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."

12 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. 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)

  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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