Slashdot Mirror
Sites Shut Down to Protest Software Patents
blueser writes "I went today to TUTOS homepage to check for a newer version, and I was surprised to see that the author replaced the homepage by a 'Closed because of Software-Patents' page, with a brief explanation." Just one site? that's hardly a big deal, but there's more. maliabu writes "Knoppix is closed, apparently waiting for the European Parliament to decide about the legalisation and adoption of so-called 'software patents' in Europe." And still more. SLbigE writes "The Wine HQ website has temporarily shut down its webpage in protest to a proposed law in Europe regarding Software Patents." There's many more sites as well, these were just the first I was alerted to, Feel free to note some more in comments. Looks like they're doing a good job of illustrating what could be lost soon.
Nobody patented or restricted the use of hammers and nails in construction.
So why in the hell are algorithms considered 'patentable'?
I can understand if they emulate a proprietary business methodology. Or an entire application (which really should fall under copyright law).
But patents?
Shakespeare was right. We should kill all the lawyers.
The opposite of progress is congress
As has been said in previous article comments, SlashDot could close too, that would have a far larger ranging effect than Knoppix or Wine anyway.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
What message is this supposed to send? Why would the EU change its mind because a few sites decided to protest? How does the absence of a few sites hurt the EU? More likely, they'll only hurt themselves.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Come on guys, this is what the US community should have done to protest the DMCA, and the range of RIAA abuses that are being seen.
Lets not be silly and take it down for ever, but why not have an official protest day? Slashdot, Freshmeat, maybe even some of the Corporates.
And the time for this ? How about we start it on the same date as the end of the First World War ?
November 11th, starting at 11am GMT, for 24 hours, we declare the internet closed for business.
Are we in ? Slashdot.... are you listening ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Now, if Microsoft's European branch went off the web or Netscape or any number of other software companies that are BIG on the commercial radar were to join in on this protest, then more people would notice... But, that's not likely to happen...
I see this too often. We geeks, as a political body, are simlpy blind to reality. Most of the sites that are currently 'down' are only going to affect fellow computer geeks. We hurt ourselves more then we hurt the opposition. There has got to be a better way to actually take some ground in a battle like this one over software patents.
Who seriously came up with this idea with the honest belief that cutting off the Free Software community from Free Software sites would somehow affect the GREATER MAJORITY (That use Proprietart y software) that simply could care less about Free Software?
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
While I applaud each site's initiative, obscure nerd sites are hardly going to influence the decisions of techno-illiterate politicians likely to vote on this. Now if amazon.com, wsj.com or freshyoungboys.com closed down, they might take notice.
sure us nerds know about it, but joe public or mr european parliament bozo? don't fink it's gonna change their day.
but still, kudos to the sties that did.
"if i'd known it was harmless, i'd have killed it myself"
I totally agree with the parent poster. CLOSE SLASHDOT. A majority of people on these forums are always complaining about software patents and how they are going to stop any and all innovation in software development. Well, here is a chance for slashdot to spread this message far and wide.
If slashdot closed down in protest, there is a good chance that some news agencies would pick up that story. This would be good because it get this message out to people who don't normally visit slashdot, gimp, or wine hq.
Grow some balls slashdot. Shut your doors in protest!!
Yeah, it is quite double edged. A summary:
He thinks your concerns about the software patent directive are unfounded. He is certain (in his own mind) that the Directive will have no impact on software development, because it has "protections" to "prevent" "generic software patenting".
Basically, he is saying that he knows what is best for you and that you are full of crap. But, since he's a politician, he has to hide that under a mountain of words.
As a 'merican, I wish you the best of luck at saving your continent from the patent hell we have over here. You're going to need all the luck you can get, if this letter is any indication.
Jon
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
Seems to me that a lot of the sites that are shutting down for the day are ones that are frequented by people who are already aware of the issue. Also, they aren't sites that most people would visit on a daily basis. It would be nice to see some more general, more widespread sites shut down for the day. I'm not talking about geek sites, I'm talking sites like google, BBC, Yahoo, E-bay, and other big name sites. Could you imagine the effect of these sites closing down? I think it would get the attention of a lot more people, and people who weren't already aware of the issue.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Slashdot has a large contingent of non-American readers. It's News for Nerds, not News for Nerds Who Live in the United States of America. Stories about Brazil's attitude to open source and the UK's plans for built-in monitoring of cars make the front page, so why not this sort of demonstration?
Anyway, plenty of people outside the US have protested against the many moronic decisions taken there in recent years (DMCA, Skylarov etc.) - I'm sure there are plenty of people in the US who'd like to reciprocate. Stupid software laws are bad wherever they're passed.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
I hate that phrase. First, lawyers don't create laws; Legislators/Congress(wo)men do (and judges interpret them). Secondly, lawyers' clients are the ones that hold the patents, not the lawyers. Thirdly, the USPTO (or the european equivalent in this case) is the one granting the patents. Lawyers are the middle-(wo)men in all this. Removing the lawyers won't solve the problem.
Sorry but I see people saying this all over slashdot. I think it's an unjustified statement that people like to throw out there when legislators make bad laws, judges interpret the law incorrectly, or the PTO grants patent they shouldn't have.
Anyone can be a patent agent. There is a separate patent-bar that just about anyone can take. You don't even need to go to law school or have passed the state bar exam.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
If you write software that violates a european patent and distribute it in europe (for example by putting it on a globally reachable web server), you can be sued. Not to mention that I'm quite sure that you are using software written by european developers that would certainly be affected. So stop being such a narrow-minded dork, if you will.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Slashdot is not, however, even though some have requested it be taken down for the day...
Yes, and here's the reason why : since the protest is about European software patents, Slashdot doesn't give a toss.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Does anyone have a plan for getting rid of software patents in the US? I mean, you can't just one day say "Ok, no new software patents and all old software patents a null and void". It'll never happen. There's simply too much money involved and that money is being used to ensure software patents continue.
I think the only way to change things is to convince big business that they are hurting themselves more by patenting software than by allowing it to be free. But to do that when companies are making millions from patents right now?
I don't know about Europe but if you are serious about doing something, don't email. Call or write a paper letter CC'ed to newspapers and media outlets.
Emails and electronic forms don't have the impact of something in the "old fashioned real-world".
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Because the editors are out of touch. They don't understand the scope of the issue. This is the kiss of death to the OSS model, if in fact it goes through.
I've submitted 3 separate articles regarding EU patent initiative since 25th and all of them have been rejected. This is just another case of ignorance on part of American OSS supporters ignoring what goes on outside of US, and later bitch and moan for years why the laws are unjust.
For fuck's sake, I live in California and I'm horrified of the fallout that might result from this.
That letter reminds me of a poor student essay, lots of buzzwords, no evidence of understanding, and no sign of any original thought. Take the phrase "makes it clear that only software which forms part of a technological process will be patentable." Can anyone tell me of any software that doesn't form part of a technological process. Clue, any piece of software run on a piece computer (i.e. a piece of technological equipment) is transformed into a process.
Now look at this bit, "This will allow European businesses the chance to develop ideas with certainty as to their legal position." WTF patent laws create uncertainty you need to know if your work is already covered by a patent, is that patent valid, and anything which involves courts and the legal system always introduces an element of uncertainty. On the other hand no patent law means absolute certainty, if you can do it you're allowed to do it
Finally look at the phrase, "I and my UK Conservative colleagues support the general line..." which can be translated as ' I do what the party tells me and you as a mere constituent are stuffed because all the major parties are following the same line.' Isn't democracy wonderful.
Here is an example: although the GIMP web site is hosted in the US, several of the most active developers are living and working in Europe. So after some discussion with the other developers, I decided to close the home page of www.gimp.org. Even if you live and work in the U.S., you could be affected because some software developed by many contributors from all around the world could cease to exist because of software patents affecting these developers.
Allowing patents on software and business methods in the U.S. was a bad idea. Several studies have shown that software patents in the U.S. have had a negative impact on the industry. But so far, the damage has been limited because these patents are not accepted worldwide. So in many cases, a company that was more interested in litigation than real innovation was not able to sue the developers who (unknowingly) infringed on its patents because some or all of them were not in the U.S. But this could be different if these patents were valid worldwide (WIPO). The patent holders would have a bigger chance to hit the small companies and small developers, especially those working on Open Source or Free Software (because they cannot buy a license or pay royalties for all potential users).
This protest against the changes in the European law would also be a good way to promote a necessary reform of the U.S. patent system. A growing number of economists in the U.S. are raising their voice against the patentability of software. A clear sign coming from Europe could also help the U.S. industry in the long run.
Some people hide in their shell when their neighbors are threatened. Some people try to help them because they know that they could be affected directly or indirectly. The choice is yours.
-Raphaël
FAX Is more appropiate. Document what you did in the community tool http://aktiv.ffii.org Dont' spam. Be polite. Ask for amendments to McCarthys proposal. So read the texts on swpat.ffii.org first. Demand a definition of technical in the directive. Tell them you don't want Amazon vs. Barnes and Noble in the EU. Or MS vs. Eolas (500 mio $) or other patent privateers. Tell them what the W3C says.
Yes, closing Slashdot may be preaching to the choir, but at this late stage in the game, this is exactly what can be most effective.
We need the EU folks reading Slashdot to get a jolt, to say, "Hey, this really is something Big." We need this, because this is the only way that many of them -- just like Americans -- will take the time to fire off their position to their representatives who have both the duty to represent their constituents and the power to stop this in its tracks.
And Slashdot, what is going to earn you more good will among your readership than taking a bold stand like this? Perhaps there would be more willing to subscribe -- at least for a month -- if they were to see you as politically active and not just a disinterested for-profit news portal.
C'mon Slashdot, even just a prominent alert that could stay at the top of front page. Isn't it for the good of everyone?
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
People like you just don't seem to realize shutdowns like this will become normal once the law is in effect. Downloading free software will become a thing of the past. The community has to take action and wake up the masses now, because once the law is in effect it's too late for whining...
In the end, what you're saying is fighting for survival is unprofessional.
...and in the meantime, link main page of Slashdot to the EU parliament, asking people to write petitions, visit all its pages etc... Effectively slashdotting it to a crawl - showing what REAL POWER stands behind the protesters.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
BTW, Debian is still up, but the top of the fold indicates their support of the protest.
:-)
Maybe this is totally naive, but what if we setup a "thought bank". Most patents holders need to show their idea was theirs first don't they? If someone else can show prior art (ie. newspaper article, widely available source code, etc, anything to prove that someone else thought of the idea first) then the patent is invalid.
People who think of an idea who don't want someone else to patent it can describe their idea in the thought bank. It would then digitally sign the idea and post it for search engines and archive.org to catalogue it, and thereby providing a central place to create "prior art".
Any comments on why this is a [good|bad] idea?
(and just so you know, I'm patenting the idea of a "thought bank"...just kidding
Ruby on Rails Screencast
but it should be remembered that some of the support for such changes in Europe comes from US companies, and that US intitiatives such as DMCA help provide a precedent for similar moves elsewhere. It's a global world out there :-) . If the EU gets bogged down in this, it may come back to bite at people in the US.
It's not that it may come back to bite at people in the US, it's that it bites people in the US every day, because the laws being considered in the EU are not that different from the laws those of us in the US already have to live with.
If Slashdot's going to protest, it should place more prominance on repealing or fixing the existing laws in the US than on preventing the laws from being enacted in the EU.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
This is one of the problems with the free software community, politics plays too heavy of a role in their actions.
Um, Earth to TedCheshireAcad, come in TedCheshireAcad. The "free software" movement is a social movement-- everything that happens in the movement is a political act. Just writing software and giving it away is a political act. Your concerns about your "clients" sounds a lot more like the rhetoric of the Open Source movement to me.
Besides, if you go to set up a "[GNU/]Linux-doodad for a client", maybe as a professional (and someone with half a clue) you should be prepared for network outages and things like that. Relying on a web site on the other side of the Atlantic is the worst risk management ever. You need to have all your software and tools readily available on CD-ROM, I think. I mean, were you going to install Windows over the net by just going to some web site?
Moderators: please mod parent down in spite of his request that you "do your worst". Notes like that to moderators ought to garnish at least a -1 just for putting that little challenge to the moderators.
I do not have a signature
I for one knew nothing about it, or how it would affect me. Now I do, and if they ever needed a signature against it, I would sign. Because I was made aware though this protest.
None of these sites shut down. They simply replaced their index page with the statement, which also provided links to the old index. Hardly shutting down.
Who, here, would be wearing a big smile when they say to their boss, "Sorry, I can't get that information/patch/download for our production webservers, because the Apache site voluntarily decided that some political issue was more important than our business."
In fact, it was/is/will be responsible and expected for widely-used and critical websites to say what they want while still allowing users to get to what they need when they need it. Anything less would be a much bigger kick in open source's nuts than any software patent.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
It is, but the problem is bigger than that. Software patents are a threat to Open Source in much the same way that nuclear war is a threat to beekeepers. Almost everyone who writes software has this sword hanging over their necks, the only real exceptions being people who are at companies who have large patent portfolios and can cross-license. Those programmers are a minority.
I develop and maintain proprietary software for a living, and like every other programmer in the world, I have no idea how many patents I routinely violate every week. The only reason it hasn't been an issue (so far) is that our source is closed so it would be pretty hard for a hostile outsider to know what patents I violate, too. But if there ever were a conflict that somehow resulted in us having to reveal our source, the risk .. well, the risk is
unknown. And that's pretty scary.
A litigeous situation like that is unlikely because we're so small and our competition isn't very heated. No one has much to gain from harming us. But I can easily imagine situations where larger companies who are battling for big stakes, could find patent violations in one another products. (Look at how IBM responded to SCO. Never mind that SCO were the bad guys in this fight -- IBM could have done that to anybody.)
The kind of patent violations I'm talking about aren't "IP theft" or lazy followers copying true leaders' work. It's just people doing their jobs and solving problems the way any programmer should solve problems. Problem solving is what we do every day. And it's not like we're all these brilliant Edisons and Franklins who are inventing these insightful things all the time; it's just that with software, there's a simple process (that does not require genious) for arbitrarily piling layer upon layer to create immense complexity. And whatever you come up with, there's a reasonable chance that someone might have a patent on it. This is not what patents were intended to cover!
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that most proprietary and internal services programmers should be just as concerned about software patents as Free Software and Open Source developers. This is a much bigger problem and I think the publicity needs to get that message across.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Because /. is for whiners, not doers. /. itself would never inconvinience itself or it's readers to even protest open source being made illegal by all nations.
If you haven't realized this by now, you haven't been here long...
...and when you are PAYING to use apache, you have every right to complain about such things. However, last I checked, apache is free software, so get over it.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
The fact of the matter is that Copyright and Patent law is completely outdated and can no longer effectively cover the sphere of creativity in the marketplace. 100 years ago, the scope of what was a written work and what was an invention was pretty easy to comprehend. It was also very clear who was the patent holder, the originator of the work.
;-)
Today, the issue is a real mess.
Software-
Software is a written work that becomes a machine when compiled and executed. It is a work that spans the two and should clearly have it's own category. Software patents for REAL innovation is appropriate. However, applications of derivates of well known concepts are simply not deserving of 17years of exclusive use.
I once had a colleague who had effectively patented the bit. Basically he had determined a scheme by which a record would either be a "summary" or a "detail" if a bit was switched. They actually successfully sued AT&T and succeeded in getting royalties.
While the use of such a technique does show a level of adaptivity and creativity, it doesn't rise to the level of "NEW IDEA". Certainly not one warranting 17 years of exclusive rights. The fact is that fundamental computer science is MEANT to apply to a limitless number of scenarios.
As far as copyrights go, it's pretty foolish to copyright something that you don't publish. Software code is virtually NEVER published. It's really a bad fit for copyright as no-one has a clue as to whether they did or did not infringe.
Clearly a new classification of intellectual property is needed in this category.
Bio-Tech-
A tremendous new force is emerging to literally turn biological information into machines. The pharmeceutical industry has existed for nearly a century treating drugs as "inventions".
The thing about modern pharmeceuticals is that their is way more at stake than the invention itself. Pharmecuetical production involves
1) Identification of a substance (or class of substance) that produces specific effect in anatomy.
2) Processes to synthesize that agent in a manner that is cost productive.
3) Development of an appropriate delivery agent.
4) Clinical trials to determine the efficacy of the product so that it can be marketed.
Each of these steps require uniquely different skills and techniques. In a way, each represents a uniquely different type of intellectual property.
Furthermore, when we look at the real "new age" biotech, there core product is often "knowledge". For example, knowledge of the human genome and how individual genes effect human anatomy. Our law is now recognizing the patent of individual "genes". Those are FACTS.
Patents aren't supposed to recognize scientific facts and truths, only inventions. However, patents are now issued to biotech firms for the knowledge of functions for individual genes or clusters of genes.
Clearly this fundamental research is a form of intellectual property. But it clearly IS NOT an invention since the knowledge does not produce a workable product, device or machine. It certainly is not a copyright, only god could copyright the human genome
Again new forms of intellectual property law is warranted to account for expensive research. Such a research is VERY valuable to humanity and an economic incentive may clearly be warranted (though perhaps not 17 years worth of protection).
Beyond that, perhaps research that produces new uses for older "inventions" should be relevant. For example, pharmeceutical companies simply will NOT invest research into known substances going of patent. There is no economic motivation. Perhaps a "IP" that would allow royalties for NEW uses of existing substances would be appropriate.
Another aspect of biotech firms is "process". The concept of "process" is embodied quite boldy in patents now. Though their relevance and applicability is often questioned. Indeed, I would claim that the a GUI software appli
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
I've heard an opinion recently, that the GPL is just a hack around the normal legal system. Basically, the free software movement did not start with changing the law. It wasn't like there were demonstrations or petitions against copyrights. Instead the legal system was simply hacked. I just wondered if that could be done again, this time with patents. Wouldn't making simple adjustements to the GPL work? Here are my (very rough) proposals ..., in any program covered by this license free of charge, however you are forbidden from using this patents in any product not covered by this license :)). Basically, what I am saying - if you cannot change the system, use it to your advantages. Any thougths on why did would or not work?
I) if you agree to use this software you must not claim infrigments of any of your patents by any software covered with the GPL 3 or greater
Also, the FSF, OSDN or whatever free software organization could register patents and then license them under the GPL with the following another adjustement
II) you are free to use the patents no. aaa, bbb,
I am writing this from mozilla, so I have some
simple patents proposals (I don't know if they are valid)
a) type ahead search
b) spam filter
c) mouse gestures
I know they are stupid (just like every patent out there). Imagine next time a nuisance like SCO happens (hey, but you infringe 100 of our patents