Slashdot Mirror
EU Moves Towards Single European Patent Standard
theodp writes "A European Parliament committee Tuesday moved toward setting the first pan-European standard for software patents, but outlawed the U.S. practice of patenting business methods, such as Amazon's one-click Internet shopping. 'The European law sets the right benchmark rather than the looser U.S. system,' said the director of public policy for Europe at the Business Software Alliance, which represents 20 software companies including Microsoft and Apple. Amazon representatives in Brussels declined to comment on the new European legislation."
A piece of software is covered under copyright laws - the same way a piece of art or music is. If the EU go the route of the US in allowing software patents it damages software development in the long term.
Video Game cheats, hints a
Unfortunatly, this report, from the Legal Affairs committee, does support software patents, ignoring the advice of the Industry committee, the Culture committee, and the vast majority of the response to their public consultation on the issue. Luckily, there is still time, as it has to pass the European parliament before coming EU law. So, to all European slashdotters, please make sure to contact your MEP about it (in a coherant, non-loony way) and explain why software patents are bad.
Business method patents weren't added until the late 1990's. In fact our patent and copyright system has gone through extensive changes to make it less beneficial IMO. I would argue in fact that version 1.0 was *far* more desireable than what we have now.
Laws are not like software. Software gets better with time, Laws and regulations often go the other direction.
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
...is the software industry leaving the U.S. in droves for less litigious countries.
This is not my sandwich.
So rather than claiming a business method, European applicants will simply claim software useful in implementing a business method, while never actually using the words "business" or "method." For a skilled practitioner, the new EU guidelines don't seem to put up much in the way of a barrier.
>The first version of anything is never the best version.
...er... never mind.
yup! but you could also say that the second version of anything is never the best version. The third version is!! er, wait.. the fourth is!
Considering that the patent office has turned into a revenue source for the government I'd say it's worse.
Cute how its dressed up, but its telling that its the big players that want to lock themselves in with Patents who are backing this.
We had the most innovative time when there were no patents and lockins. Now the software market is dead, because the OS vendor locks the market down. Giving them more lock down tools in the form of patents is death for applications software.
No applications are developed, nothing new is in the market and it has nothing to do with patents, and everything to do with market lock.
I entirely agree with this, but I'm not sure if this is the right question to be asking. The question is, is there a benefit to the public to award a time-limited monopoly (aka a patent) for those who bother to go out and discover these things, or isn't there one? If it benefits us, we should do it. If not, we shouldn't. Whether it was a process of invention or discovery is moot if we can somehow encourage addition invention or discovery. But I'm skeptical as to whether the benefits are real, or more substantial than the problems that also ensue...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I'm no fan of the lovely US patent system, but I don't know about algorightms being a "mathematical truth" any more than a functioning machine is a "physical truth." One is an implementation of logic, one of physics. Yet no one would fight a patent on a new machine that does something cool. Similarly, I would argue for algorithms, assuming they meet all the other patent standards.
Note that doesn't mean I'm going to grant a patent on something like the for-loop, but I think any specific, novel, nonobvious means of solving any problem should be patentable. So if you invent a new way of approaching an encryption problem, cool, patent. But saying one-click is a patent, that's an end, not a means. No patent.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
An equally large, and relevant, problem is the lawsuit culture present in the US. The reason everyone is trying to patent every possible idea no matter how abstract is that it our legal system tolerates lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. Instead of providing relief for a party that has been wronged, it has become a lottery, where the price a patent application could win you a big cash settlement.
Now I believe that the current patent system is badly broken and in need of a massive overhaul, but how much of the change should be made in the patent system, and how much in the courts?
I don't see any particular reason that mathematical truths shouldn't be patentable, except that they wouldn't make particularly useful patents, since there isn't exactly any way to "use" them in the right sense for the restriction. Unless, of course, they are algorithms. Sure, they're discovered, but so is everything else. The functionality of a steam engine was no less true in 1776 than it is now, but nobody knew to do that then, just like RSA would have worked in 1776 if anyone had tried it. There is no real fundamental difference between algorithms and devices, as has become clear in these days when mechanical devices are being replaced first with digital circuits and then with software for an embedded computer.
There are plenty of problems with the patent system (largely concerning the vast quantity of patent applications and awarded patents overwhelming patent offices and inventors; the intent of the system is that every inventor read every patent applicable to the field, but this is impossible, and the patents aren't even available for a long time), but this isn't really one of them (except that people getting software patents tend to be sleazier than the average).
I don't think algorithms are invented any more than mathematical truths are invented, rather they are discovered.
Thats an interesting argument, imagine if Newton had been able to patent the use of the formulas he discovered ?. At the same time in today's competitive money focused world Newton may not have been able to claim credit for discovery without the patent system.
This is a wide-open door through which even the most rediculously obvious software patents could (and therefore will) slip.
Please please please don't let yourselves think that this is anything other than the EU getting a patent system open to virtually all of the abuses demonstrated in the US.
I just sent the following to my MEP, find your MEP's email address and contact them NOW before it is too late (people in the UK can find their members here)!:
No, we haven't learned from your mistakes, I'm afraid. Before EU started gathering together the directive, some countries, including Finland where I live, had no software patents at all.
"We don't want to arrive at a model where in the U.S. everything under the sun can be patented," said Ilias Konteas of the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe
Ok, well seeing as my karma is slipping away due to a "flamebait" mod I'll carry on with my thinking :-)
I see the drug companies as similar to the bread making companies. Both have a recepie, both make money out of baking and selling the outcome. One does this without the need for patents. In fact, asprin tablet makers still manage to make lots money and stay in business despite there no longer (or even ever) being patents on asprin. So, in the end I think that the "drugs companies" issue is a bogus arguement. I also notice that the drug manufacturers are amongst the biggest an most monopolistic of companies. We end up paying huge premiums as a result of this either to health insurance companies or in taxes to our health services.
If the FDA wanted to level the playing field they could do this by ensuring that any new *brand* of drug has to go through trials and test, just like the original.
Sorry to bore you all, come on give me another flamebait (idiot moderator!).
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
1) Make sure you don't infringe patents, like
"Use of hyperlinks in a computer program for an automation application and programmed computer for such an application"
"Method and system including a server, client-terminal, computer and computer program, delivering sound data"
"A computer system and a program install method thereof"
2) When you've found the 100 or so patents your program-to-be infringes, get a deal with all the inventors. (If some of them are slippery, you can probably "invent around" their claim in a couple of months)
3) Pay IBM for not starting a lawsuit you can't afford
4) (Minor step) Write your program
5) Sell it (hoping you won't be victim of a submarine patent)
6) PROFIT!!! (for your lawyer)
Nahhh, on the other hand, just drop developing, and become lawyer yourself (or take advantage of our generous social system, if being a "productive member of the society" is not your cup of tea)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
I don't think algorithms are invented any more than mathematical truths are invented, rather they are discovered.
Well, every invention is just a 'discovery' in some sense. I mean, take for example child-proof caps for medicine. Someone 'discovered' there was a way to make a cap that wouldn't open unless pushed. Someone 'discovered' that making a tire in a certain shape would pull water off the ground and make driving safer. Someone 'discovered' that you could setup transistors in a certain way to make double data rate DRAM. All of these are discoveries as much as something like realizing that you could delete audio information that would be filtered out by the brain as a way to save space.
The important thing in my mind is to filter out the 'obvious' things from the truly innovative. It's 'obvious' to use base-64 encoding in DNS for international domain names. 1-click shopping is 'obvious', etc.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Unfortunately for you, the blurb and the article fell for the propaganda tricks of one of the more useful (to whom?) members of the Parliament.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.