Slashdot Mirror


More on European Software Patents

pdajames writes "An article at ZDNet UK says that the EU bureaucrats aren't even considering the numerous anti-software patenting opinions out there. According to a well-connected lobbyist group, they have determined there will be patents, and the only question is what kind."

21 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Small victory for Anti-patent groups by greppling · · Score: 5, Informative

    Those lobbying in favour of software patents wanted to have the final vote next week. But it has now been decided (sorry, link in German) that it will be held in September, as planned originally.

  2. Hmmmm by HughJampton · · Score: 5, Informative

    The patents might not have so much effect in Europe, as patents take 7-10 years to be granted, and there is a 9 month period in which objections to the patent can be voiced before a patent is granted.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, beowulf clusters imagine YOU!
    1. Re:Hmmmm by MarcR80 · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the contrary, there will be a huge effect. There are already more than 30000 softwarepatents granted, that will become legal (yes, they've been granted illegally), when the EU decides in favour of patents. See here for a few examples.

    2. Re:Hmmmm by garyok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IANAL, but wouldn't this mean the patent is effective for 27-30 years instead of 20 years, as the 'invention' still has protection while it's pending? And if the IP firm working the system can come up with enough variations, alterations, and improvements they can keep the patent from being issued indefinitely. What a bonus!

      The simple fact is that IT moves too damn fast for software patents to be anything other than nuisances at best and corporate genocide at worst.

      I'm going to mail my MEPs about this and I hope that any other Eurolanders checking this thread out will too.

      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
  3. Not surprised by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    I e-mailed my MEP and was most supprised to get a reply at all, unfortunatly it wasn't anything good.

    He said that after cairful consideration and consultation with industry they were a necessary step to allow the EU to remain competative :o( I wonder how much he got paid to say that?

    Engineers are supposed to be ethical as well as commercially minded, and consider the social consequences of their actions - something he seems to have forgotten when he became a politician.

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Not surprised by roard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then, rewrite him with extensive informations, if possible comments of small companies, etc. Sorry my own links are in French ;-) but I'm sure you could find many links against software patents, with models letters to send to your MEP, etc. Another good method is to check some (already granted, even if near illegally) EU patents, and send a mail to the potential affected companies you could know. One thing with EU patents is that the majority of people, developers and companies, absolutely don't know about them, and when asked about, they absolutely don't know the potential risks of software patents. So pattents lobbiers carefully presents patents as a good thing of course. The only thing to do then is to spread the information ! we only have 2 months !!

  4. Wannabe active on this matter? by tka · · Score: 5, Informative

    This probably the easiest way to be active on these kind of matters if you are joe/jill the average user.

    Join the Electronic Frontier organizations:

    Electronic Frontier Foundation - USA
    Electronic Frontier Finland
    Electronic Frontier Canada
    Electronic Frontiers Australia
    Electronic Frontier Ireland
    Electronic Frontier Sverige
    Electronisk Forpost Norge
    Electronic Frontier Ireland
    Electronic Frontiers Italy

    (use them as google search terms)

  5. Another sad day... by johny_qst · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the new world order...
    I will continue to hope that progress will be made in the way that societies handle 'intellectual property'. I don't think that any amount of lobbying could possibly end the month of june with the EU not having software patents. Given the political power of corporations in the US and the EU there seems to be no place for free thinking when money might be changing hands due to the outcome of the policy. There will be an EU patent process for software. Open Source Software will continue to adapt and grow while the corporations attempt to twist the judiciary and governments of the various countries of the world to get what they want... more money.

    --
    Fnord.sig
  6. Getting angrier and angrier by sploxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are there any surveys that show that the majority of europeans support this SH**??
    We live in a democracy?! WHY HAVE THESE F*CKING COMPANY-LOBBIES MORE RIGHT THAN THE CONSUMER THEY SHOULD SERVE???
    Are our governments finally infiltrated by the corporate mafia?!

    Sorry for ranting. But I think its pretty clear.
    I'm feeling helpless. One notes the unfair situation here by the amount of argument the anti-software-patent-side has to do to let the politicians just LISTEN to their arguments. The pros say: Hey we need software patents because they are good for the economy. And the economy is good for you. Period.
    And the politicians follow. Uhhhh....
    Maybe I should grow up. Maybe I shouldn't bother. This is clearly the wrong forum to say that, I know...
    But where else?

    1. Re:Getting angrier and angrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No there aren't just the opposite seems to be.
      EuroLinux already has more than 150.000 signatures against software patents

      http://petition.eurolinux.org/signatures.html?LA NG =en

      And in an open discussion 90% of the people affected opted for no software patents. The European commission closed the discussion with the words, that there was a financial majority (of 10%). So you basically can see where the train comes from. The last hope to stop this really is the european parlament.

      Given the state of the european software industry consisting 95% of individuals and small companies, the negative economic impact of such a regulation really could be severe. The the European Commission is playing the three monkey games of not listening not hearing and not talking in this matter.

  7. Elite serving the Elite! by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It does not surprise that the European Parliament is taking this attitude! We keep harping on the
    Americans and how they let certain laws through. The reality is that politics is not about democracy, but about people keeping themselves in power.

    This is reaching almost epic proportions because the politicians think those demonstrating and calling themselves anarchists are in the minimum. I am thinking more and more, are they really in the minimum? Is the talk of anarchists not just another comment to discount opinion that does not fit into the overall scheme of things.

    To give you an example consider the following. Bill Gates can have dinner with Tony Blair. Gehard Schroeder can have dinner with Juergen Schremp. When was the last time either of them had dinner with Joe and Jane from the street? Of course I mean not during voting season. This is the problem. The elite are serving the elite!

    And it is getting worse everday! Open Source does not fit into the scheme of things, because Open Source is not about being elite! See there's our problem! When was the last time Tony Blair had dinner with Linus, RMS or Eric Raymond? When was the last time any politician met with any Open Source person?

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:Elite serving the Elite! by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And there is the problem! Sorry, but party leaders should actually talk to the arbitary people. What you recommend is the problem that we have today. There are lobbies that advise the advisors who then think that is how reality works. These "advisors" do not go out to meet the people. They expect the people to listen to them. Which in turn is the problem YET AGAIN, because it is elitism.

      Also consider that the business world does not work this way. If you look at the REALLY good CEO's that consistently make money they do it because they listen to their customer. Tele2 (Profitable European AT&T) CEO and the IKEA CEO make it a point every year to take out time and work the "floors". In the case of the Tele2 CEO he will for a number of days work the customer support hotline. In the case of IKEA the CEO will sell you a new chair. Why? Because advisors cannot tell you everything. Advisors are people who advise you on the general lie of the situation.

      Now in the case of politicians, who are their customers? The population! So to best serve the population it is absolutely vital to listen to your population. Not have some advisor state, "Well 40% of the people think X is ok and 50% of the people think Y is ok."

      I live in Switzerland that has a real democracy where the people make the decisions. The politicians do the leg work and attempt to best advise the people. I am firmly convinced that this is the best way to manage a modern economy!

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  8. article outdated - vote is not next week by bazongis · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article is from the 26th of June and states that the proposal is due for parliamentary vote on June 30th (earlier than originally planned).

    However, the vote has been postponed and is not going to take place on June 30th, at least according to more recent reports by the usually well-informed German heise.de news service.

    heise.de news article (in German)

    This seems to contradict the article at least in spirit and gives the Open Source/Free Software community more time to gain momentum and turn the vote into the right direction.

  9. Sad facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    EuroLinux already has more than 150.000 signatures against software patents

    http://petition.eurolinux.org/signatures.html?LA NG =en

    And in an open discussion 90% of the people affected opted for no software patents. The European commission closed the discussion with the words, that there was a financial majority (of 10%). So you basically can see where the train comes from. The last hope to stop this really is the european parlament.

    Canßt find the link to this now, this discussion was around two years ago, and I want to leave anybody to the interpretation himself.

    All I can say is with one of the former commissions there was a huge bribe scandal, the main problem is that there is no real control mechanism for the commission and sometimes some really black sheep are in there.

    Also something to consider

    Given the state of the european software industry consisting 95% of individuals and small companies, the negative economic impact of such a regulation really could be severe. The the European Commission is playing the three monkey games of not listening not hearing and not talking in this matter. In the end the result will have to be paid by every european citizen with a lot more people being unemployed by the tech sector.

  10. Wrong story by Halo1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As someone alse already posted, this attempt at fast-tracking the proposal through parliament as failed miserably. The real news is that even McCarthy's own (socialist) faction is becoming more and more opposed to software patents. I'm in direct email contact with several assistants of the Flemish MEPS from the Greens and socialist faction (since those were the ones that responded to my initial mail (in Dutch) and they all are completely against software patents. In fact, almost all Flemish parties are against.

    One of those assistants told me he's never seen such an enormous amount of public attention for a proposal in the two years that he has worked at the European parliament. He thinks there's actually a very good chance of preventing this proposal from getting approved. Really, it's easy to say "all politicians are alike" and "corporations own the politicians anyway" etc, but that's simply not true (note: I'm not a member of any political party nor politically active, except in cases like this). Yes Virginia, there still are a lot of people with a conscience in politics who want to do the best for society at large, they just need access to the right information. In cases like this, people like us can make the difference.

    If a non-programmer or non-ip-lawyer reads a proposal like McCarthy's, I can perfectly imagine that it's not that difficult for that person to be convinced that she's indeed trying to protect the software development community at large. The background text of her proposal is really full of misleading and sometimes outright wrong statements to justify her goals.

    For example, she cites one study which shows that software patents are beneficial to small and medium-sized companies. In the same footnote, she states that they also looked at several other studies, however, at least one of those concludes exactly the opposite. Nevertheless, the way it is put forth in her text, it seems as if all those studies show exactly the same results. There really are a lot of things like that...

    --
    Donate free food here
  11. Why should software patents be that bad ? by Krapangor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I don't really understand this extensive opposition to software patents.
    If a company does some real research in computer science then it invests millions of dollars and severals years of time into the development of new technologies. However without a strong system to prevent IP theft, any jerk company can come and steal those technologies. Even worse, the original inventor will go out of business because the thiefs don't have the development expenses, so that they can offer the products much more cheaply. And patents are there to prevent such stuff.
    And copyright isn't strong enough for protection in such a case. The thiefs can get the technology by reverse engineering. But they are not copying the code, just the technology. So IP laws won't help and you cannot detect the reverse engineering unless some whistle blowers come out. Which is rather unlikely.

    Many people fear that stuff like Amazon's one-click patent and other trivial patents will come out. But I don't think this is a real problem. Such trivial patents are cause by a fucked legal system. This is a well-known USian problem. But not a European one. Europe centers on the French system where the creation of new laws is dominated by legislation. Europe doesn't center around the UK/USian one where courts directly or indirectly create laws by interpreting the constitution. Remember that the patentability of business methods in the US came primarily from a court ruling. Europe simply doesn't have this problem.

    So, I don't see why we shouldn't have software patents here.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:Why should software patents be that bad ? by heironymouscoward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The argument against software patents is made on three grounds:

      1. the products of the software industry are so large and complex (because of the lack of physical constraints) that the scale of 'invention' is hundreds times greater than in the physical world.

      2. patents are expensive (10k Euro in Europe) and rarely can small businesses or individuals afford to aquire them.

      3. even when people overcome point 2, they find that the large patent portfolios of large companies render their patents useless.

      Conclusion: large companies purchase patents in order to protect not their inventions, but their competitive advantage. Since innovation comes from smaller teams, patents thus work against innovation.

      Software patents exaggerate what is a manageable problem with physical patents, and turn it into a serious problem for smaller designers. Basically patents allow large businesses to collaborate with burocracy to create barriers against the entrance of smaller groups.

      This is bad, corrupt, and economically stupid.

      End of argument.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature
    2. Re:Why should software patents be that bad ? by fishfinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As I see it the problem with software patents is that it will mainly affect open source projects which are easy targets for patents (obviously you can search through the source code) and in most cases don't generate profit. Closed source projects in most cases done purely for profit will probably slip through the net if they infringe a patent because the source code if far from accessable. Surely, it is the second instance which you would want to protect your work from?!?! The other problem I see is that many of these patents seem to have such broad definitions masses of innovation will be stiffled because a patent will encompass wide areas of work!

    3. Re:Why should software patents be that bad ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The French patent office is supposed to be the strictest in the EU. Yet they let completely obvious patents slip through. I've met a person who once spent a few days crafting some totally ridiculous patents, just to show how very lax the French patent office already is. (One of the patents was for business information systems software, where the "innovation" is that the CEO can get the average of the prices of his company's wares). This person said that you can get basically anything patented like this:

      • Take an existing patent text.
      • Re-word maybe 10% of it.
      • Insert a few spurious claims of your own. Doesn't have to be innovative at all.
      • Provide at least one drawing. Eye candy helps your cause.
      • Run your creation past a patent lawyer so that the cover page will have the name and title of this lawyer on it.
      • Done. Apply for the patent. You've got about 90% chance of having it granted to you.

      I repeat, this is for the French patent office, supposedly the strictest of all. If you think about it, patent offices have an interest in granting patents, not rejecting them. Why? After a rejection, the applicant will come back and haunt them for explanations, apellations, etc. After a grant, any contests to the patent is done in court, which makes it Somebody Else's Problem from the POV of the patent office.

      So don't say it's solely the Americans that screwed up and we'll do better. The basic economic pressures working on the patent office are exactly the same.

  12. Microsoft's new patent by TitanBL · · Score: 5, Funny

    REDMOND, WA--In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.

    With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.

    "Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."

    A number of major Silicon Valley players, including Apple Computer, Netscape and Sun Microsystems, said they will challenge the Microsoft patent as monopolistic and anti-competitive, claiming that the 10-cent-per-digit licensing fee would bankrupt them instantly.

    "While, technically, Java is a complex system of algorithms used to create a platform-independent programming environment, it is, at its core, just a string of trillions of ones and zeroes," said Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, whose company created the Java programming environment used in many Internet applications. "The licensing fees we'd have to pay Microsoft every day would be approximately 327,000 times the total net worth of this company."

    "If this patent holds up in federal court, Apple will have no choice but to convert to analog," said Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs, "and I have serious doubts whether this company would be able to remain competitive selling pedal-operated computers running software off vinyl LPs."

    As a result of the Microsoft patent, many other companies have begun radically revising their product lines: Database manufacturer Oracle has embarked on a crash program to develop "an abacus for the next millennium." Novell, whose communications and networking systems are also subject to Microsoft licensing fees, is working with top animal trainers on a chimpanzee-based message-transmission system. Hewlett-Packard is developing a revolutionary new steam-powered printer.

    Despite the swarm of protest, Gates is standing his ground, maintaining that ones and zeroes are the undisputed property of Microsoft.

    "We will vigorously enforce our patents of these numbers, as they are legally ours," Gates said. "Among Microsoft's vast historical archives are Sanskrit cuneiform tablets from 1800 B.C. clearly showing ones and a symbol known as 'sunya,' or nothing. We also own: papyrus scrolls written by Pythagoras himself in which he explains the idea of singular notation, or 'one'; early tracts by Mohammed ibn Musa al Kwarizimi explaining the concept of al-sifr, or 'the cipher'; original mathematical manuscripts by Heisenberg, Einstein and Planck; and a signed first-edition copy of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being And Nothingness. Should the need arise, Microsoft will have no difficulty proving to the Justice Department or anyone else that we own the rights to these numbers."

    Added Gates: "My salary also has lots of zeroes. I'm the richest man in the world."

    According to experts, the full ramifications of Microsoft's patenting of one and zero have yet to be realized.

    "Because all integers and natural numbers derive from one and zero, Microsoft may, by extension, lay claim to ownership of all mathematics and logic systems, including Euclidean geometry, pulleys and levers, gravity, and the basic Newtonian principles of motion, as well as the concepts of existence and nonexistence," Yale University theoretical mathematics professor J. Edmund Lattimore said. "In other words, pretty much everything."

    Lattimore said that the only mat

  13. Article is WRONG. Journalist misunderstood speaker by JPMH · · Score: 4, Informative
    The ZDnet article is based on a misunderstanding.

    Open Forum Europe got stitched up.

    The patent directive is far from a done deal, as the success of last week's lobbying in Brussels shows.

    The important point, that the journalist didn't realise, was that Mike Banahan was not talking about a consultation run by the European Commission or the European Parliament, but about a *consultation run by a firm of lobbyists* who had been hired by a consortium of big business associations. (Remember that OFE's response was paraded not by the Commission, but by this consortium of associations).

    So the real story is

    Lobbyists for big business [*not* the European Commission or the European Parliament] are determined to introduce software patents in Europe despite widespread opposition from European companies and software developers, according to a UK open-source software lobbying group.

    The subsequent paragraphs take on a completely different dimension when you realise they are about the lobbying firm for the business associations, not the European institutions:

    Mike Banahan, chief technology officer with OpenForum Europe, a subsidiary of technology lobbyist InterForum, said the group received clear indications during a consultation on the proposal that some form of software patenting would be introduced, regardless of the fact that the consultation showed heated opposition to such patents.

    "We were briefed that a position that was in total opposition to patents would be discarded, that that was not a position they were prepared to take," Banahan said. "The position was, given that there will be software patents, what kind will there be? It was presented as a done deal."

    OpenForum had not intended to submit a position paper on software patents, as it focuses on end user adoption of open-source software, but the group's opinion was solicited by the organisers of the consultation, Banahan said. The paper was misinterpreted in the press as supporting software patents, he added.


    The quotes are echoed in this posting to the FSF Europe-UK list:

    He stated (as off the record as he could get in a public forum) his statement on software patents was written from the point of view of - IF software patents were a done deal (and he was informed that they pretty much were, by the people asking him for a statement) then there should be exclusions for Free Software to safeguard the common interests.

    He also said (again as completely off-the-record as possible) that he had been told that any anti-patent statement would be discarded, as many others had already.

    The parliament vote is now expected in the first week of September. The Socialist group in particular is very divided. But internal party-group positions are expected to take shape this week, while the MEPs are all gathered together in Strasbourg, before they disperse for the long summer recess. It is therefore worth contacting MEPs now, sooner rather than later, to have maximum effect.

    Contact details for UK MEPs can be found by clicking on the map here

    (This information sent to ZDnet on Thursday night, but apparently not of interest).