys/LZW debacle? No "adverse effects"?
From medical inventions to household appliances[...]inventions involving software are increasingly a fact of life.
Yes, and that's why we should let "innovators" blanket patent obvious ideas like using computers for medical diagnosis
This directive will provide legal certainty for European software inventors.
Yes, you can be sure that unless you can take on IBM in court, you will have to pay up to develop your idea.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
I have written a small piece on software patents in the EU for Greplaw. Richard Stallman has already complained about me not being Wittgenstein enough in my language (I am talking about intellectual property for instance), but maybe you will get something out of reading Software Patents Stink. My main concern is a lack of public debate of the issue. The IT industry needs to join in before it is too late.
Best regards,
Mikael
Pawlo.com
I think if you come over and see how well we're doing, as opposed to how poor people in your country are, then yes, you may ahve the strongest economy. You can keep it.
The UK people has no whish to join the EU. The UK corporations are begging the government. And the government is bullshitting the rest of Europe with strong claims and demands. Gimme one good reason why the UK should join Europe, because if the UK public doesn't see it, why should Europe even consider it. The UK is welcome, like any nation is, but on EU terms, not on UK terms.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
I agree
:P
im english and i hope you dump us
we dont want to be run by europe
tony blair wants britain ran by europe while at the same time he gets shafted by bush but the british people dont
we want to be our own country with out own govornment running stuff
not some guy from over sea's
i find the idea of people actualy wanting there country ran by someone else other than there country insane
If you're going to contact her, for fucks sake be polite and professional.
h tm
Contact YOUR MEP as well. It will help them vote against any legislation...
In the UK anyway, you can find out who your MEPs are here:
http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersMain.
Mail her and cc: all of your MEPs.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Just because a famous person said something doesn't make it so.
:P
For example, do all reasonable men adapt themselves to the world? I think this is debatable.
I agree with you re: RMS' achievements. But G.B. Shaw doesn't prove anything.
What you refer to is the 'not software as such' myth. That is how it is /now/: the software itself cannot be patented, but inventions that happen to contain software may be patented.
/removes/ this limitation: anything 'with a computer' is by definition technical, and hence patentable. So software 'as such' will be patentable.
/pretends/ to limit the patent system.
Despite the impression McCarthy and e.g. Bolkestein want to confer, the EC draft directive actually
The report you point to is from a hardcore pro swpat organization, that complains that the EC is not going far enough in extending the scope of the patent system. What they don't like about the proposal is that it even
You know what would clear up the US patent problem?
Have the USPO give a $100 reward for each reported and documented prior art on a patent that would invalidate the patent. It would get rid of most of these crap patents, and give us unemployed geeks something to do for fun.
That would rock.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
What can be owned and sold can be taxed. That means more feet on people's heads and hands, more power to the owners of the feet, and more credit to the owners as "great people" when something gets done.
Question is, when everything is known in heaven, how is this going to play out?
This isn't a question of how well Europe should do. This is a question of who should be on top, and it is clear that an MP is a much more valuable person than a software programmer, and should be on top.
It only stands to reason.
If you doubt me, read "The Republic", see how it is held up as an example to be followed, and understand.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Ah. I can understand it, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it.
Are you talking about Plato's The Republic, or some other The Republic?
Sorry to update you on that, but France is the 4th biggest economy in the world. I got that from the CIA's world fact handbook though, so maybe it is just a reflect of the anti-UK, pro-French bias that is so common in the US government.
We are a strong currency, and a nuclear power at that, we have a seat at the UN security council It's been a century since the UKP has stopped being an international reference currency. As for being stable... In 1992 it was ejected from the EEC's currency system because of a competitive devaluation. It is today a small local currency, a financial anecdote, with bloomberg TV wondering if it must waste room on the screen to show its rate beside the Euro and the Yen.
The EU does include a much more independent nuclear capability, France, and unlike the UK's Trident delivery system, Washington can not potentially pull the plug on it.
U.S support and trade when we need it
You mean, like when the US pulled steel tariffs on you ? Like when they scrapped the UK-backed landmine treaty ? Like recently when they publicly exposed BAe Systems' bribery practice in the Czek Republic ? Like in Suez, in Granada ? Like when they themselves killed the majority of UK casualties in Iraq that were not in accidents ?
Clearly, I don't accept it either -- but that is the typical goal of people who seek power.
And yes, I did mean Plato's
Republic. Quite honestly, I think that this newspaper article I linked to is too close to imply anything but.
The problem is that if you read The Republic as a serious work [as our leaders would have us do], the Plato learned absolutely nothing from his teacher. But if you read it as a satire, then Plato was trying to take Socrates' work and turn it around, and a Republic, though not necessarily to be avoided in some cases, is something to be viewed with deep suspicion.
Personally, with all the hype going on around the new constitution, I suspect that there are going to be deep flaws. If this is done with a good heart, I fully expect amendments to come in a major rewriting. If not, then I expect serfdom for a while, followed by disaster after disaster.
In the end, you can't get around reality -- but that doesn't always stop governments from trying.
We'll just see what happens. Hopefully things won't be too bad.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Her major point is that she (and presumably others) are trying to hammer out some legislation that would stop the EU patent system from heading right down to where the US one is
Ah yes, the "harmonizing" argument. I certainly agree having a "harmonious system" across the EU is a GoodThing. However that that does NOT mean the system she is proposing is a good one.
She is abusing the harmonizing argument to slip in BAD changes. She is either a nieve puppet or she is being intentionally deceptive. Currently much of the EU has restrictions against software patents. She says "Patents for software inventions will not go away". She is pushing a system to force the EU to use the bad US system.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Her article was, at least, responsive and reasonable. It is sophomoric and irresponsible merely to state, without more, that her arguments were misrepresentations, and such silly remarks tend to support the position she takes (that the "computer rights campaigners" need to get real.
RMS wrote a parade-of-horribles argument that doesn't distinguish "patents are horrible," from "software patents are horrible," from "bad software patents are horrible." Marking arguments mostly from the first and third category, he convinces nobody who isn't already convinced. Stating, without more, that patents are bad, will not dissuade anyone who has a patent system from extending it. Arguing that bad software patents are bad simply calls for better examination and rational enforement policies.
She correctly observes that the US patent system is FAR more liberal to software arts patents than the present directive, and does not permit business methods patents (like the US prior to the State Street Bank decision, under the old Alapatt standard). And yet, the parade of horribles RMS states will befall the EU hasn't happened here. Arguments like this may make those already convinced feel perhaps better about their position, but is likely also to get those who hold that position marginalized as irrational kooks.
If you have an argument, by all means make it. If you think she has made a misrepresntation, by all means state it. Instead, all you did was gainsay a reasoned (and certainly weakish and incomplete) rebuttal to a not terribly well-articulated article criticizing software patents in the EU.
She is right -- we do need to get real.
"If the appalling mixture of misrepresentation, non sequitur, solecism and faux-naivete does not make your blood boil, you are a cold fish indeed."
I'm still trying to find out what most of these words mean...
And this is my big issue with software patents, they generaly don't really do a full disclosure, their technical details are scant and end up with some bullshit like.
patent #####
a method for implementing %insert common task% using %insert common tool%
%insert clever legalease that sounds vaugely technical%
Take the one click patent by amizon(please) or the purchasing things at fixed price that is biting ebay. niether of these patents specifies exactly how the protocalls work, because if they did I (or ebay) could just use slightly different protocalls and sidestep the stupid patent
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
I'm not really interested in any un-elected twat telling us how to run the country. The elected twats are bad enough.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
...European Patent Convention? Article 52 is particularly interesting. Americans, take note: European patent law has been harmonised for nearly 30 years and specifically bans software patents as you know them.
I though mathematical formulas are not patentable. Couldn't one argue that code is math? Especially something like Prolog. Has anybody tried that tact?
Table-ized A.I.
ok, in what way does she have any point? How exactly is it that software patents are supposed to HELP individuals and small business? And how exactly is it that not having them will effectively lock small business out while the big giants have patents.... the big giants WON'T have patents if there are NO software patents!
As a citizen of the United States I would like to be first to do something good for the UK. I will inform you of the outlook of the average american in regards to your nation.
It is our belief that we bitch slapped you in the Revolutionary war. We have continued to slap around our little bitches in the UK whenever we've felt the need. You are like a little puppy who follows us around all the time, sometimes you have to give it a wack and tell it to go to it's room... other times you have it bark at the salesman at the door to encourage him to leave. You'd never stick a puppy as the sole solution to a serious problem however... after all it's just a simpering little lapdog. But it doesn't hurt if it's tugging on the pantleg of someone while your pounding their face in.
After all is done you give it a pat on the head, and perhaps a treat. *gives the UK a cheap manufactured bone* Good Doggie.
We view most of the rest of the world in the same light. There is nobody who can honestly say that we aren't really the UN, the UN may as well be called the US plus some flies buzzing around it's head, ALL of Europe barely qualifying as one fly.
For god sakes, do you expect us to take europe seriously? The last time there was a conflict, WW2, Europe was trampled by a few contingents, ALL of it, only the UK held out and that was because we showed up in time... you wouldn't want anyone to kill your puppy! Whereas something in the order of 150 times the germans died in Russia than it took to conquer the rest of Europe.
Of course we no longer have to take germany all that seriously either, we smacked it around in WW2 and have since gimped it, germany didn't even scratch us then... it was you Europeans they beat up. Japan did hurt us, so we castrated them. Now we don't have to be concerned with japan anymore.
The truth is, if there is any sort of one world government, it's us. We are it, every nation yields to us and if they don't, we smash them, financially, politically, or if need be, physically. And all the while we act like we are the good guys! And the victors get to write the history books, so we ARE the good guys! Woot.
Now left out of this equation is the one nation that has remained closed and to itself all this time, China... those son of a bitches are numerous enough that they could beat us down with sticks. Oops wait, no big deal, we have enough bombs at any given time to render the soil of their entire nation to glass on less than 24hrs notice.
Do you really think anybody here ever considered iraq a threat? Iraq was a joke. Afganistan was also a joke, we tore it up at our leisure because we were looking for someone. If you honestly believe there is any nation on earth, or ALL of them combined that we take entirely seriously... your kidding yourself. Yes you may get benefits, but make no mistake, it's nothing more than the most faithful hound getting the meatier bones.
I suspect she's trying to say that they could get the patents in the USA if the little businesses didn't get them in Europe first.
Of course, there's always this little thing known as "Prior Art", but the US Patent Office doesn't appear to have a great reputation for what things they allow to be patented.
I still have difficulty understanding how anybody could see her position as reasonable unless they're against free software. I notice quite a lot of people describing her as reasonable are ACs... Can't fool us, Arlene! ;)
Be careful! New moon tonight.
Richard Stallman is not meant to be reasonable - that's the point. He is a person of very high ideals, and he prefers to keep himself "pure" rather than compromise his beliefs. I would go so far as to say it is a matter of religious belief. In this respect I would liken the FSF to a monastic order, whereas the OSI is more like an inner-city church that has to be satisfied with saving just a few souls.
It's all a matter of how close you think you can get to perfection. RMS is a spiritual leader. He has to believe the GNU project will succeed, otherwise he will lose his followers.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
All that, and yet you got your ass kicked by puny Vietnam. Hm, a pattern seems to emerge. When the UK helps the US, then the wars go ok. When the US is alone, then it loses. Could it be because USians are absolute morons? Just throwing out a possibility. UKians at least seem to have some kind of thought capacity, albeit limited.
WTH??
You claim that you don't want your country to be run by a foreign power. Well, as a Northerner, I have to laugh because that is already the case here. Every decision the "British" government makes supposedly in the interests of "Britain" is in fact in the interests of London, even when that would be at the expense of the North. Parts of this country are actually closer geographically to the continent than they are to London.
London is polished up for the tourists. If you travel a few tens of km up the M1 or along the M4, you will see a very different picture. What Thatcher started, and Blair is continuing, is the turning of Britain into a nation of middlemen. No manufacturing industry, just service industries staffed by nose-poking, pen-pushing types who set more store by the policy manual than the customers who pay their wages.
On the other hand, Britain is still my home and I won't stand to see anyone knock it.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"Numerous people from small to medium-sized enterprises have written to me in support of my proposal . "
Well show Us the letters I would say.
Robert
You ignore that a strong DRM system will be breakable even if all the details of how it works are known to the attacker. Remember, the patent necessarily tells *how it works* -- not "how to defeat it".
Same rule applies to strong cryptography.
Was that disagreeing with you "just because", or simply accepting the reality of the situation? Software patents do exist elsewhere in the world, notably in the US. This effectively disadvantages European software writers compared to American ones; we can use our ideas here but not there if they got in first, whereas they can use their ideas in both places without penalty.
If you could provide a link to those public comments, it would be good to see. Until then, I'm rather suspicious of whether (a) the sample is at all representative, or simply a self-selecting sample of a vocal minority, and (b) she is therefore not representing the people properly.
How so? Most of that article seemed to be well reasoned, quite well informed, and a generally balanced and realistic viewpoint. Given yet another rant by RMS to which she was replying, I find your statement above rather unfair.
You could be polite because it's simple courtesy and there's no reason not to be. The way to get your way on issues like this is by making clear, rational and informed arguments in a level-headed and well-presented way. It is not to rant (/me copies to RMS) or to be rude and offensive (/me replies to parent post). I'd far rather have the author of that article in a position of government than a "my way or the wrong way" narrow mind like RMS'.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Now you're into something. Not only should the UK not join the EU, the rest of the country should be less dependent on London.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
Since when was "Just Plain Wrong" the same as "Insightful"?!
Her argument isn't even slightly that the patent system hasn't got problems. On the contrary, she argues that it needs change to keep Europe competitive in the worldwide software industry, and if you bother to do your homework into where her views come from, she makes a lot of good points, and has obviously tried to balance the opposing viewpoints in forming her policies.
RMS, on the other hand, has a very simple argument, which in the previous article also mentioned by the original story was pretty much expressed as "Patents suck, because". Granted that if you do your homework he, too, has rather more sensible arguments than that, but they sure as hell weren't written into the first article that I saw, and that's what the MEP is defending against here.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Patents were orgianly conceved to protect peoples inventions from being stolen and used by big companys (and to put them in the public domain). Unfortunaly in the US the patent office tends to have a grant first and ask questions later attitude to patents. This meens that the big bussiniesses patent a lot of stuff that shoulnd't be (vague, obvious and allready done) if somone happens to write something that violates that patent (even without prior knowlege of the patent) and the company tells them that they are violating one of their patents. the person will have to go to court and pay lots of money to prove that the patent isn't valid. If you are giving away software for free or can't afford a court case you are more likly to say 'sod it' and withdraw the software. So you end up with patents stopping inovation. This is entirly the opposit of what they were ment to do.
hmmm true true, you could have a point there. The average US citizen is also a damn idiot ;)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your description glosses over a number of pertinant details. Unisys and IBM were both issued patents covering a compression algorithm commonly used in GIFs (U.S. patents 4,558,302 and 4,814,746, respectively). This presented a problem for those who wanted to deal in the patented algorithm because it meant there were two organizations to deal with to comply, not just one. Generally, as patent law is "harmonized", it becomes easier for corporations (who hold the vast majority of patents) to prevent the spread of Free Software worldwide.
If either IBM or Unisys decided to not issue a license to Free Software developers, issue licenses that depend on a per-unit charge, or place limits on how implementations can use the covered idea (so-called "field-of-use restrictions"), we all lose.
As BurnAllGIFs.org describes, Unisys changed the terms on licensing and can do it again. Software patents in general and this patent in particular contribute to an uncertain playing field on which to distribute software that no reasonable person would dismiss so quickly.
That's not completely true and it doesn't accurately describe the situation in front of us now. According to mp3licensing.com, which details the licensing fees to distribute MP3 software, "[a] per unit royalty is taken on mp3/mp3PRO products and applications, such as ripping software, jukebox applications, mp3/mp3PRO-enabled CD/DVD players and portable mp3/mp3PRO players." Per-unit fees are incompatible with Free Software licensing because Free Software can be shared and modified freely, so there are no legal Free Software MP3 encoders. For decoders, one should look at the one-time license fee. The amount of money paid to Thomson depends on what is being licensed. The one-time fees start at US$50,000. How many of the programs you listed have paid the appropriate one-time fee to Thomson so they can legally distribute their programs in countries that honor U.S. software patents?
Nor were they meant to--quite to the contrary, leveraging the patents is done after the ideas described in the patents are in widespread use. Discovering a new format is patent-encumbered takes the shine off the new format. Awareness of the patents in both of the cases you talk about were raised after the public had widely used them. That's one of the ways patent holders make money. What's more socially relevant is what effect this has on the users, not some measure of popularity of a format.
RedHat received some press for removing MP3 decoding software from its GNU/Linux distribution. RedHat GNU/Linux is a very popular GNU/Linux distribution. So that means a lot of RedHat users lose unless they obtain a patent license or infringe upon Thomson's patent.
The effect on the users is what RMS' talk on this subject focuses on as well (approximately 17m into the talk, according to the transcript). RMS tells the story of a compression algorithm that was about to be used in a compression program but couldn't be used because a patent had been issued covering the very same algorithm. RMS learned of this patent a week before that program was set to debut. I doubt that is the only time a program "died before it was born" (quoting RMS' description of the program that implemented the patented algorithm).
I think you are glossing over some of the key points that make software patents so unpalatable to all but the richest businesses.with extant patents which they want to leverage against the public, or enough money so they can cross-license with the patent holder.
Digital Citizen
I assume you compared the GDP values in the factbook but the cia world factbook uses PPP and therefore the top5 would be 1. USA 2. China 3. Japan 4. India 5. Germany.
I don't know about absolute numbers as the Euro got much stronger recently
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Man, you really need to know more before you form an opinion.
Merely because I disagree with you does not mean that I am misinformed. No substantive analysis is necessary whatsoever to have made the statements in my prior statement: that the original poster made no case whatsoever in support of his suggestion of misrepresentation.
As to your new claim of misdirection, the FUD in the cited URL and the RMS paper is as bad as the FUD in response. With all due respect, this issue is far more complex than any three paragraph posting here.
If you have an argument, please make one, by all means. So far, you are simply giving testimony of misdirection. How about providing a real argument for once?
Her several statements in the quoted article are reasonable, for the reasons stated in my original posting: the EU directive is more akin to the Alapatt, pre-State Street Bank position in the US than to the present, more liberal US position. It does not support business method protection outside of the context of an IT system. And the economy of the EU is not so different from that of the US as to make her question, if these issues are so bad, "why hasn't the parade of horribles befallen the US?"
Your example of misrepresentation appears to be an assertion that she has not recieved a number of letter from small to medium-sized enterprises in support of the proposal. I clearly cannot provide you with the evidence you require, I'm just a geek patent lawyer in the US -- can you provide me with proof that she has none?
I can, however, tell you that I represent many small to mid-sized enterprises for whom I have drafted software patents. Presumably they find some value in the process. Of course, this neither ratifies nor gainsays what you are suggesting, but so what?
How about actually making an argument? Just one?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No-one is going to take you seriously until you learn to write properly. Put a disclaimer in your sig file if you have medical issues with language, but I'm guessing you don't. As an English person by your own admission, and one who seems to take pride in that fact, the least you can do is not let the side down by posting such utter drivel.
The GPL has absolutely no effect on the user of the software. It only limits people who want to redistribute the software.
while (!asleep()) sheep++
This is true of all licenses. you can abide by the license, make use of any fair use provisions in your jurisdiction, or you can negotiate a separate license. While it is true that fair use is under attack, it is still technically the law. The problems with the DMCA aren't relavent to any particular license. They just don't apply to GPL code because GPL doesn't assert any technical copy protection by the author. It does assert certain legal copy protections, in so much as you must stop copying it if you are found in violation. Which is true of all licenses.
GPL does not grant any rights. No license can. Rights are unlimited with a public domain work; you can't get any better than that. GPL, like all licenses, restricts what you may do with a controlled work.
The real problem appears to be that its been so long since anything went into the public domain that people have forgotten what it is and somehow think that they require a special license in order to be free.
Additionally, comparing the GPL to public domain is unfair and absurd. The GPL is an additional licence that can grant people additional rights to use copyrighted content, and it's only within the context of copyrighted content that we're interested here. The public domain, by defintion, is not copyrighted, and so falls outside of the scope of the arena the GPL operates within and is specifically designed to open up.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I think courting a patent infringement lawsuit is unwise. I'm guessing RedHat agrees and that is why they removed MP3 software from their GNU/Linux distribution. It's disappointing you aren't citing any reason for disobeying the law other than your immediate desire. Nothing about challenging bad laws, raising awareness of a system that prohibits competing on merit, or working on a better solution--any of the reasons that might encourage people to agree with why you advocate infringing patents. You appear to advocate infringing patents just because you want these features and you're not willing to consider the long-term ramifications of these choices.
No, and fortunately for this case another algorithm was not patent-encumbered. As patents cover more ideas more algorithms will be cut off from implementation and the strategy that led to gzip will be cut off. Which strategy one can take to deal with a patent depends on the details of that particular situation. For programmers in countries that observe software patents, there's no known way to legally encode or decode MP3s without acquiring a license from Thomson. If Thomson decides not to sell you a license or if that license is out of reach, the developer loses and consumers lose from reduced competition. But you need not remind us of your solution--ignore the law because it gets in your way. I can only hope that any developer who doesn't have the US$50k or more to acquire an MP3 patent license somehow comes up with the money to defend themselves should they be sued for patent infringement.
Digital Citizen
Your first argument is discussed in a parallel thread. I won't repeat that here.
So how about actually answering my concern about the portfolio effect? Just once?
I'll summarize. Portfolios can be powerful, software or otherwise. But there is nothing in a large portfolio of patents that would make it inherently cover, as you suggest, every complex program, any more than does the existence of a kazillion airbag patents necessarily make any new one by a smaller vendor infringing. The devil is always in the details, and in practice, very few portfolio effects --as you use the term-- have existed historically, outside the beginning innovation of a pioneering technology. Those are often resolved either by anti-trust, or by the legitimate acceptance of a temporary monopoly on, say, the polaroid, semiconductor or copier industries. What ordinarily happens, though, is that a follower comes up with an incremental invention seminally important, and the cross-licensing associations begin. Historically, as in semi-conductors and the early calculator industry, this has been much more pro-competitive than anti-competitive.
In any case, the best counterexample is the US. I have been around and marketed many programs, never once having been hit by "the mob."
(If you now say that this is a new argument, then you really need to read up on this stuff, no offense meant. It is anything but new.)
Your ad hominem suggestions about me don't justify your ad hominem's against Ms. McCarthy. You are making a fool of yourself -- I am well-known for my appreciation of the subject matter.
I subscribe to the view that software is mathematics (my working with formal methods no doubt influences me in this), and maths has never been patentable, why start now?
Well, this is well-discussed in the applicable U.S. jurisprudence. Ideas and formulae, laws of nature and the like are all non-patentable. But while the law of gravity is non-patentable, a novel variation of the trebuchet would be. Software patents did predate the Diamond v. Diehr case by many years, and the best model, IMHO, for limiting this was the Alapatt case -- yeah, I think State Street Bank went too far as well. But the EU proposal is way less permissive than either of those standards.
The observation is that ever since the end of the 1960s, there has always been a "software crisis".
The term, first used by Dijkstra, I think, refers to the fact that software doesn't work, costs too much, and was largely unmaintainable. Since the U.S. patent cases didn't start until '84, and not really at all until '97, it would seem that your distinction is a wee bit difficult.
There are many arguments along the lines of the Shaw quote -- including a beautiful one by Jefferson about candles and tapers. They apply to all ideas and all patents. And yet, there is widespread appreciation for the utility, and among some (apparently other than yourself) for the necessity of a patent system. (Jefferson, a true monopoly skeptic, later supported the Patent clause of the Constitution and became the first Commissioner of Patents, by the way.)
You mean, in a "patent-filled world", you need to get the patent-holder's permission to use their patented format - iff they choose to impose licensing requirements. (We'll ignore for now the fact you can't patent formats per se...) What is so wrong with that? As I said earlier, if you want to use somebody's invention in a way they don't like, invent your own damn product. Just like copyright: the inventor decides the terms.
About using using wine to play movies on linux, try the alternative of distributing mplayer's win32 port (oh ya, mplayer does play these patented MS media formats natively on win32) inside US and wait for your day in court.
Winamp seems to manage it OK - what does mplayer do wrong to cause a problem?