Protests Delay European Software Patent Vote

Yay for Europe! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 10:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

At least protests have an effect there. In the US, we need to protest tens of times to get the point across...

Re:Yay for Europe! by bussdriver · 2003-09-01 11:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Even then, our protests go belittled in the media (unless record size) and are dismissed by the white house; which just uses a straw man.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Re:Yay for Europe! by smittyoneeach · 2003-09-01 12:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

When the protests are crafted in the language of votes (or its immediate proxy, money) there is attention. Sometimes the fourth branch of gubmint, the media, weighs in. Witness Poindexter.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Re:Yay for Europe! by hamster+foo · 2003-09-01 13:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Was this type of protest ever attempted in the USA? I can't remember if there has even been a major patent law change in discussion in quite sometime in the US, other than perhaps some Supreme Court votes.

I wonder if this same broad type of protest would have some effect on US congressman and the like, if it was coupled with a massive email/mail movement informing congressmen of the reasons behind the protest and the problems with current patent law. With sites that have a very wide range of users they effect such as Apache participating, I can't help but think that it would make some people take notice and listen.

Of course, all this may have been tried before, and failed before. I just can't remember ever seeing so many open source web sites shut down in protest like they have been over this issue.

--
- b
Re:Yay for Europe! by chadm1967 · 2003-09-01 13:38 · Score: 0

Way to go Europe!!!!!

I wish this worked in the US. The politicians here in the US could care less about the voters!
Re:Yay for Europe! by squiggleslash · 2003-09-01 15:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree with the latter, but the "(unless record size)" thing needs challenging. It's not the size, it's the message, that determines whether the protesters get belittled. I guess it ultimately depends on whether or not the press feel it's in their interests, or their owners interests, etc, to cover it.
Hundreds of thousands marched against the recent Iraqi action, for example, and in general the protests were fleetingly covered and all the protestors portrayed as nothing more than a bunch of extremists.
On the other hand, a handful of people protest against the first amendment, as with the recent Alabama Ten Commandments event, and it gets widespread and even supportive coverage.
Why? Well, one's opposing the government, the other's in favour of views associated with some of the more extreme members of the current government, and right now the Press, for whatever reason (insert conspiracy theory here), feels its obliged to prop up the current government - presumably looking at issues like media ownership rule changes as reasons to want a regime in the White House supportive of the press, or maybe just sensing a right-wing mood in the country, who knows.
I must say I've been disappointed in the five years I've been in America. coming from Britain. The press seemed pretty on-the-ball when I arrived, avoiding, for example, making the Clinton impeachment into some simple good vs evil match. But as time's progressed, the press seems to have gotten steadily worse, less and less rational and more and more ideologically bonkers. It's now almost as bad as the British press.
Humbert Wolfe satirized the British media in the mid-nineteenth Century:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
thank God! The British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, theres no occasion to.
It never got any better.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Yay for Europe! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 15:24 · Score: 1, Funny

In America, sure we have free speech. But why would a politician want to listen to "free" speech when he can listen to speech that will line his wallet.
Re:Yay for Europe! by Nucleon500 · 2003-09-01 17:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

As I understand it, there never were protests in the US, because it was through case law and policy changes at the PTO that software patents gradually became legal, not because of legislation. In other words, we were slowly boiled frogs.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:Yay for Europe! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 18:30 · Score: 0

Americans are some of the most patriotic people on earth. Unfortunately this is reflected in their news reporting.

With the mood nowadays, being "non-patriotic" is akin to being accused of being a Communist during the McCarthy era - instant popular backlash. And "non-patriotic" means not supporting the government.
Re:Yay for Europe! by Sciamachy · 2003-09-01 20:22 · Score: 3, Informative

It's now almost as bad as the British press.

Are you talking about the TV news or the printed media exclusively?

I'd say Fox news and CNN are about as biased as you can get in TV news. British tabloid newspapers have been biased for a long while, but there's a common element - Rupert Murdoch owns Fox, and holds a major stake in the UK's satellite station BSkyB, and terrestrial station Channel5. He also owns a number of tabloid papers in the UK, and is a supporter of the Bush regime, as he was a supporter of Reagan, and Bush Senior. I think you'll also find his media companies behind the most vociferous articles about Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions, and the Whitewater scandal. When one man controls the majority of the news we see in the papers or on TV, he wields a hell of a lot of power over world politics.

"You can't change the world
But you can change the facts
And when you change the facts
You change points of view
If you change points of view
You may change a vote
And when you change a vote
You may change the world."
- Depeche Mode "New Dress"
Re:Yay for Europe! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 21:20 · Score: 0

I must say I am suprised.
I'm a EU citizen and I never believed that protests or other ground level action (writing letters etc.) could help.
Maybe I'll be more active from now on. Time to check out who is my MEP.
Re:Yay for Europe! by basingwerk · 2003-09-01 23:34 · Score: 1

In Britain, politicians are generally perceived as bums, whatever party they are in. Whether they govern or not, they'll get rough treatment from the media, and that goes with the job. Patriotism is reserved for the Queen, and that's about the only reason the brits keep her paid up.

--
I stole this .sig
Re:Yay for Europe! by basingwerk · 2003-09-01 23:46 · Score: 1

Don't look in the usual media channels to form an opinion. You are looking in the right place now, on slashdot. You can form an opinon regardless, and vote on that basis. Your vote counts as much as the vote of a moron. Pass the word around that the problem is not the media but the morons who couldn't give a toss about being screwed over by them.

--
I stole this .sig
Re:Yay for Europe! by blibbleblobble · 2003-09-02 00:05 · Score: 1

The ZDNet article on the protest says that "More than 600 Web sites are to take part" in the website blackout.

Another of their articles mentions "hundreds of websites"

Is it just my imagination, or is "more than 600" a slightly crap phrase to describe 2953 websites?
Re:Yay for Europe! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 02:56 · Score: 0

It's not the size, it's the message, that determines whether the protesters get belittled. I guess it ultimately depends on whether or not the press feel it's in their interests, or their owners interests, etc, to cover it.

A few years ago, I went to the big annual hemp rally on Boston Common. It was attended by at least several thousand people. It got ZERO coverage in the local media. Certainly not because the media was unaware of it; a TV crew covered a (sparsely attended) promotional event by the US Olympic luge team, which was taking place at the same time about a hundred yards away.
Re:Yay for Europe! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 03:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

I would disagree. I would say americans are very nationalistic. But patriotism implies support for the constitution, and it's literally impossible to support both the Bush government/Republican leadership and the constitution, since what they want is at odds.
Re:Yay for Europe! by Brendan+Byrd · 2003-09-02 05:00 · Score: 1

DCMA was unanimous vote, without any debate. Enough said!

--
Zodiac Survey
Re:Yay for Europe! by squiggleslash · 2003-09-02 06:52 · Score: 1

Murdoch's influence has a lot to do with it, the British media was, by all accounts, fractionally better before his buying of The Sun in the early seventies. But it was still infamous: and, as you say, a lot of it had to do with the influence of individuals who owned large proportions of the press.
The US press itself was arguably at its worse during the decades when Hearst owned a quarter of it.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Yay for Europe! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 09:02 · Score: 0

It's very simple. If a protest is against the government (as in protesting Iraqi occupation) then it gets no or bad press. If it's for (as in reducing privacy or freedom of speech) then it's well covered. Even though Democrat media don't like the war and try everything to show the occupation as a failure, they'd never come right out and say it.
Re:Yay for Europe! by mesocyclone · 2003-09-02 11:56 · Score: 0

Murdoch does not own the New York Times or the LA Times, both left-leaning papers. Murdoch does not own any major broadcast networks which produce news, and those networks are the primary source of news for almost half of all Americans. Murdoch doesn't own left-leaning CNN.

I used to watch a lot of CNN or CNNH because it was the only cable news outlet. It was disgustingly biased. Now I have choices - Fox, CNN, MSNBC.

Murdoch saw a market opportunity with Fox news because the vast bulk of the media in the US is to the left of center. Thus he launched Fox news, a right-leaning network (ignore the "fair and balanced stuff" - all the media implies that it is fair and balanced, when it is not), and it became the dominant cable news network - BECAUSE IT HAD A DIFFERENT IDEOLOGICAL BIAS from the rest of the news.

This is the same reason for the success of conservative talk radio in America, and the failure of liberal talk radio - liberals are adequately represented by the biases New York Times, NPR, CNN and the major TV networks. Conservatives get tired of them and tune to alternatives - originally Rush Limbaugh, and now many successful conservative hosts, and Fox News. We still have no major conservative newspaper (NY Post is a tabloid, and Washington Times is not a major paper).

If you want stuff further left than the New York Times or NBC and CNN, you are out of luck for major networks. In that case, you know how conservatives felt until Limbaugh and Fox News came along.

In other words.... listen to me play the world's smallest violin for the poor left wing in the US.

As for Britain, the once reliable and objective BBC has become an anti-American, anti-conservative, anti-semitic left wing propaganda operation. It is a shame, because it used to be possible for us Americans to listen to the Beeb when we wanted to hear reliable and detailed international news. Now all we hear is propaganda spew. During the Iraq war, a British warship asked that the news channel be changed permanently from BBC to Fox because they were so disgusted with the war coverage from BBC.

--
The only good weather is bad weather.
Re:Yay for Europe! by ProgressiveCynic · 2003-09-02 12:21 · Score: 1

Well, judging from your blog you probably don't need to be told this, but if you think CNN and the NY Times are left-leaning you must be so far right of center that you haven't even seen it in a while.
If you want to see some real left wing propaganda go check out Z Magazine. And if you are interested in exactly how the media control mechanisms work read Chomsky & Herman's Manufacturing Consent, one of the more prophetic books written in the 20th century.
Speaking as an actual liberal (not one of these pansy Lieberman/Dean wimps) I have to say that I am completely unrepresented in the American media. I know, I know your violin is bringing tears to your own eyes. But honestly, I think many liberals in this country are completely fed up with the Democratic party, the "liberal" media and the complete lack of political discourse on subjects that actually matter. That's why Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine was so wildly popular. Frankly I wouldn't be too surprised to see a liberal media movement, quite similar to the conservative one you described, start to really flare up in the next year.

--
Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!
Re:Yay for Europe! by mesocyclone · 2003-09-02 12:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You see why I say "left-leaning." I am aware that there are some who are much further left than NYT, which itself is to the left of center.

As far as Chomsky, I wouldn't believe anything he said (unless it was the mathematics of formal linguistics) because he is extremely far left and very biased. I hear his stuff all the time, and it is unadulterated BS rhetoric.

Of course, many liberals are fed up with the Dems like many conservatives are fed up with the Repubs. To make a party which can gain significant power, it must move towards the center, which is one of the good things about the two party system.

Re: Michael Moore's bowling for Columbine... I have a simple test. If my in-laws love it, it is left wing propaganda. They loved it. They even believed it! And bowling for Columbine, loaded with inaccurate editing and even, in one case, a phoney Bush ad (removed in the CD version), is pure baloney. His cutting and slicing of Charlton Heston's speech, for example, gave one completely false impressions. The Nazis also had outstanding propagandists that impressed people with their artistic ability, but that didn't mean that their stuff was right. See this for a few highlights of the nonsense in that "documentary."

I don't think you will find such a liberal movement, because you are farther left than you think. Many liberals have tried talk radio, and with the exception of liberal markets, they fail totally. There's a reason for that: they are to the left of center!

For people far to the left, there's always Indymedia.

As far as media control mechanisms and left wing propaganda, I was listening to Radio Moscow and Radio Havana in the '60s. I know propaganda when I hear it. What shocked me was that by the '80s, Radio Moscow was as close to the truth as CBS News!

BTW... as far as "real liberals" - the real liberals believed in most of what are now called "conservative" values in the US. They were displaced by the '60s radicals who were far to the left.

And yes, my blog is conservative. It's also got a lot of facts that you won't hear on NBC,CNN, or read in the New York Times. Not tin-foil conspiracy theory stuff (the right has plenty of those folks too), but just simple facts. Check it out.

--
The only good weather is bad weather.
Re:Yay for Europe! by mantera · 2003-09-03 11:03 · Score: 1

I'd totally agree with you. During the Clinton years the US was a very admirable nation. It actually still is, had it not been for Dubya and Fox News.

Wait a mo.. by NanoGator · 2003-09-01 10:40 · Score: 4, Funny

... a protest actually accomplished something? Here in Portland, the primary accomplishment of a protest is to stop traffic.

--
"Derp de derp."

Re:Wait a mo.. by arcanumas · 2003-09-01 11:01 · Score: 1

This is not just in Portland. Here in Greece protest do no more than stop traffic. This is an undisputed fact.
The article ,however, mentions that protests actually did infuence the postponement.
Therefore we have to conclude that traffic problems are directly related to software patents..
Aarghh. my head hurts..

--
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
Re:Wait a mo.. by __past__ · 2003-09-01 11:25 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Here in Greece protest do no more than stop traffic.
Scince when do you need a protest for that? ;-)
Seriously, though, I guess that demonstations have a richer and more sucessfull tradition in most parts of europe than they have in the USA. Which isn't saying much.
However, this fight isn't over yet. Let's keep kicking ass. It not only helps keeping europe a saner place, maybe it someday also helps our american friends realize what they could achive if they would stop being nationalist pricks.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Re:Wait a mo.. by dontbgay · 2003-09-01 11:30 · Score: 1

hrmmmmm... Maybe us Americans should be taking notes? Isn't the WTO Summit coming up? :D

--
Sig not found.
Re:Wait a mo.. by Galvatron · 2003-09-01 11:39 · Score: 1

Yeah, it got them to delay the vote long enough for the general public to forget about it. Once everyone's gone home and forgotten, they'll vote yes anyway :)

--
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Re:Wait a mo.. by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 13:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

However, this fight isn't over yet. Let's keep kicking ass. It not only helps keeping europe a saner place, maybe it someday also helps our american friends realize what they could achive if they would stop being nationalist pricks.

I think the correct wording for that would be "It not only helps keep europe a saner place, maybe it someday also helps our american friend's GOVERNMENT realize what they could achieve if they woudl stop being nationalist pricks.

There, now it's right :)

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Wait a mo.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 18:47 · Score: 0

... a protest actually accomplished something? Here in Portland, the primary accomplishment of a protest is to stop traffic.
and then blame the police for breaking up their "peaceful protests" (after 6 hours)
Blocking traffic makes me forget their cause.
Re:Wait a mo.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 02:14 · Score: 0

Well, replace nationalist with imperialist in that sentence and it just about sounds right.

Re:Also, Protests Delay by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 10:41 · Score: 0

u suck at the internet

"According to CNET news" ??? by Amsterdam+Vallon · 2003-09-01 10:42 · Score: 0

That's like getting detailed plumbing advice from the Yellow Pages people, no?

--

Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.

Software patents weren't be so bad... by Tuxinatorium · 2003-09-01 10:43 · Score: 5, Funny

...If they weren't so often given to people for doing the equivalent of being the first cave man to crack open a coconut with a sharp rock. Any company that tries to patent something like "1-click buying" should be sent a present from the unibomber.

--
Repeal the DMCA!

Re:Software patents weren't be so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Does he hold the patent to "one-package bombing"?
Re:Software patents weren't be so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:02 · Score: 0

i know it's tempting to call him the unibomber, but he was the unabomber...
Re:Software patents weren't be so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 13:22 · Score: 0

Any company that tries to patent something like "1-click buying" should be sent a present from the unibomber

At least a present from from the Unishitter.
Re:Software patents weren't be so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 19:12 · Score: 0

I understand that you are trying to be humourous, but software patents would be *worse* if there was no 'one click shopping' patent.

Trivial patents are what we use to get the point to people, but the reality is that if every non-trivial idea from The Art Of Computer Programming were patented, there would be no innovation in computer science anymore.

The problem is not the triviality of the patents, but the concept of:
1/ Patenting ideas
2/ In an industry that changes so fast

Of course, the idea of 1 is to prevent 2. If no competitor could appear, the current industry leaders could milk the cow to death.

Its not just EU by anonymous+coword · 2003-09-01 10:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Imagine who will be next. What if Asia, Canada, South America, Africa, Austrilia were lobbying for software patents! This is an international problem, and it must be protested everywhere!

--
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!

Re:Its not just EU by NanoGator · 2003-09-01 11:34 · Score: 1

"Imagine who will be next. What if Asia, Canada, South America, Africa, Austrilia were lobbying for software patents! This is an international problem, and it must be protested everywhere! "

The Simpsons are heading for Africa!

--
"Derp de derp."

when will this be over by Coneasfast · 2003-09-01 10:44 · Score: 1

'The European Parliament has delayed voting on a controversial software-patents directive

hmm, well I as long as the voting is delayed, european software patents wont exist, also this will help more people become aware of the situation and hopefully gain more opposition.

but someday I want to see the end result :)

--
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.

Still... by rzbx · 2003-09-01 10:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why are they only delaying things? It is obvious most people do not accept software patents. This is coming from software programmers and economists. For the sake of humanity and the economy, why don't those politicians listen to those that are involved in the process of software and not those that simply make a business from it? I understand things are a bit more complicated, but I'm really getting tired of hearing politicians being constantly swaying by big businesses. I'm glad I did my part in this (even though I don't live in Europe), I sent my email/letter using all the available online services that are fighting against these softare patents.

--
Question everything.

Re:Still... by a_n_d_e_r_s · 2003-09-01 11:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, as usual. Delaying means that the proponents for the issue has time to come forward with another proposal - which may sound completely different but in essence is the same proposal again. This new proposal will be said tio be a good comprimise to try and convine the undecided to vote for the proposal.

Thats politics!

--
Just saying it like it are.
Re:Still... by aastanna · 2003-09-01 11:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, it's not like they are going to implement the patents and they are only delaying the start date. They are delaying a vote, so it's still undecided.

To me it sounds like some of the people who might have voted yes on this issue may have realized how stupid they were being, and hopefully will re-examine the facts and have a change of hart.

Remember, politicians by and large won't understand the issue themselves, it's way out of their field, and it needs to be explained. For many years lobbiests for major corporations have been explaining the yes side, now some economists are explaining the no side and people are realizing the major problems with software patents.
Re:Still... by Halo1 · 2003-09-01 19:58 · Score: 1

Proponents wanted to delay the vote because they knew they couldn't win. Opponents wanted to delay it because they thought they could get even more support. And a lot of MEPs are still undecided.

--
Donate free food here

Re:So by NanoGator · 2003-09-01 10:45 · Score: 1

"If subscribers to slashdot get to see the story before anyone else, why aren't there any posts?"

It's a holiday?

--
"Derp de derp."

Looks like Mike B was WRONG by 110010001000 · 2003-09-01 10:48 · Score: 1

Poor Mike, he put a foot in his mouth in this one. Check out:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2136 65 1,00.htm

Devastating by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 10:49 · Score: 0, Insightful

Why would it be "devastating" to Europe when it has not "devastated" anything in other countries with software patents?

Can anyone cite an example where an economy has been "devastated" by these patents? I surely can't.

Re:Devastating by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 10:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

It'd call the utter stagnation of the software industry in the USA, devastation.
Even devastation begins to look "normal" if you've lived with it long enough, as the USA has.
Re:Devastating by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 10:55 · Score: 0

It'd call the utter stagnation of the software industry in the USA, devastation.

I'm sorry, but can you name a stronger software industry than that of the US?
Re:Devastating by Nexus+Seven · 2003-09-01 10:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

India.
Re:Devastating by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-01 12:15 · Score: 1

The U.S.of A.

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:Devastating by Cassius105 · 2003-09-01 12:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

America has a strong software business yes

but thas because software patents benefit large corporations

what they damage is the actual quality of software

If we have software patents thrown out here in europe then we should start to enjoy a higher quality of software

because software sold in europe wont have to abide by software patents so developers can use all the software methods they know of to make the best possible software without any worry of being sued or anything

while in american you will still have software restricted because companies have to abide by patents in the design of it

Im not a business man so im not sure if european software companies will make more money than american ones

but on the consumer end it will be alot better in europe because out software will be free of patent restrictions
Re:Devastating by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 13:18 · Score: 1

America is the poster child of what they do NOT want to become, so that's why USA was used.

It's a little hard to give other countries considering no other countries have the sheer number of companies (other than India). Even if they did, they haven't made any laws such as this one to use as an example.

Let's hope they don't.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Devastating by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 13:19 · Score: 0

It's times like this I really wish that there was a "-1, Failed English" moderation.
Re:Devastating by Daniel+Phillips · 2003-09-01 14:57 · Score: 1

America has a strong software business yes

but thas because software patents benefit large corporations

That has nothing to do with U.S. software companies being big and rich. For the most part, they are big and rich because of copyright. No other protection is needed for the kind of software that allows companies to grow big and rich, its complexity ensures that.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?

second time it is postponed by arcanumas · 2003-09-01 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is in fact the second time it is postponed. Let's hope that this is because they are seriously considering the impact of their decision and not some form of bureaucracy.

--
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.

Re:second time it is postponed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:43 · Score: 5, Informative

No it is the SEVENTH time it has been postponed:
EU Software Patent Plans Shelved Amid Massive Demonstrations
The directive has been controversial since its publication on 2002-02-20, and decisions have been delayed already seven times from the initially scheduled vote of 2002-12-16.

This will continue until protesting dies down through constant delays and divide and conquer tactics. It is very hard to win at a game that is never played wheneven the opposition has a chance of losing.
Re:second time it is postponed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:48 · Score: 0

This is in fact the second time it is postponed.

Nah, it's just another dupe :)

Good thing or bad thing? by doormat · 2003-09-01 10:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is this good? That we got a delay? Or do they simply want to wait until the tide rolls out, then pass it when there isnt as much vocal opposition. Regardless, keep the pressure on them! Make sure software patents arent allowed!

--
The Doormat

If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.

Re:Good thing or bad thing? by KingJoshi · 2003-09-01 11:22 · Score: 1

Those are my thoughts exactly. It may be too cynical, but as they say, "it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you." And there are people that are advocating for software patents so we should keep the pressure up.

--
In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
Re:Good thing or bad thing? by E_elven · 2003-09-01 11:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, it's still paranoia. The difference is just that when they finally 'get' you, your friends will say 'well, I suppose he was right, after all.'

--
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Re:Good thing or bad thing? by Greyfox · 2003-09-01 12:11 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's usually how this sort of thing goes. Lobbyists have boundless energy and if they get shot down one year, they just tweak their strategy and try again, and again until they get their way. The only way to completely stop them is drive a stake into... oh wait that's vampires. Um... sing their song backwards... no that sucubusses... Hmm... has anyone found the weakness for lobbyists yet?

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Good thing or bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 13:25 · Score: 0

The only way to completely stop them is drive a stake into... oh wait that's vampires.

Actually, I think that's effective for lobbyists too.

Proportional patents? by El · 2003-09-01 10:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Why not make the patents proportional to the amount of time and effort required to come up with the algoritm? I.e. "1 click shopping" should be patentable for about 10 minutes, while something like a machine vision algorithm which required years of research should be patentable for years...

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Re:Proportional patents? by FuzzyDaddy · 2003-09-01 10:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Why not make the patents proportional to the amount of time and effort required to come up with the algoritm?
I can see the courtroom testimony now:
"Your honor, I swear I'm an idiot and it really took me five years to come with this idea. Really!"

--
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Re:Proportional patents? by Tar-Palantir · 2003-09-01 11:05 · Score: 1

That is a nice idea, but how would you propose to come up with the length of the patent? In practice, I think that your idea would merely make more work for an already-overworked patent office, and probably from there directly to Bad Things.

There are some relatively simple ideas that ought to have a reasonable patent length. "1-click" is not a bad patent because it's a simple idea, but because it is an over-broad business method patent. It is not, as you said, an algorithm.

For my opinion, I don't think algorithms should be patentable at all, for any term.
Re:Proportional patents? by donnz · 2003-09-01 11:22 · Score: 1

And why not at the very least make have a demonstrateble version of software a condition of the patent. What we are seeing a lot these days are vague poorly written specifications for " my using the internet.". SOmetimes the applications were made several years ago and yet still not a line of code has appeared.

This is a far cry from the image of an inventor sweeting for years over a thousand prototypes before the hit on a working model.

Bottom line though, is that software patents are going to tax us to death.

--
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Re:Proportional patents? by Monster+Munch · 2003-09-01 11:22 · Score: 1

That is a nice idea, but how would you propose to come up with the length of the patent?

Give them three years to come up with a use for their patent, then for each year that their patented idea actually makes a profit (including licensing), allow them to utilize the patents protections for a set time period.

This way they actually have to use it or lose it, also if it's any good then people _will_ license its use.
Re:Proportional patents? by woodhouse · 2003-09-01 11:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's exactly how the system works without patents. If it's difficult to implement, it's difficult to copy. A difficult algorithm will take years for anyone to reproduce unless they have the source code. No need to patent anything.
Re:Proportional patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:33 · Score: 0

I concur along those lines.

I believe a higher obviousness threshold on software inventions is the only workable solution here.

Your machine vision algorithm could just the sort of non obvious innovation that would be worthy of patent protection (it might fall under the catagory of innovation that had been invested in partially due to the potential reward of patent protection).

If software patents were to be outlawed then the patentees would resort back to depicting their software invention as part of a gadget in order to gain patent protection (A gadget with memory locations and a monitoring device).

There is also the issue of process patents that the point of novelty would obviously be implemented as controller software. The patentee would avoid depicting the invention in specific software terms in order to gain a patent. Then one would still be infringing by writing a program to perform the patented process.

SO there will be a multitude of new vagaries and points of issue that would increase the cost of dancing around new uncertainties in the system.

The elimination of the majority of the obvious SW patents seems a more workable solution.

You may disagree and believe that all software patents should be abolished.

But don't think that software patent abolition will eliminate the ruling of software infringing on "physical" inventions.

And don't think that we will be rid of lousy patents as a whole either.
Re:Proportional patents? by tugrul · 2003-09-01 11:35 · Score: 1

Makes a profit? How do you measure that? Our favorite example of One-Click Shopping doesn't exactly generate concrete revenue, only perhaps through some murky study of purchase patterns before and after its introduction. Hell, what about shady accounting... want the Patent Office to have its little SEC division?

The Patent Office can't handle its given workload, why are we eager to give them more decisions to screw up?
Re:Proportional patents? by El · 2003-09-01 11:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, a difficult algorithm can be reverse-engineered from the machine code if you have a copy of the software.

--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Re:Proportional patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:42 · Score: 0

I already see some guys writing 5 lines of code as a "demo program" for their patents. The easiest the idea to come up with, the easier the program. "Inventing" patents like that could be a very beneficial business. Write 5 lines of code and charge 5 million $ fro every infringement.
Re:Proportional patents? by axxackall · 2003-09-01 12:21 · Score: 1

The source code help only in simple cases. When the project and its environment is complicated then interfaces are also complicated. Adaptation is also a very difficult job. Often your programmer will prefer to write it from scratch rather than to use the code. Of course the source code makes the job of copying and adaptation to be much easier. But it will be still very difficult.

--

Less is more !
Re:Proportional patents? by axxackall · 2003-09-01 12:24 · Score: 1

That's why the software should be protected by copyrights and licenses, not by patents.

--

Less is more !
Re:Proportional patents? by donnz · 2003-09-01 12:47 · Score: 1

Not when you see the specifications which IP laywers seem to be kindly insisting on "bringing to our attention".

These are complete specifications for systems to carry out an entire business operation (an equivalent example would be an online CRM system). These are very much bigger systmes than "1 click" shopping.

--
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Re:Proportional patents? by Monster+Munch · 2003-09-01 13:12 · Score: 1

Makes a profit? How do you measure that? Our favorite example of One-Click Shopping doesn't exactly generate concrete revenue ...

Exactly. It should never have been allowed as a patent (easy shot, I know). The only claim they have is that they were the first to use it (maybe).

A patent allows the patent holder sole rights to the control of his invention in return for the public disclosure of the method of implementation.

This control was originally a tool that allowed the holder to make a return on investment of time and money and allow them to profit from the publication.

If there is no profit to be made why give them a patent? the protection offered (on *this* method) by a patent is nil, it may serve to deny competing implementations but that was never the intention of the patent system.

Your right, profit is subjective in this case, I agree it's hard to measure.

If they really want to keep their idea from being copied (esp. software/algorithms) then it should stay with the inventors as an industrial/trade secret and use NDA's to control if they license.

Business processes could be published and copyrighted, but that would still allow for competition.

People should be free to independantly implement ideas/algorithms/software without hitting the brick wall of patent litigation especially when there there is only one way to implement some idea.

I think that a lot of patents are obvious in design and they are only patents because someone thought to obtain the patent in the first place.

With Regards to the situation in Europe, it's the same old tactic, the same tactic thats been used to get the European countries to join the Euro. When the people say NO ask them again, then again, then again. Eventually they get the desired result and stop asking at that point.
Re:Proportional patents? by Lost+Race · 2003-09-01 14:01 · Score: 1

Yes, and no need to publish either -- it will be reinvented soon whether you tell anyone about it or not. Very few algorithms require exceptional insight to create, and almost none of those are ever published as patents. 99.9% of the crap that's patented is independently invented over and over again, whenever the need for it arises.
Closed-source software is not at all easy to copy. Sure, with great effort you can step through the machine language and figure out what it's doing, but chances are if you just run the program and watch what it does you can come up with your own original code to do the same thing, and spend less time than you would have reverse-engineering. Even if you have the source code it often takes more work to shoehorn it into your program than to write original code. Look at SCO's ate_alloc example from Unix -- the Unix code was such a poor fit for Linux that it all had to be rewritten anyway.
Stealing "algorithms" is generally a waste of time.
Re:Proportional patents? by Dominic_Mazzoni · 2003-09-01 15:28 · Score: 1

Why not make the patents proportional to the amount of time and effort required to come up with the algoritm? I.e. "1 click shopping" should be patentable for about 10 minutes, while something like a machine vision algorithm which required years of research should be patentable for years...

The problem with this is that while it may take one person years to come up with a particular machine vision algorithm, someone else who has been working in the field of machine vision for 20 years could often do the same thing in a week.

No, the true test for a patent should be that it's non-obvious to people working in the field. If you show the patent abstract to 10 professionals in the field, every single one of them should say, "Wow, how did they do that?". If even a single one of them can figure out more or less how the patent works without reading the actual text, then clearly the patent does not meet one of the requirements: it's not non-obvious to someone in the field.

I believe it's time for tests like this to become part of the patent review process, instead of a criterion that only comes up when the patent is challenged in court.
Re:Proportional patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 22:49 · Score: 0

A complex algorithm will be very difficult to reverse engineer : most complex algorithms need serious mathematics. Usually, it will be more insteresting to try another route.
Algorithms that don't need maths usually can be reverse engineered just looking at the output.
Re:Proportional patents? by HiThere · 2003-09-02 04:34 · Score: 1

Not necesarily. Sometimes true, but also frequently not.

E.g., the invention of the first paperclip (the bent wire thingy, not the other things that do the same job) took a long (distirbuted) time. But once seeing one of them, enabling copying was nearly instantaneous.

Sometimes simple ideas are difficult to find. But once you find them, they're easy to copy. Now I know of no reason to believe that, e.g., the "one-click" patent was reasonable. And lots of reasons why it wasn't. But this doesn't invalidate that there can be simple approaches that *are* difficult to find. Blitting is a fair example of that.

And the entire process can be quite difficult to predict, because various ideas are "emergent", i.e., they become obvious in the context of other ideas, but weren't before those ideas were common currency.

Whatever. It almost doesn't matter. The Patent Office regulations are designed to stiffle invention. And to centralize control in large organizations. If they have any other purpose, that purpose has been subverted to such an extent that the prior two purposes are the dominant function. It's quite easy to conceive of reasonable software patents. It's nigh unto impossible to conceive of the current USPTO granting them. They would instead grant a patent for a precursor that was trivial, and sweeping to such an extent that it invalidated any legitimate patents. Of course, they wouldn't check to ensure that there was no conflict. That would be a considerable amount of work, and patent clerks performance evaluations are based on the number of patents that they grant, and aren't affected by the number that are later overturned.

So we would be vastly better off not only with no software patents, but even with no patents of any sort. The USPTO has become that corrupted.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 10:50 · Score: 0

Honestly, how many subscribers do you even see? I think I see an average of maybe one every few days.

Good for Europe by ralphdaugherty · 2003-09-01 10:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

tell the US they can take their idiot software patents and shove them where the sun don't shine. Because one dufus judge ruled that a business process could be patented, the Patent Office has rubber stamped anything that comes in the door. If I were Europe, I just simply wouldn't honor what monkeys with rubber stamps do.

rd

Re:Good for Europe by GoBears · 2003-09-01 11:27 · Score: 2, Informative

If you read the EU proposal (click through the Wired article and then to the first link), you would in fact see that they go to great lengths to distance themselves from business-method patents or any other patents that do not have technical content.

Business-method patents are not the issue here.
Re:Good for Europe by ralphdaugherty · 2003-09-01 11:43 · Score: 1

Business-method patents are not the issue here.

They already told the US to shove it then. Good.

rd
Re:Good for Europe by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 22:42 · Score: 0

This is highly relevant. One of the arguments the UK Labour party is using to justify its support for software patents is that there are already 30,000 EU software patents, mostly filed by US companies. Apparently we have to make them legal so EU companies can also get patents and become competitive.

The obvious point that those patents are currently just worthless bits of paper seems not to have occurred to them. If they're not enforcable they cannot represent any threat to EU business! Politicians seem to have great difficulty grasping simple concepts.

The protests are causing other protests.... by anonymous+coword · 2003-09-01 10:52 · Score: 0

In the free software community. Recently, the closure of KDE.org in prostest of software patents, has caused some controvesy over how free software should role in the world of politcs. More information can be found on a kde developers blog.

Blog can be found here

--
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!

Re:The protests are causing other protests.... by mabinogi · 2003-09-01 10:59 · Score: 1

I would hardly call anything that Neil Stevens says as "controversey"...

He's spent so long with a tinfoil hat on, it's fused to his head.

--
Advanced users are users too!
Re:The protests are causing other protests.... by Rob+Kaper · 2003-09-01 21:11 · Score: 1

Let me clarify a bit: Neil (and others, including myself) thought that the patent message did not belong on kde.org, certainly not in such a prominent way. KDE is supposed to be non-political and frankly, a boycott regarding a vote in the European Parliament is something that can be considered as being political. Noone ever had a problem with the anti-patent hotspot on the KDE website. (more: the KDE topic on my personal blog)

So, when the KDE community "agreed" this political statement was okay, Neil inserted his own political statement, which was almost immediately criticized and removed. Because of these double standards, Neil left KDE CVS. His software is still available.

Neil then complained about these double standards on Simply American, a site I operate and where both him and me post disjointed commentary on America with incredible diversity: from the California recall elections to the war on terrorism, from the Giants' victory march in the NL West to a mirror of Uruklink, the official Iraqi ministry of information. If you read the daily archives, you'll see that I personally do not believe there is an intentional wave of anti-Americanism within KDE, although I must admit that I understand how Neil came to that conclusion since his pro-American credits were banned even though those were not more or less political than the website blackout due to the patents boycott.

In the end, I believe it's a win-win situation as far as KDE is concerned: Neil will be much happier developing his KDE applications outside of CVS, the KDE core developers will be much happier without any criticism within the project and I won't have to be in the middle of fights between Neil and other developers anymore and it will be much easier for me to remain friends with all people I met (for the first time, or again) in Nove Hrady as well as Neil, whom I met in San Francisco last year.

Good Thing(tm) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 10:57 · Score: 0

the protests even got any response. After the sinister YRO stories lately, this suprises me.

Please help. by BillKaos · 2003-09-01 10:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, we know you slashdotters are mostly American, as said before, but please, this is a CRUTIAL fact to European Free Software, so please, help us, help you, and support the protest: change your page.

Thank you.

Re:Please help. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 05:36 · Score: 0

how the hell does a post that cannot even spell CRUCIAL get moderated +5 Insightful

Voting by jabbadabbadoo · 2003-09-01 10:59 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Voting 'Yes' for this directive is like voting 'Yes' for Arnold as governor. Crazy.

What about the USA? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:00 · Score: 0

Can you obtain an ePatent in the USA?

Woohoo!! by mikera · 2003-09-01 11:01 · Score: 1

As someone who actually wrote to my MEPs about this issue, I'm pretty pleased about this...

Re:Woohoo!! by buford_tannen · 2003-09-01 11:25 · Score: 1

Thank you for having the balls to do so. With people like you taking a stand and actually being heard, there is a chance that Europe might be saved from the technological fate that awaits the United States.

It's probably time for me to start looking into the emigration process...

--
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
Re:Woohoo!! by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-09-01 13:15 · Score: 1

Hey! No cutting into the queue.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

Only 400 Protestors? by netherpunk · 2003-09-01 11:01 · Score: 0

Wow. If only 400 Protestors was what it would take to stop stupid laws in the U.S. then I would protest a hell of a lot more.

Re:Only 400 Protestors? by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 13:26 · Score: 1

Seriously. Everytime I've seen a protest here in the states, it's amounted to people being provoked by a line of police with riot gear on, being pushed back. If you are even thinking about interrupting the natural flow of things, or blocking businesses, then it's broken up by the police force.

Getting severely hurt is a major downside of some protests here in the states. Unless it's one of those picketing types that you hold a sign and walk around in a circle, but that just draws the media to laugh at you.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Only 400 Protestors? by netherpunk · 2003-09-01 13:37 · Score: 0

I agree. I am pretty sure that in some locales you need a permit to organize a protest. Seems pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
Re:Only 400 Protestors? by Halo1 · 2003-09-01 20:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's not the amount of protesters, it's the message. We explicitly focussed on simple economical arguments that everyone can understand (e.g. 30,000 already illegally granted software patents in Europe, 75% of which are owned by US companies -> legalising those = bad for European companies). 400 people is enough to get media attention, and if you then have something more to say than just "software patents are bad because then I can run my Free GNU/Linux anymore", it can have quite an impact.

It's especially telling that the pro-swpat lobby did very little effort to refute our arguments or even to simply discredit us (e.g. calling us zealots that only want all software to be free/gratis). There were some weak attempts, but very few.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Only 400 Protestors? by netherpunk · 2003-09-02 15:58 · Score: 0

I think the message is relatively muted by the time it gets to the general public. Media, etc. So you are full of shit.

The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by Thagg · 2003-09-01 11:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

I believe that the reason that this is coming up with a vote at all is that the WIPO requires 'harmonization' of patent laws in all WIPO-member countries, and everybody is being encouraged to harmonize to the insane US status quo ante.

Let us hope that the EU can stick to their principles and stand up to US hegemony on this issue. It's not unrealistic to think that a software-patent-free-Europe could have dramatically stronger growth in software than it would have otherwise. Software patents will force force Europe into second-class status for decades.

The open source movement, and GNU/Linux in particular, has shown that software is fundementally different than 'things' -- people will create it on a large scale just for the pleasure of doing so.

thad

--
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.

Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by GoBears · 2003-09-01 11:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Contrary to the hysterical claims you read in /., Europe is not free of software patents now. Anyone who bothers to click through to read the EU proposal here will read the following observation:

The patenting of computer-implemented inventions is not new. Indeed, patents involving use of software have been applied for and granted since the earliest days of the European patent system and it is now estimated that 15% of all applications for patents received by the EPO relate to computer-implemented inventions.
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by Spad · 2003-09-01 11:31 · Score: 1

Well the upside is that in general, with the current exception of El Presidente Blair, Europe doesn't like blindly following the US in everything they do.

With any luck they'll look at the whole story here and not just what the big businesses are saying. I'm not sure if US politicians are more susceptible to 'bribary' or whether it's simply more prevenlant in the US, but I'm delighted that the MEP's actually seem to potentially care more about their constituants than their wallets.
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by GammaTau · 2003-09-01 11:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Contrary to the hysterical claims you read in /., Europe is not free of software patents now.

In the same sense, the world is not free of software patents. Some countries in the world have software patents, some other countries don't. There is no standard policy on software patents throughout the world.

Continuing this example, some EU countries have allowed software patents, some haven't. "Europe" or "EU" has had no directive concerning patenting software. It has been up to the member countries.

I think you could compare it to a situation where patents would have been granted in individual states of the USA. Some would have allowed software patents and some other states wouldn't. And then the Congress were to decide on a Federal law overriding all the local laws.
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by MBMarduk · 2003-09-01 11:43 · Score: 1

....which then begs the question why the EP needs another implementation. A BSA-made directive of all things.
According to the main speaker (FFII) at the Brussel protest, apparently these directives are a PITA to write because of the extensive use of formal wordings (lawyer-speak), so these euro-shills want to push it through to make believe they've actually been working.
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by newhoggy · 2003-09-01 11:59 · Score: 1

I believe that the reason that this is coming up with a vote at all is that the WIPO requires 'harmonization' of patent laws in all WIPO-member countries, and everybody is being encouraged to harmonize to the insane US status quo ante.
It's not a particularly convincing reason either.
Why must harmonization always be towards a reduction in liberties? Modifying US patent laws to suit the EU is just as valid a method of harmonization.
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by mczak · 2003-09-01 12:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Contrary to the hysterical claims you read in /., Europe is not free of software patents now.
It is true that a lot of software patents were already granted by the EPO. However, they were granted clearly against the letter of the current directive. The funny thing is, the EPO says something along the lines they are expecting a newer directive to allow software patents so they grant them already, and in this new directive exactly these existing software patents are now used to show that the new directive is merely here to preserve the status quo...
However, I'm not aware of ANY lawsuits concerning any of those software patents. IMHO nobody is crazy enough to sue someone else, because chances are the courts would just invalidate the patent (because it contains just non-patentable stuff according to the law). Remember, the patent office GRANTS the patent, but the COURT decides if it is VALID.
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by xlyz · 2003-09-01 12:33 · Score: 1

u can find lot of information here http://swpat.ffii.org/
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by axxackall · 2003-09-01 12:37 · Score: 1

The goal is to outlaw software patents in EU, not to leave the situation as-is. If EU law will override local europian laws and make ALL software patents illigal and obsolete THEN the situation will be improved.

--

Less is more !
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by Flower · 2003-09-01 15:12 · Score: 1

Ok. I think a great situation would be if the US got rid of software patents and Europe set the duration of copyright to 14 years renewable once.

How's that for harmonization?

--
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by Artifakt · 2003-09-01 15:34 · Score: 1

Actually, that's nearly what happened. It's not congress that decided, but the supremes, but the court ruled in the 80's that congress had the power to write copyright law, but the constitution didn't let them deligate that power to the states. I'm not sure if the court ever actually said this also applies to patents and trademarks, or if people just noted the parellels in the constitution and assumed that the court would rule the same way again if the congress tried to deligate patent or trademark authority.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by henrygb · 2003-09-01 22:07 · Score: 1

"Europe" or "EU" has had no directive concerning patenting software.
In a sense this is true, but in another it is not (as with everything to do with the EU). In particular, Article 52 of the European Patent Convention says
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
The 27 memebers of the European Patent office include all 15 EU Member States. This does not of course mean that European Patents actually follow this rule.
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 01:47 · Score: 0

The EPO is one of the main backers of relaxing patent restrictions. The EPO has been working assiduously to grab control from their employers and expand both their role in policy making and the amount of 'business' they do. There's a clear conflict of interest in letting it happen, any body of illegally issued patents needs to been seen in light of that background and treated with extreme suspicion.

At the moment EPO issued software patents are just worthless scraps of paper, only relaxing the law would make them anything else, something to remind your MEP of.
Re:The US will put massive pressure on MEPs by Jadrano · 2003-09-02 03:06 · Score: 1

Business has quite a lot of influence on politicians in the European Union, too, but there are rather more politicians in the parliament who are not linked with big business, e.g. most of the left except British Labour, the Greens and also quite a number of liberal and centrist politicians.

But in this case, I think it is not so much a question of independence from influence of big business because there are very few European companies that could profit from software patents and are in favour of them (Siemens would be an example). Most very large IT companies that are active in Europe are American and Japanese ones, while there are lots of small and medium European IT companies. So, if there is influence from European business, it will rather be against software patents.

The Jury is out.... by reality-bytes · 2003-09-01 11:07 · Score: 1

Could this be democracy in action?

Or just another slow motion train-wreck?

Only the MEPs will decide

Oh dear......

--
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.

Good News by Houn · 2003-09-01 11:08 · Score: 4, Funny

It's good to see that protests can have an effect on issues every now and then. My fear, however, is that even if this is thrown down this time, how long until it comes up again, and how long until it passes into law? In my experience, the decision-makers tend to be Greedy, Stupid, or both. Of course, I live in the US, so...

--
The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.

Re:Good News by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 13:31 · Score: 1

Too right.

Here in the US, if a bill is actually noticed and people get into a fluster about it, it's just pulled, rewritten, and slipped back in under another name. Repeat as necessary until one of the times hits a point where it slips under the radar.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

Don't assume by Julian+Morrison · 2003-09-01 11:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

...that Europe isn't as "sold out" as the USA. It's just sold out to different people and for different reasons. Mainly it's sold out to political vested interests, rather than campaign contributors. Luckily one of the more influential groups (the socialists) seem to have gotten the message that this software-patent stuff is bad for their agenda. For once the commies are the good guys. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Re:Don't assume by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:36 · Score: 0

OK, for the N^Nth time, Socialism is NOT Communism. Go and read some history books, for Chrissakes.
Re:Don't assume by dmayle · 2003-09-01 13:06 · Score: 1

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

That is, unless, it's a 24 hour clock. And yes, there are 24 hour analog clocks... :p
Re:Don't assume by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 13:52 · Score: 1

THANK you.

I'm glad someone else caught this, also.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Don't assume by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 14:35 · Score: 1

Dude, thanks alot for that link!

I've been looking for a relatively inexpensive 24-hour analog watch for a while now.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Don't assume by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2003-09-01 19:37 · Score: 1

...that Europe isn't as "sold out" as the USA. It's just sold out to different people and for different reasons. Mainly it's sold out to political vested interests, rather than campaign contributors. Luckily one of the more influential groups (the socialists) seem to have gotten the message that this software-patent stuff is bad for their agenda.

You know, when the elected representatives act according to the will of their voters, we don't call it sell out we call it democracy.

And as others have pointed out, european style social democrats are a far cry from soviet style communists.

--
Stefan Axelsson

This is just an evil plot... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:20 · Score: 0

... to annoy all of us as a bunch of useful sites will undoubtably shut down again later this month.

Bastards!

Because by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:25 · Score: 0

subscribing to /. proves you are stupid?

I mean, look at the evidence... Most of the early posts are "looke me! furst post" or "Join the GNAA!!!"

(joking)

I apologize for insulting people, but the idea that the editors are getting paid bothers me. Back in the day, they talked about things like writing features and improving the site. Now, they are building an impressive record of dupes and silence on the boards.

Really, we should be designing an improvement for usenet - a distributed weblog system - instead of subsidizing sites like /. and k5. It could even have a built-in replacement for AIM and MSN.

Nah - we all know that usenet only survives because of the binary groups; ISP's would happily kill it if they could avoid the uproar... and innovation died with Unix. Must...fight...inertia...

Re:Because by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 14:03 · Score: 0

I take this series of posts that you made, to mean that you favor software patents, and intend to do your best to threaten the jobs of Slashdot editors, if they keep fighting you on this?

Bill, put down that spoon before you hurt someone.

As far as I'm concerned, the slashdot editors are doing a great job.

And the US is pressured to match Europe by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:26 · Score: 0

it is an upward spiral

Non-exclusive software patents? by Michael+Woodhams · 2003-09-01 11:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

There is still a big problem so long as the U.S. is allowing these patents.

Scenario 1: Europe allows software patents.
Jan 1990-Jan 2004: Various people around the world use a borderline-patentable idea because it is obvious, but don't try to patent it.
Jan 2004: EuroSoft* file to patent the idea in Europe.
May 2004: AmeriSoft* file to patent the idea in the US.
Jan 2006: EuroSoft's patent is approved, and used to oppress the masses, including AmeriSoft. AmeriSoft's patent is either refused or is toothless because of this.

* All companies in these scenarios are fictional. Any resemblence with real companies of the same name, trading or defunct, is purely coincidental, and their fault for choosing such an obvious company name.

Scenario 2 - Europe does not allow software patents.
Jan 1990-Jan 2004: Various people around the world use a borderline-patentable idea because it is obvious, but don't try to patent it.
Jan 2004: EuroSoft considers patenting the idea, but would have to do so in the U.S. This would be much harder for them, and it is a long shot anyway that the patent office will be stupid enough to grant it, so they don't.
May 2004: AmeriSoft file to patent the idea in the US.
May 2006: AmeriSoft's patent is approved, and used to oppress the masses, including EuroSoft.

From our point of view, there isn't much difference between these scenarios, but clearly the European Parliment will prefer scenario 1.

I think what we need is special cheap non-exclusive patents. (Perhaps the name needs working on, as it is somewhat oxymoronic as it stands.) It would not allow the "patent" owner to prevent anyone else using the idea, but would provide assured protection against anyone who filed for a patent on the same idea at a later date.

Scenario 3:
Jan 1990-Jan 2004: Various people around the world use a borderline-patentable idea because it is obvious, but don't try to patent it.
Jan 2004: EuroSoft* file a non-exclusive patent on the idea in Europe.
May 2004: AmeriSoft* file to patent the idea in the US.
May 2006: AmeriSoft is unable to oppress EuroSoft because of the patent. Anyone else is able to claim to be using EuroSoft's patent on the idea, not AmeriSoft.

This could all be achieved without government intervention just by publishing in a Journal of No-Longer-Patentable Ideas. (Or web-site. Are there such sites? Easy Karma to the person to post links to some.) As IANAL, I don't know if there would be any benefit in official government recognition via the patent office.

Possibly there could be some allowance for the patents to be used defensively only - i.e. you can only prevent someone using your patent if they are trying to prevent you using one of theirs. I can see a Family Economy-Size Can-o-Worms down this path, but it may still be better than the Barrel-o-Worms we're dealing with now.

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.

Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by chgros · 2003-09-01 12:06 · Score: 1

Are patents filed in some country valid for the entire world ?
I don't think so. Actually, if they were, scenario 2 would be the current situation.
And if they aren't, your entire point is invalid.
Actually, if patent policies are different in different countries, they can't be valid across these countries (to avoid this absurd second scenario you're talking about, where a company which filed a patent in its country can oppress another one in another country where the thing is not patentable).
Your idea of a "non-exclusive patent" is still valid, but I don't think the difference in price would be enough of an incentive for companies to use it.
Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by Lost+Race · 2003-09-01 13:50 · Score: 1

It would generally not be in an inventor's interests to file a non-exclusive patent. Basically you're giving away your ideas to all your competitors and getting nothing in exchange. Better just to keep the idea secret; the other guys will eventually re-invent it on their own, but you don't want to give them a head start.
Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by spitzak · 2003-09-01 14:40 · Score: 1

The idea is that the non-exclusive patent would be free, rather than the tens of thousands of dollars needed for a real patent. Since it would protect the inventor from having the invention "stolen" by another company, even though it would allow "sharing", it could be considered benificial to use one.

I know for a fact that the time and money needed for a patent makes it impractical for even a 600-employee multi-million dollar company to patent inventions. Keeping it secret is useless: the patentable ideas are quite obvious it you try the software. The situation is really, really bad.
Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by Lost+Race · 2003-09-01 15:09 · Score: 1

But the idea of a patent is that you exchange secrecy for exclusivity. Without the exclusivity, why give up the secrecy? Seems better for Europe just to have no software patents at all.
Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by jujuchef · 2003-09-01 17:10 · Score: 1

Scenario 4:

1. Europe allows software patents

2. AmeriSoft* and AmeriSoft*-like companies, well experienced in the process of software patents make a jumpstart on filing potential patent applications

3. EuroSoft* & EuroSoft-like companies still manage to apply for similar patents within the E.U.

4. Legal process of deciding whether AmeriSoft*-like company or EuroSoft*-like company takes the course of a few years, while in the meantime the patent gets utilized by both.

5. EuroSoft*-like company loses litigation to AmeriSoft*-like company, goes bankrupt because of the reciprocity.

It seems much like the story of Lolita here with reversed roles. Hopefully *ANY* patent law that passes in the EU holds preferential treatment to EU-based citizens & companies to avoid getting done in by foreign competition.

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_3/kahin/ in dex.html#k4

"This situation means that, although the Munich Convention and the national laws of Member States do not permit the patentability of computer programs as such, there are about 13,000 European patents covering software! It would also appear that, owing to extensive ignorance of the current legal situation in Europe, about 75 percent of these patents are held by very large non-European companies."

--
Truth is realized, not told...
Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by Halo1 · 2003-09-01 20:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Your analysis of the second scenario is broken. First of all, Eurosoft has no reason to doubt that ti's trivial patent will be granted in the US. Secondly, Eurosoft can't be attacked by AmeriSoft based on patent infringement claims in Europe, which is its home base. Amerisoft otoh can be attacked by Eurosoft in the US, and if Eurosoft doesn't sell it's product in the US (yet), Amerisoft won't have anyway to defend itself using its own patent portfolio.
Not having software patents in Europe, but having them in the US is a strategic advantage for European companies. They can then even take on IBM, just like Eolas took on Microsoft (Eolas doesn't develop anything itself, so Microsoft couldn't find any of its own patents on which Eolas could infringe). I'm not advocating this kind of business strategy (in fact, I am strongly against this kind of leeching), but it may help in getting rid of swpat in the US as well.
Keep in mind it's mainly the BSA that's pushing for software patents in Europe (a leaked word document with one of the first drafts of the directive, had the name of the European head of the BSA in the author field).

--
Donate free food here
Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by luisdom · 2003-09-01 20:44 · Score: 1

I found this, and I'm pretty confident that simply officially copyrighting (method varies depending on countries) protects from patents, as it is an offical fact of prior art.

Usual IANAL disclaimer, etc.
Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by sanders_muc · 2003-09-01 23:41 · Score: 1

Please don't forget that one country's patent office will (or at least should, according to European as well as US patent law) refuse a patent application for an invention for which a patent in another country has already been granted (or even only applied for), even if this patent is not valid in the former country. This is because a patent application (which is always published by the patent office upon application, before even considering whether it is worth a patent) is obviously a publication proving prior art.

And a publication proving prior art only needs to be published somewhere in the world. What the opponent of the application has to show, is that the idea was accessible to the public before the application and it's considered accessible even if it it's in an article hidden in the rear basement shelf of some minor university's library somewhere far abroad. And the last sentence only applied to European patent law, btw - in the US it suffices that the invention has been made before; it doesn't even has to be published (that's the famous 'lab book proof').

But the latter is of course different to proof, and this is why major tech compenies usually publish minor inventions that are not deemed worth a patent application in journals specifically published for this purpose.
Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by Anthony+Bailey · 2003-09-02 03:18 · Score: 1

It believe it doesn't really matter where you are based, but rather where your market is. In both scenarios, if Eurosoft does sufficient business in the US then they will want to apply for a patent in the US just like Amerisoft would.
This could all be achieved without government intervention just by publishing in a Journal of No-Longer-Patentable Ideas. (Or web-site. Are there such sites?)
I believe this is one of the services that ip.com seeks to provide.
Re:Non-exclusive software patents? by spitzak · 2003-09-02 04:36 · Score: 1

Because I cannot sell the product and be secret, since the "secret" is obvious by looking at the product.

Just to be specific, the patentable method being used by Nuke is that the Directed Acyclic Graph is edited by dragging the "tails" of the connecting lines between nodes (rather than the usual method of drawing "forward" from tail to head) (this has been used in-house at Digital Domain since December 1993). I would like you to tell me how to sell a product using this without revealing the "secret".

There are also several other things I feel are patentable, but they are also GUI related items. Things that I think can be "secret" (like the algorithim used to blur images at high speed) are certainly being kept secret.

It is quite obvious that a company with enough lawyers and willing to take some risk could patent methods even after observing them directly in our software. They could carefully avoid talking to us and instead threaten other compainies so that the obvious prior usage is not found. It would be extremely useful if there was a safe and inexpensive method of making this illegal.

Re:Who gives a rats ass by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:42 · Score: 0

This is not a U.S. newsite! Crawl back to your cave you ignorant bastard! If you want local news go to CNN's website.

An interesting opportunity for Europe by dcavanaugh · 2003-09-01 11:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

By rejecting software patents, it is possible that Europe could rival and even surpass the US in software deveopment. Let's face it, Europe is not generally known for a pro-business environment. This is one of those rare occasions when the Europeans can offer an advantage without tax breaks or other subsidies. "You mean all we have to do is cut the BS, starting with software patents?" Yup.

The American system of patents and copyrights creates a few winners at the expense of a great many losers. Give "the other guys" a place to set up shop, and things get interesting. Toss in the ability of the Internet, where you can exist administratively in one country and do the actual work anywhere you want, and things get very interesting.

Re:An interesting opportunity for Europe by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-01 12:24 · Score: 1

Hmmmm... I've been thinking of moving. Any EU company out there need a software engineer?

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:An interesting opportunity for Europe by dcavanaugh · 2003-09-01 13:16 · Score: 1

I am not so sure you have to move. Just work as a consultant for a European company. They will be pretty much free to develop whatever they want, and they can hire you to help.

Then again, why stop there? How hard would it be to set up a paper-only company in Europe? Then you could not only circumvent software patents, you could make tax-deductible business trips to the European "corporate headquarters". I recommend Switzerland.
Re:An interesting opportunity for Europe by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 13:40 · Score: 1

I'm with you there...
Any Unix Engineers needed in Germany? :)

Mass migration of geeks to the vaterland...

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:An interesting opportunity for Europe by Odinson · 2003-09-01 14:08 · Score: 1

My thoughts exactly. Why the EU respects the less reputable copyright and patent laws from the US is beyond me. The US version of intelectual property gives US companies an unfair home court advantage.
Does the EU want to subject to the latest MSFT webstandard powergrab? Do they want to be the place that "finds" all the new rock stars but doesn't financially benifit from their accent? Do they want to pay rediculous fees everytime they try to build somthing that happens to be covered by one of a billion random word string patents registered in the US. Do they want attach closepins to their collective nipples and pour hot wax on themselves?
By 2008, perhaps sooner, the GDP of the EU will surpass that of the US. Isn't time to stop being pushed around? Create cut and dry IP laws that best benifit a free open market. Like 14 year copyrights, government works in the public domain, compulsory licencing in patents and copyright, and working models for patent applications. Make the rules fair and let the chips fall as they may. You may not have another chance...
Uh oh here comes a mob of angry confused rednecks lead by disney patent lawyers posing as neo-cons... aaaaaaaaaahhh I'm not the Taliban... oh god run.....

--
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Re:An interesting opportunity for Europe by Moridineas · 2003-09-01 14:15 · Score: 1

With 10+% unemployment (and still in recession), good luck !
Re:An interesting opportunity for Europe by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 15:19 · Score: 1

With 10+% unemployment (and still in recession), good luck !

Holy christ, are you serious?

I didn't realize that!

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:An interesting opportunity for Europe by Sphere1952 · 2003-09-01 16:02 · Score: 1

I liked Bern...

--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:An interesting opportunity for Europe by Moridineas · 2003-09-02 04:36 · Score: 1

Yeah serious... and it's not like this is a particularly new thing. I find it somewhat sad how 6% unemployment in the US is amazingly bad--I mean, there is a LOT of bad sentiment over that 6%, and yet compared to MUCH of Western Europe, 6% would be great. Also look at economic growth levels--there's a graph in that BBC article. Even in 1999 German growth was pretty minimal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3149613.stm

No Longer Patentable Ideas by Michael+Woodhams · 2003-09-01 11:48 · Score: 1

This [laying prior claim to an idea without patenting it, to prevent later hostile patenting of it] could all be achieved without government intervention just by publishing in a Journal of No-Longer-Patentable Ideas. (Or web-site.)

Or I could just co-opt Slashdot for the purpose. Here's a couple:

If those RFID tags could be made really cheaply, you could put one on every piece of recyclable packaging (ideally you'd just add some smart-dust to the plastic mix.) Then rubish could be automatically sorted for recycling (whether at the point of initial discarding or at the landfill is an implementation detail.)

You could replace all of the music stands of an orchestra with computer displays (LCD with current technology.) This would display the music, and scroll to keep up with the performance. Ideally the scrolling is done by a computer with a microphone, but if that is too hard, it could be controlled by a human. One computer method is for the computer to have a previous recording of the piece, preferably by the same orchestra/conductor combo, and 'markings' against the recording pointing to the corresponding point in the score. The computer then attempts to correlate the recording with what it is getting through the microphone. There would be allowance for manually resetting it to a certain score location, as would be necessary in rehersal.

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.

Re:No Longer Patentable Ideas by transact · 2003-09-02 06:16 · Score: 1

The music stand thing has already been done.

http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi96/proceedings/desb ri ef/Wahila/djw_txt.htm
Re:No Longer Patentable Ideas by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 08:58 · Score: 0

Actually, make the music stands scrolling controlled by the conductor, via the motion of the little wand he uses to show the tempo to the orchestra.

But big business likes them... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:48 · Score: 1, Informative

IBM, Microsoft as mentioned are 'land-grabbing', getting a large number of patents. They both have the money, and the focus, to bear on legislation.

I would presume that a lot of the software patents are like WMDs - never expected to actually be used but the threat of 'you attack us, we can hit you with patents X,Y,Z' (and legal costs!).

What is important, is that they act as a defense against any form of attack from a company involved in software development. Acme tries to sue IBM over a electronics patent, IBM threatens or actively counterattacks with software patents.

But how long before you get companies that only own software patents, but dont develop software. That way they can attack without needing to defend!

Effort to discover != Effort to implement by tugrul · 2003-09-01 11:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

For example, that super drug that took years and billions to discover, but in the end is only a chemical formula for a molecule that anyone can fabricate.

Re:Effort to discover != Effort to implement by Nucleon500 · 2003-09-01 17:17 · Score: 1

The drug industry is a horse of a different color, primarily because it takes years and billions to create innovations. In the drug industry, innovation is expensive (R&D, testing, certification) and implemtation is cheap, whereas for software, innovation is cheap and implementation (the boring part) is expensive. This is why patents work so much better for the drug industry than they do for the software industry.
Also, the drug industry is inherently "open source," because you clearly can't get FDA approval without publicising the formula. This is why they need patents, just as we need copyrights. On the other hand, "anyone" can't make the drug just by knowing the formula. In fact, may of the patents are not for the chemical itself, but the fabrication method.

--
Litigious bastards

Really that bad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 11:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've been reading the proposal. It really doesn't seem that bad. Examples:

1-In order to be patentable, inventions in general and computer-implemented inventions in particular must be susceptible of industrial application, new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an inventive step, computer-implemented inventions should make a technical contribution to the state of the art.

2-Accordingly, even though a computer-implemented invention belongs by virtue of its very nature to a field of technology, it is important to make it clear that where an invention does not make a technical contribution to the state of the art, as would be the case, for example, where its specific contribution lacks a technical character, the invention will lack an inventive step and thus will not be patentable.

3-Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a method involving the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any patent granted for such a method would not monopolise the algorithm itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent.

4-This recital makes it clear that it is not enough to specify the use of a computer (i.e. of technical means) to make a computer-implemented invention patentable. The invention as a whole must make a technical contribution. Ordinary data processing is not enough.

5-It is important to clarify that not all computer-implemented inventions are necessarily patentable. However, computer-implemented inventions should not be excluded from patentability on the sole ground that they specify the use of a computer program. By stressing the fact that a patentable computer-implemented invention, albeit belonging to a field of technology, must make a technical contribution to the state of the art and by drawing attention to the problem and solution approach used by the patent examiners at the European Patent Office in assessing inventive step, it is intended to avoid allowing inventive but non-technical methods (including business methods) to be regarded as making a technical contribution and hence as patentable merely because they are implemented on a computer.

Well it doesn't seem so dangerous

Re:Really that bad by _Pablo · 2003-09-01 13:00 · Score: 1

But some overworked patent officer decides what is a novel idea, what is a technical contribution to the state-of-the-art and what is not...surely someone who does not work on state-of-the-art novel ideas isn't really qualified to judge this.

That is the main problem for me with the whole software patenting idea.

--
$2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
Re:Really that bad by haeger · 2003-09-01 17:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think what most people find annoying is the technical/non techichal distinction. The EPO conciders all patents they grant to be technical patents and what the McCarthy bill is saying is, as You quoted "...it is intended to avoid allowing inventive but non-technical methods (including business methods) to be regarded as making a technical contribution and hence as patentable merely because they are implemented on a computer."

McCarthy allows technical buissness models.

Now what? Since EPO says that all their patents are techical and McCarthy-bill sais that it's OK I don't think we've solved anything.

But I could be way off here.

.haeger

--
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Re: Really that bad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 20:11 · Score: 0

In other words, if I do boring programming I'm safe.

But if I do interesting programming that makes a "technical contribution to the state of the art", then I must buy insurance and hire a good lawyer, in case I accidentally infringe a patent from a big company doing something similar.

Sounds bad enough to me.
Re:Really that bad by lowieken · 2003-09-01 20:25 · Score: 1

Why do you think they invented the word "computer-implemented invention"? This new piece of legalese should already make you suspicious.

Read Xavier Drudis Ferran's document (link below), and you will see the newspeak more clearly. This LOOKS reasonable, but it isn't.

http://patents.caliu.info/juri.en.html
Re:Really that bad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 23:00 · Score: 0

So then how comes that so many crappy patents are accepted everyday at the EPO ?

How do you enforce paragraph 3 ? How do you separate "an algorithm" from "a method involving the use of an algorithm" ??

This is a fine example of bad law, that can be interpreted in any way one wants.
Re:Really that bad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 03:54 · Score: 0

I've been reading the proposal
What? You have read not only the aricle, but even the proposal? You are new here, heh?
BURN HIM, my dear inquisition fellows who's got moderation points!!!!

Re:Whats This About My Rights Online?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 12:04 · Score: 0

YHBT?

Welcome to troll land.
Population: -1

Oh, wait, err... No. forget about it...

This bill needs to fail by sn00ker · 2003-09-01 12:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm not sure if the Australians have actually realised the significance of their push for a Free Trade Agreement *derisive snort* with the US.
What it actually means to them is that the Yanks will bully them into passing laws similar to the DMCA and their obscene IP protection laws.
Since NZ (where I live) is discussing trying to get an FTA with the US too, I hope the Aussies tell the US where to stick their restrictive and absurd IP laws.

If this bill fails, it's easier for other countries to tell the US that their laws are so stupid that the only people using them are themselves. If the EU folds, then the result of the world just becomes a row for xxAA to bulldoze with the support of the US government.

--
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly

Economic advantage to Europe? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 12:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Software patents look like they cost software development companies plenty to manage. I would suspect that they would cost the economy even more in lost innovation.

If so, Europe shouldn't introduce software patents as Europe would get a competitive advantage over the US.

Major european companies would still need to build a dossier of software patents by applying for software patents in the US. These would be needed for trading with US companies - "We will charge you $1 royalties on ours, if you charge us $1 for royalties on yours". Also they are needed for the threat of legal attack, as a protective shield against attack (patent or otherwise)!

Re:Economic advantage to Europe? by ralphdaugherty · 2003-09-01 13:50 · Score: 1

Software patents look like they cost software development companies plenty to manage. I would suspect that they would cost the economy even more in lost innovation.

If so, Europe shouldn't introduce software patents as Europe would get a competitive advantage over the US.

Major european companies would still need to build a dossier of software patents by applying for software patents in the US. These would be needed for trading with US companies - "We will charge you $1 royalties on ours, if you charge us $1 for royalties on yours". Also they are needed for the threat of legal attack, as a protective shield against attack (patent or otherwise)!

I agree in the opportunity for a competitive advantage for Europe, especially now as the non-US becomes non-Microsoft. But I disagree with the prevailing wisdom of patenting to build up a war chest against other patents. It's just a matter of time before the insane patents that are given in software or vaporware or fantasy are ignored. Unless software functionality is being ripped off, which is covered by copyright, no non-US court should honor any suit brought by a US company with a patent. That will be the end of that.

rd

Um... by Greyfox · 2003-09-01 12:20 · Score: 1

Could you kindly pin your last, best hope on a country that's a little less likely to be involved in a nuculear exchange with their neighbors within the next decade or so? How about Japa... No... there's that whole North Korea thing. Pity, they seem like good programmers too. Hmm... South Africa?

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:Um... by peragrin · 2003-09-01 13:19 · Score: 1

then I wouldn't hold out my hope for the USA either, considering that the gov wanted to use tacitcal nukes in Iraq if Iraq actually had an army.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

In Soviet America... by the_mad_poster · 2003-09-01 12:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

The first thing I thought when I saw that headline was "wow - that's like America thinks it is".

I wrote to my senators once each regarding issues. I sat and took the time to do research and provide references to my findings, wrote it up in a very professional manner, proofed it, etc. before sending it. On one of them I got an autoresponse that basically said "If you're a contributor trying to set a meeting time call this number, if you're anyone else, go away". I never got ANY response from the other. I notice several people so far have mentioned they wrote to their MEPs about this issue and it sounds like they may have actually been heard.

Hmmmm..... must be nice to live in a country where your representatives represent you at least occasionally...

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!

Re:In Soviet America... by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 13:44 · Score: 0

Reminds me of the time I mailed McCain about the Total Information Initiative.
The mail I got back was simply that the Total Information Awareness program wasn't bad, it was to save me from terrorism. It pretty much told me I didn't know what I was talking about, and the when the vote is going to happen in senate.

Lovely, no?

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

Let EU be beginning by axxackall · 2003-09-01 12:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Imagine if Asia, Canada, South America, Africa, Austrilia right after EU will outlaw software patents in principle! The US will have to outlaw software patents as well just to keep being competitive. Otherwise american companies will be easily beaten outside of US.

--

Less is more !

Re:Let EU be beginning by Cyclops · 2003-09-01 18:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

American companies (namely SMEs) ARE easily beaten inside the US by fellow american companies holders of several software patents.
Re:Let EU be beginning by axxackall · 2003-09-01 19:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You're right. But who cares? I mean I care, and so do you, but the administration doesn't. It cares always only about big corps. And I guess 90% of patents are hold by big ones, am I right? So, untill big corps are beaten by offsore fellows nothing's gonna change the current situation about software patents inside the US. Well, we all now know that US administration may solve offshore problems without any lawyers. But we all hope it won't happen again.

--

Less is more !
Re:Let EU be beginning by daniel_yokomiso · 2003-09-02 01:19 · Score: 1

Here in Brazil we don't have software patents. But I don't think that it'll make US outlaw software patents as well just to keep being competitive. While I can write a software using US-patented ideas I'll be unable to sell it in US. Also if it's free software, US citizens won't be able to contribute or use, so major free software will still be written with US patents in mind.

--
Disclaimer: If I disagree with you I'm probably trolling...
Re:Let EU be beginning by axxackall · 2003-09-02 05:47 · Score: 1

If (or when) most of countries around the world outside of US will outlaw software patents, there will be more and more cases of software that cannot be sold or used inside US. Then it will be a pressure on US. Besides it may create a pressure on the offcial level (WTO?).

--

Less is more !

Quick intro to the situation: by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-09-01 12:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

The committee responsible for this proposal is called JURI, it is made up of 65 MEPs. On June 17th, they voted on the final wording of the proposal. The vote passed by a small majority.

The next stage in the legistlative process is the plenary vote. This is the Big Vote where all 625 MEPs get to vote. In addition to Yes/No, the MEPs are also presented with a list of possible amendments. For this proposal to become acceptable, a vast array of amendments would be necessary (it's rotten to the core).

So 70 amendments were tabled and many protests happened. MEPs were inundated with post and email about this proposal. So much contraversy arised that the European Commission decided that the proposal was obviously not ready for a final vote. So the proposal has been handed back to JURI, and a more agreeable proposal has to be returned.

So now we have to contact just the MEPs on the JURI committee, and tell them how we want them to vote. "Vote No" is not an option, MEPs don't vote No without a very good reason. Proposals are expensive, translation to 12 languages etc., MEPs view rejection as a big waste of EP resources.

Most MEPs know that this proposal will be bad for our economy but they do not understand the whole situation, so we must tell them. (us knowing the whole situation is a prerequisite for this)

Our MEPs are asking us to tell them how to vote(!) and how to change/amend the proposal. We can win this one, but europeans aren't used to fighting our governments, were much more used to laughing at the US government.

So we were caught off gaurd. We've done extremely well, I think we can win this, but people have to continue to put in their free time and learn how to deal with this.

For complete beginners, it's probably too late to become effective (we have 3 weeks). For half-way-there's, keep workin'. (mail me if you need to clarify something, my email address is not hard to google for.

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

Re:Quick intro to the situation: by MickLinux · 2003-09-01 13:52 · Score: 3, Funny

I see. I didn't realize that it was that difficult. We need to tell them something like

"Vote no/non/ne/nicht/ne ne/nekas/...."

That way, they will see that we actually spent more resources on this than they did, and will see it as an effective counter to the proposal.

Thanks for the info. Okay guys, let's mobilize the troops!

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:Quick intro to the situation: by Serious+Simon · 2003-09-01 19:35 · Score: 1

IMO the amendments in this report would go a long way to repair the defects in the directive.
Re:Quick intro to the situation: by Salsaman · 2003-09-01 21:45 · Score: 1

Is there a site which shows who your MEP's are, and what there email addresses are ? I intend to mail all my MEPs about my opposition to this issue.

I hate the dangerous americans of U.S.of.A by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 12:37 · Score: 0

I'm a french man.

Why software-patents in Europe now?
Americans: in Europe, they don't exist software-patents since 1945 or before, because an algorithm is a mathematic formulae or a mathematic method used in II-WAR.

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER software-patents in Europe. :P

What's sad is by ShadowRage · 2003-09-01 12:39 · Score: 1, Troll

that a protest actually worked in europe, a place where peoples' voices arent supposed to be really heard over the government's.. In the US, where peoples' voices are truly supposed to count, they're ignored... hmm, is this telling us something? well, telling us nothing new. but still.... it's just sad. however, good for them.

Re:What's sad is by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 13:50 · Score: 1

I guess the reconstruction after WW2 DID mean something to American citizens after all!

We'll have a safe haven to plan the next allied liberation....:/

I can only hope our European friends will be willing to help us in our time of need, when that time comes.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:What's sad is by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 17:13 · Score: 0

You really believe all the jingoistic crap you watch on Fox News, then?
Re:What's sad is by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 18:57 · Score: 0

May I remind you that it was in Europe that democracy was invented. And that it is in the US that democracy is not respected (they can't even count their votes). So why shouldn't our voices be supposed to be heard by the governement??? Anyway, ours are heard and yours obviously not. Or *did* you ask for war in Iraq?
Re:What's sad is by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 20:17 · Score: 0

that a protest actually worked in europe, a place where peoples' voices arent supposed to be really heard over the government's

Who told you that?
Re:What's sad is by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 20:37 · Score: 0

Well the whole situation made me rethink that the whole system does work.
First of all the EP always was considered some kind of ivory tower you can't reach where only lobbyists had influence. Now after writing to several EP members and also getting personal answers sometime I think, they want to hear from us on issues, there are some of them, in fact lots of them who really are in there for politics and not for sitting there being human voting machines.

All I can say is that this situation has shown that I got more democracy out of this situation than living 30 years in my country from my local parliament.

If it wasn't for the whole EC this issue never would have become an issue, what Europe really needs is a much stronger EP and a control institution for the EC (like past scandals also have shown) and a fair kick to sweep out the corporate lobbyists out of Brussels into the mediterranean sea.
Re:What's sad is by skinquad · 2003-09-01 20:45 · Score: 1

"a place [red. Europe] where peoples' voices arent supposed to be really heard over the government's"... Are you drunk ?
Re:What's sad is by FlashGordon_CyberDud · 2003-09-02 00:26 · Score: 1

Wait... Brussels is about 75km from the North Sea and a small 1000 km from the Mediterranean. Wouldn't it be easier to kick them to the North Sea? (Geography Lesson 1)

--

-> More Tolerance Is Less Extremism <-

Actually, here's how it is: by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-09-01 12:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Bah Humbug, non-informed pessimistic replys are easy but stupid.

The vote has been delayed because the original proposal was not appropriate (everyone hated it). The original proposal was created with a very slim majoriy vote from the JURI committee (65 MEPs).

Having talked to many MEPs, I've heard that they know it's a crap proposal, but they don't know what to do to fix it. So I, along with many others, have been studying the European Patent Convention, the WTOs TRIPS agreement, and the proposal. We've been educating our MEPs, and now they don't want software patents.

The MEPs on the JURI committed are much more educated this time around, they are considering the FFII mini-proposal, almost all of them want to make sure that software is explicitly excluded from patentability.

Cosmetic changes won't fool anyone, the level of education among the EU lobbyists is quite impressive. I think we're going to win this one.

Ciaran O'Riordan

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

Re:Actually, here's how it is: by HuguesT · 2003-09-01 13:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's it, you've made my friend's list.

Thanks for these uplifting news.
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 13:35 · Score: 0

Good man!
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 20:54 · Score: 0

thank you
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Halo1 · 2003-09-01 23:45 · Score: 1
why, pray tell, should such inventions not be worthy of european patent protection?

This has nothing to do with worthiness. The European patent system wasn't designed to make sure innovators are rewarded for their trouble, but to spur the progress of innovation as much as possible. As scientific studies and economists (Google cache, site seems to be down) show, patents do not help innovation in software at all, they actually hamper it.

for a small company, patents are often the ONLY tools they have to keep from being steamrolled by their larger rivals.

This has to be one of the most prevailing misconceptions that pro-swpat people spread. First of all, keep in mind we are currently in the situation where Europe does not have enforceable software patents and has lots of small software development companies, while the US has software patents and mainly huge monoliths. Also, EU software (or other) companies can get software patents in the US and enforce them there at this time without ay problem. Now:
- Situation A, no software patents in Europe (as it is now): Small Company has a great idea, creates a product, sells it. Big Company sees idea, copies it, sells it. Depending on the quality and marketing of Big Company's product and the ability of Small Company to keep innovating and possibly finding a niche market that can sustain its operatrion, Small Company may or may not go broke. No matter what, Small Company can get a software patent in the US and use that to extract money from Big Company in the US.
- Sitation B, software patents in Europe (as proposed): Small Company has a great idea, patents it, creates a product, sells it. Big Company sees idea, copies it, sells it. Small Company sues Big Company for patent infringement. Big Company looks at Small company's product, and sees it infringes on 10 software patents of theirs. The companies settle in a cross-licensing deal, with Small Company possibly paying also an undisclosed amount for usage of the patents from Big Company.
Note that Situation B is not something I just made up, that's how IBM currently behaves in the US. How does introducing software patents in Europe help small European companies defend themselves against big foreign companies, especially since those foreign companies own the majority of the already granted software patents? (75% of the 30,000 already granted ones are in hands of US and Japanese companies)
The only type of small companies that can get easily rich via software patents, are those that do not develop any products. They just patent an idea and then go to big (and possibly also small) companies asking for money, knowing that they can't infringe on any of the other party's patents. This may be an innovative way of making money, but that's not the kind of innovation that the patent system in Europe is supposed to promote.

framing the debate "against" software patents purely on the grounds that the EPO may, in error, issue invalid patents does not, in my opinion, reflect an impressive level of education on the part of EU lobbyists. it rather reflects an astonishing ignornace about today's ecomomic realitities.

Maybe you've seen only that side of the debate, but there are many other sides. When I speak to MEPs, the silly trivial examples of patents granted by the EPO are handy to have, but that's not what the discussion is about. It's mostly about how introducing software patents would not help the European economy at all, how software patents deter innovation and completely undermine the copyright protection that software has (you may think that copyr
--
Donate free food here
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 01:24 · Score: 0

Can you point me to a page with such documentation, so I can send it myself to my MEPs?

I don't have the time neither knowledge to do such research, but I'd like to have some data to write a letter to my MEPs.

Thanks in advance.

P.S.: is there is (or gonna be) a page with that information in several languages, you'll make my day :)
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by mdwh2 · 2003-09-02 02:04 · Score: 1

in other words, ownership of the "means of production" is irrelevant in the 21st century. today it is the ownership of "knowledge" which is relevant to economic development.

You seem to be under the impression that scarcity is a good thing. If one could wave a magic wand and make it so that there was an unlimited supply of the "means of production", then I would say that would be a *good* thing. Any attempts to limit the means of production, and to keep them in the hands of the few would be a bad thing.

contrary to existing economic theory, knowledge is NOT a non-rivalous asset. if i copy google's search methods and open up a competiting site, i have not deprived them of their knowledge, yet i have deprived them of their competitive advantage.

And then Google have to innovate further, or fall behind. How exactly is your world, where Google are allowed to be the only search engine, an improvement?

what incentive do european software developers have to become the next "google" if their inventions can simply be expropriated by corporate giants?

I don't know if patents are preventing other search engines from being as good as Google. But if they are, then european software developers will have no chance to become the next "google".

for a small company, patents are often the ONLY tools they have to keep from being steamrolled by their larger rivals. copyright is not enough. software patents, because they prevent the theft of knowledge, are valuable economic tools of the 21st century.

Firstly, you're misusing the word "theft". Secondly, ever heard of trade secrets? It's not like anyone's forcing companies to hand over their knowledge.
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by harriet+nyborg · 2003-09-02 02:08 · Score: 1

Halo1, thanks for your substantive reply to my remarks.
Innovation is spurred precisely by the hurdles patents present. I have worked for over a decade with software and hardware developers who, after complaining at length over the existence of a troublesome patent, nearly always created new and even more clever solutions which would not have existed but for the hurdle presented by a patent.
Patents are indeed the source of a great deal of innovation and technological progress. You may rely on theoretical studies by economists which opine that patents stifle innovation, I, on the other hand, have seen first hand - with my own eyes - a staggering amount of innovation from engineers resulting purely from the existence of patents.
It should be noted that it was the proprietary nature of MS products - i.e., the inability of developers to gain access to the code - which resulted in the innovation known as Linux.
Whether held off limits through secrecy (as in the case of Windows) or patenting (as I suggest), technology always finds a way around.
Copying other's products and solutions does nothing to promote innovation - it merely promotes competition based on low cost production and distribution.
Unlike real estate - which is an asset fixed in size and volume - technology is an ever expanding volume without limit. "Roadblocks" in the technology domain are inherenty ephemeral, difficult to maintain, and easily avoided. Yet without these "roadblocks" the volume of technology is less likely to expand and the only innovation occurs in how to out-source the production of existing technologies to third world countries.
There are many examples of abusive patent behaviour. As former corporate director of patents for a major telecommunications manufacturer, I was witness to many of them. IBM does not need its patents to squash competitors - yes, they do use their patents aggessively and defensively (as they have in their litigation against SCO) - but this is one tool of many in their arsenal. What does a small competitor have - other than its patents - to challenge the dominance of an IBM?
With patents, a small company can at least engage their larger rivals in the civil courts. Without patents there is no battle at all.
That this issue appears to be difficult to understand is more the result of the opposition relying on complicated theoretical economic and "scientific" studies, fearmongering over "trivial" patents, and abusive corporate behaviour rather than the real issues.
Knowledge has value. Knowledge is a rivalous asset increasingly embodied as software. Rivalous assets need legal protections from theft. Patents provide this legal protection. The legal ability to prevent software theft enhances innovation in software. It is not more complicated than this.
Copyright provides protection only against direct copying and is exceedingly poorly adapted to protecting innovations in software. Lotus123, the Apple GUI, Wordperfect were all protected by copyright, which did little to prevent MS from expropriating the essence of all of these innovative products.
I do not believe you are a manipulating lair. I imagine you believe passionately and honestly in your position. As do I. I simply believe your position is founded in fears and not economic reality.
I would like to point out that, despite your objections, the EPO has been issuing "software" patents for many years. It actually requires very little imagination for attorneys to add technical effect sufficient to overcome examiner's objections - entirely in accordance with the EPC. The proposed amendment which you oppose is simply a codification of the de facto situation which already exists at the EPO. If you are successful in killing this proposal, little will change at the EPO, the opportunity to create real reform will be lost, and dodgy, "trivial", software patents will continue to be issued by the EPO.
Software patents patents are vital to European economic development.
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 02:32 · Score: 0

Don't be silly man!

That's only a forged signature that's trying to make you think everything's OK, so you just forget about it. Next time you see the issue again will be a new outrageous patent law has been aproved in the EU.

Be alert!
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 02:35 · Score: 0

If that were true, the proposal wouldn't have been delayed. It would have been voted -and suspended. Then a clear and explicit software-can't-be-patented law would have been passed.

"EU lobbyists is quite impressive". Yes, and you are a tool from the pro-software patents wing.
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Jadrano · 2003-09-02 02:51 · Score: 1

I don't think it repeating well-known pro-patent propaganda statements that have to do very little with reality makes sense.

rivalous assets need legal protection against theft

You should look if you find a non-capitalist country to run away to since, according to your opinion, competing with an existing company is a theft, a crime. Calling copyright infringement theft is technically wrong, but in a figurative sense, the mistake is understandable to some degree, people who infringe on copyrights of others take something someone else has created. But to call a situation where people can compete with an existing product by creating one themselves as lacking protection against theft is simply absurd.

for a small company, patents are often the ONLY tools they have to keep from being steamrolled by their larger rivals.
the failure to ammend the EPC to extend patent protection to software will harm small european companies and undermine their competitiveness

It seems that you don't know the situation in the US. When a small company wants to sue a large one because of copyright infringement, the large one (IBM, HP, Microsoft, Sun, ...) can easily find one among their many thousands of patents that it can use against the small company and force it to cross-licencing. That is what is currently going on in the relationship between IBM and other large companies and small ones in the US. In addition, the large companies with their enormous patent portfolios can use them to blackmail smaller competitors and to force them to an agreement on their terms. The fairytale that patents protect smaller companies is as far from reality as it can possibly be.
Also, it is simply not true that smaller companies don't have a chance against the bigger competitors. If they have a good product, they have a chance in a fair market. It is such means for the biggest players like patent suit threats that make it difficult for small companies to survive attacks from larger competitors. Patents are not the only means for unfair use of power by the biggest players (others are e.g. dumping prices, bundling, introduction of incompatibilites), but they are an important element.
There is one category of relatively small companies that can profit from software patents: companies that have few workers and don't produce anything - that way, they are not vulnerable by patent countersuits -, but have a lot of money for registering and buying patents. Their business model is investing money in patents without creating anything and getting money from sueing. If that's your favourite kind of poor small companies that have to be protected, software patents are certainly a necessity.

knowledge has economic value
knowledge is a rivalous asset
ncreasingly, competitive advantage is conferred through the skillful use of knowledge. today, improving how a machine operates is often more valuable than the addition of one more machine. the value of knowledge, compounded by the connectivity provided by the internet, provides enormous leveraging power
You repeat "knowledge is important and valuable" in sevaral variations and seem to assume that it follows from that that abstract software principles should be "worthy" of being patent, so that others cannot "expropriate" it. Such an argumentation often seems to have some success among people who know little about the field, but it is quite non-sensical. I value art, and I know that many other people do, as well. According to your simplicistic equation of value and patentability, artistic methods should be patentable. Beethoven should have been prevented from "expropriating" musical techniques of Mozart and others, Shakespeare's innovative play techniques should then have been patented etc.

everyone is against "trivial" patents. it is actually the job of the EPO to avoid issuing patents on inventions which are obvious, lacking in inventive step, or already in
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 03:02 · Score: 0

"Patents are indeed the source of a great deal of innovation and technological progress. You may rely on theoretical studies by economists which opine that patents stifle innovation, I, on the other hand, have seen first hand - with my own eyes - a staggering amount of innovation from engineers resulting purely from the existence of patents."

We all have seen it first hand: BIG names cope most of the patents. That's a fact. This really rises competition entry level as a bare minimum. Ideas are ideas and that's what is been having patented in the USA. I can't, I mean I really can't be sure without expend a lot of time and money about my new *idea* not being covered by any patent. And no matter how good the patent office is, you can know for a fact big companies will hold more patents than anyone else.

Then what you have is:
1/ Patents are a pain in the ass (even if they stimulate innovation, which I don't support).
2/ Even if they are a very good idea, they will benefit more to big companies than short ones (since the big ones hold more of them).
3/ At least sometimes (I'd say most of the time) software patents are used as a weapon when dealing about non-patent related things.

Now, the "patent" idea was to protect the little from the abuse of the bigger. Facts are over there and they show not only that patents won't protect the little from the big one, except in some exceptional cases, but in most cases are weapons the big can use against the little.

"Copyright provides protection only against direct copying and is exceedingly poorly adapted to protecting innovations in software. Lotus123, the Apple GUI, Wordperfect were all protected by copyright, which did little to prevent MS from expropriating the essence of all of these innovative products."

While you're true here, you lack to mention how patents would have avoided that. What do you patent? Windows, mouse drag-n-drop and the like? Letting these kind of patent pass through is the main problem in the kernel of the idea of software patentability. But if you patent strictly, say, the "Xerox window environment", Microsoft would have won the cause anyway, since it is trivial to demonstrate Microsoft didn't stole the code, but -maybe, the idea. And at the very end, shouldn't Microsoft "stole" the code, the PC revolution wouldn't have happened, since Xerox was probably more interested about big irons than about a computer in every home... Which in the other hand is another interesting thing: at least in the begining, the success of Microsoft was in the innovative while clearly non-patentable idea that you could put a computer at every home. Microsoft became what it is now against those days software giants *without* the need of patenting its core bussiness idea and using your own reasonement *because* there were not software patents then.
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by jsebrech · 2003-09-02 03:08 · Score: 1

I know Halo1 should be the one to answer this, but I just can't read this and not respond.

Innovation is spurred precisely by the hurdles patents present. I have worked for over a decade with software and hardware developers who, after complaining at length over the existence of a troublesome patent, nearly always created new and even more clever solutions which would not have existed but for the hurdle presented by a patent.

So, if I'm reading your argument correctly, you're claiming that any software patent can be "worked around", effectively reducing the value of software patents to zero (if patents don't cover any and all implementations of an idea, what use are they in protecting that idea?). In that case, why would anyone want software patents?

Also, if all patents do is slow down development of innovative ideas by competing firms, how can you argue they improve innovation?

Copyright provides protection only against direct copying and is exceedingly poorly adapted to protecting innovations in software. Lotus123, the Apple GUI, Wordperfect were all protected by copyright, which did little to prevent MS from expropriating the essence of all of these innovative products.

Excellent examples. Lotus 123 was not the first spreadsheet, visicalc was. The Apple GUI was a direct rip from the ideas formed in Xerox's PARC research group. And wordperfect was one of many companies making a word processor, and certainly not the first. If patents had covered spreadsheets, gui's and word processors, these products would not have even existed to be copied by MS. The point I think Halo1 was trying to make (and you underline perfectly with this argument), is that software patents damage competition so greatly that the economic disadvantage to society is much greater than any benefit a single company or group of companies could get from them. You could argue that this argument applies to all patents, but this isn't necessarily so, because the damage to competition by patents in other forms of business is much smaller, due to the cost of developing a regular patentable idea (a patentable software idea most of the times has negligable r&d cost associated with it, as with the amazon one-click patent, which was obvious to even me, a regular user who writes programs in his spare time now and then), and due to the longer development cycle of other industries.

The question you need to ask yourself, Halo1, is why there so are few huge monoliths in Europe.....

You would prefer a market where a few very large companies control the entire software business, as in the american case with Microsoft having a virtual stranglehold on the desktop software market?

Also, you might want to note that IBM, Microsoft, Sun and Apple all became big BEFORE the current software patent boom in the US (and in the case of IBM and Sun, before software patents even existed), and they did this not by having their ideas protected by patents, but by outcompeting other businesses. In fact, the only example I can think of of a company that would not have gotten as big as it is without patents is google, and the question to ask here is: is it right that only one private enterprise controls the main portal to all content on the internet, and so gets to decide what content people can see and what they can't see? After all, there are countless examples of google censoring websites. With a competitive search engine market there would be no search engine censorship.

The point I'm trying to make is not that software patents don't help single businesses with innovative ideas. Clearly, they do. My point is that patents damage the software industry as a whole, reducing innovation and competition on an industry-wide level. I care more for the entire industry than for any single business.
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by LMCBoy · 2003-09-02 04:59 · Score: 1

Friend...hell, where's the hero button? The grandparent rules!

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Halo1 · 2003-09-02 08:09 · Score: 1

In addition to the excellent remarks made by AC and jsebrech, there are a few more things I'd like to add:

You may rely on theoretical studies by economists which opine that patents stifle innovation, I, on the other hand, have seen first hand - with my own eyes - a staggering amount of innovation from engineers resulting purely from the existence of patents.

The MIT study is not a theoretical study, it's a study of reality as it exists in the US. Fact: after the introduction of software patents in the US, the R&D budgets of the large software companies declined by 10 to 15%. These funds were then used to fund the legal departments, to patent stuff, sue, countersue and defend in court.
Further, while you may gain some innovation because of the existence of patents, you also lose a lot. After all, all the time spent on working around patents on existing ideas could have been spent on inventing new stuff, based on these existing ideas. Informatics is almost entirely about complementary and sequential innovation. Patents seriously hamper this, as these kind of innovations are most likely infringing on patents on the original idea, since they build on it.

I would like to point out that, despite your objections, the EPO has been issuing "software" patents for many years.

I know.

It actually requires very little imagination for attorneys to add technical effect sufficient to overcome examiner's objections

I know, pretty much everything you can do in software is considered a technical effect.

- entirely in accordance with the EPC.

You mean "entirely in accordance with the EPO's completely warped interpretation of the EPC". The EPC states that "computer programs as such" are not patentable. What they meant, was that even though you can't get a patent on a computer program, the fact that an otherwise patentable (technical) invention includes software does not suddenly render the whole thing not patentable. However, the EPO has twisted this into "if a program has a technical effect, it must be patentable". I'll explain the problem with this reasoning.
Suppose you have a weaving machine, and you have to make sure some knives are turned at exactly a certain angle relative to the thread and cut it at exactly the right moment. You install several sensors, feed their data into a computer and the software on this computer takes care of everything. The EPO interpretes this software as having a technical effect and as such as a patentable invention. This is wrong, because the invention does not lie in the fact that they process the sensor data with software or that they steer a weaving machine with software, but in the fact that they determined how to place the knives, how to determine the time when to cut and how to construct a machine that can do this. The software is merely a means to this end, and does not contain any invention.
So you have the software, which protected by copyright, and the weaving machine, which is protected by patent law. With software patents, you have also the fact that you control the inventive weaving machine using a computer program, which is then protected by a software patent. That's another reason why software patents are so bad: most of the time, they don't even protect some kind of innovation, but just the fact that you do something with software. These patents are not necessarily trivial (e.g., the software patent for this weaving machine control mechanism may include the descriptions of the positions of the knives, timings, sensors etc.), but the software itself simply has nothing to do with the inventive work, that all happened when designing the weaving machine.

The proposed amendment which you oppose is simply a codification of the de facto situation which already exists at the EPO.

I'm not opposing an amendment, I'm opposing the whole dir

--
Donate free food here
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Halo1 · 2003-09-02 19:27 · Score: 1
I'm going to reply only once more, because unfortunately it's become clear I've been had by a well crafted troll (consider that a compliment, if you wish).
I prefer to adapt the EPO to the needs of European industry. It is not the EPO which is being "creative with the law," it is the clients of the EPO - primarily European industry - who frustrated by the limitations of the EPC are the ones forced to be "creative."
I will say it once more: 75% of the European software patents are in hands of US and Japanese companies. So it's not primarily the European industry that are trying to get this kind of patents, it's the US one.
It is my experience that the EPO follows the letter of the EPC. They are actually rather picky about this. Accusing them of being "creative with the law" does them a gross disservice.
You obviously have never talked to people from the EPO. Also, if they were not being creative with the law, then why is it that software patents can't be enforced in European courts? Because the courts don't understand the law, while the EPO does?
The issue which we are discussing is European patents where - due to the current prohibition against software patents - neither American, nor Japanese companies have any lead whatsoever.
I'm going to spell it out once more:
- Software patents are currently unenforceable in Europe.
- Nevertheless, the EPO has been giving them out.
- Of those currently unenforceable software patents, 75% is currently in hands of US and Japanese companies.
- If software patents were legalised, then all those already granted patents would be enforceable, which indeed would give those foreign companies a lead.
What I want to achieve is parity. Following the lead of the United States of America with regard to software patents would seem to me to be the way to go.
Maybe it would seem so, but it wouldn't. As other people have said, the current US monoliths became what they are now during a time in which there were no software patents. Software patents reduce R&D spending, and increase legal costs.
I, for one,
welcome our new American overlords. Thank you.
--
Donate free food here
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by harriet+nyborg · 2003-09-03 01:12 · Score: 1

Halo1, my mother told me to never kick someone who is down, but after your "welcome our new American overlords" crack, you deserve one more whack.
Also, if they were not being creative with the law, then why is it that software patents can't be enforced in European courts?
Two words, mon ami: technical effect. European companies cannot sue Microsoft in Europe for selling software because there is (presently) no such thing as a software patent in Europe. As you have (correctly) pointed out, there no basis in European law for a patent infringement action against a software manufacturer.
What this means to European companies is that when MS copies their patented invention, they have two choices: 1. sue MS in the US for infringing their US software patent, or 2. sue Microsoft's users (who enjoy the technical effect of Microsoft's products) in Europe for infringing their European (national) patent.
What chances do you think, say, a French company will have suing Microsoft in George Bush's America?
Suing Microsoft users in Europe to get at Microsoft is not a very attractive option either. It is perhaps the most disruptive and worst of all options.
Software, because of it's worldwide use, offers the possibility to seek legal remedies anywhere in the world. Companies pick their forum based on where they think they have the best chance of success.
Japanese companies learned long ago that "foreigners" - especially Asian ones - have virtually no hope of prevailing against an American company in an American courtroom. This is the primary reason why Japan adopted software patents: to be able to seek legal remedies against American and European rivals through Japanese courts.
What European companies want - and need - is to be able to adjudicate disputes over software in European courts where there is a better chance for a fair result.
Software patents exist in the US and this situation is not going to change. Disputes over ownership of software are part and parcel of the software business and this isn't going to change either.
What should change, and what you oppose, is the possibility for European companies to use European courts to resolve disputes over software. As a resident of Europe who is actively engaged in helping European companies gain competitive advantage, I hope you do not succeed.
... but like monetary union, if the first vote is no, one keeps trying until the answer is yes. And once it is yes, it is yes.
So call me a troll, but at the end of the day, you're gonna loose this fight.
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Halo1 · 2003-09-03 01:20 · Score: 1

What chances do you think, say, a French company will have suing Microsoft in George Bush's America?
Very good chances

--
Donate free food here
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by harriet+nyborg · 2003-09-03 04:24 · Score: 1

Well, Lernout & Hauspie B.V. is (or was) a Dutch company, but your point is well taken. Perhaps a more reasonable handling of this dispute would have been possible in a European court. I do not wish American style litigation on anyone.
Thanks, Halo1, for an interesting, and at least for me informative, discussion.
See you in the halls of Parliament.
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by Halo1 · 2003-09-03 04:32 · Score: 1

L&H was a Belgian company, but that's close enough I guess. And in case you missed it, they also successfully sued IBM. There was nothing to settle in European courts, since it was about software patents, which are not yet enforceable here (otherwise IBM would have countersued).

--
Donate free food here
Re:Actually, here's how it is: by nchip · 2003-09-03 20:37 · Score: 1

I, for one, would very much like to see a European Microsoft.

Umm, Microsoft became huge because in the early eighties there where no software patents. Think about it, if xerox and apple would have patented everything they invented, we would have no free GUIs or email...

See the this Bill Gates Quote for an insight. If you really want an european MS, you should lobby fiercily AGAINST software patents.

--
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)

My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of it! by _Pablo · 2003-09-01 12:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Dear Mr Ebbatson

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the draft directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

The European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee has voted on the rapporteur's report on the directive and there will be continuing debate and further democratic scrutiny before the directive becomes law.

At this early stage of legislative process, it is nonetheless important to establish the facts about what the draft EU directive and what the Parliament's rapporteur are aiming to achieve in the amendments tabled to the Commission proposal.

It has been suggested that the Parliament's report will for the first time allow the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. This is simply not true. The patenting of computer-implemented inventions is not a new phenomenon. Patents involving the use of software have been applied for and granted since the earliest days of the European Patent Office (EPO). Out of over 110,000 applications received at the EPO in 2001, 16,000 will have dealt with inventions in computer-implemented technologies. Indeed, even without an EU directive, these patents will continue to be filed, not only to the EPO but also to national patent offices.

As you will be aware, in the US and increasingly in Japan, patents have been granted for what is essentially pure software. Some EPO and national court rulings indicate that Europe may be drifting towards extending the scope of patentability to inventions which would traditionally have not been patentable, as well as pure business methods. It is clear that Europe needs a uniform legal approach which draws a line between what can and cannot be patented, and prevents the drift towards the patentability of software per se.

The rapporteur's intention is clear in the amendments tabled and in a new Article 4 in the text, to preclude; the patentability of software as such; the patentability of business methods; algorithms; and mathematical methods. Article 4 clearly states that in order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible to industrial applications, be new, and involve an inventive step. Moreover the rapporteur has added a requirement for a technical contribution in order to ensure that the mere use of a computer does not lead to a patent being granted.

Furthermore, the amended directive contains new provisions on decompilation that will assist software developers. While it is not possible to comment on whether any patent application would be excluded from the directive, the directive, as amended, would not permit the patentability of Amazon's 'one-click' method. As far as software itself is concerned, it will not be possible to patent a software product. Software itself will continue to be able to be protected by copyright.

With an EU directive, legislators will have scrutiny over the EPO and national court's decisions. With, in addition, the possibility of having a definitive ruling from the European Court in Luxembourg, thus ensuring a restrictive interpretation of the EU directive and a greater degree of legal certainty in the field of patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

Some concerns have been raised that the directive may have an adverse effect on the development of open source software and small software developers. The rapporteur supports the development of open source software and welcome the fact that the major open source companies are recording a 50% growth in world-wide shipment of its products.

In the amended proposal, the rapporteur has imposed a requirement on the Commission to monitor the impact of the directive, in particular its effect on small and medium sized enterprises, and to look at any potential difficulties in respect of the relationship between patent protection of computer-implemented inventions and copyright protection.

Many small companies have given their support to this directive, which will give them more legal certainty as it offers the possibility of pro

--
$2B OR NOT $2B = $FF

Hey Mr. Geography by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 13:01 · Score: 0

Holland, MI IS in the US.

Douchebag.

And the people are letting this happen? by TyrranzzX · 2003-09-01 13:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's a definate pattern here;

1: Decide to take vote at xx date, lobby heavily to get politicians behind bill

2: Mass outcry, politicans decide to not pass the bill or to wait for a vote, as it'd be political suicide to do otherwise.

3: Mass outcry dies down, corperations keep the politicans pockets lined waiting for the proper time to reintroduce the bill (when the protesters have something else to go after in otherwords. Divide, conquer, etc).

Rinse, repeat.

What should be done here is the protesters start protesting the mans power and start questioning their loyalty to the people, in other words, politically assassinate the bastards. They'll eventually get it passed if they keep on trying to pass it. Just as carp and a number of other provisions are continuously barragged at congress year after year, month after month which ties them up for doing anything other than actual leadership, just making deals and selling our rights away.

--

Candy-Coated Knowledge

Re:And the people are letting this happen? by Halo1 · 2003-09-01 20:52 · Score: 1
No, it's different in this case:
- Political proponents knew they couldn't win now, so they wanted to postpone it
- Political opponents feel there is a momentum building and thing they can get even more support, so they wanted to postpone it as well
- Finally, a lot of people are still undecided.
--
Donate free food here

Re:Whats This About My Rights Online?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 13:17 · Score: 0

And you wonder why some people hate USA... why they do things like 9/11 !!

"They" do things like "9/11" because "they" want to segregrate the world by faith and sex.

You guy's need be more humble about 'your preciouuss' country...

Humble how? Our "preciouus" country has fought and won bloody battles to end tyrrany imposed on us by kings, a slave economy imposed on us by European and Arab businessmen, and once we became strong enough we even had a hand in helping those threated by totalitarist regimes from being subjugated. ... or you will have to get used to being tought lessons like that again.

Quite a few have tried to teach us lessons in the past. The British Empire burned our capitol, the German empire sunk our ships, and the Japanese empire bombed our harbor. Hell, the Soviet Empire even tried to teach us a lesson in economics and you see where that got them.

My Letter to MEPs by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-09-01 13:30 · Score: 4, Informative

On the FSFE-IE list, we collaborated to produce a joint mail. We mailed it to all 102 MEPs from the UK and Ireland.

It's available here.

Ciaran O'Riordan

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

Re:My Letter to MEPs by heironymouscoward · 2003-09-01 20:05 · Score: 1

Excellent, momentous, profound.

As a stakeholder in a small innovative software business facing the uncertainty of a patented future, I say "Thank You!"

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature

Size of protests in Europe by HuguesT · 2003-09-01 13:30 · Score: 2, Informative

As a sign of how different cultures can be and at the same time almost identical, many people (presumably from the US) express disbelief that protests can actually achieve anyting.

In Europe one regularly sees hundred of thousands of protesters in the street for seemignly benign things from a distance, such as a change in education policy. For really important matters one can see millions of people, who are very hard to ignore. Ministers have been known to resign after a large enough protest.

However in the US the situation is the same. Doesn't anyone remember the enormous protests, marches and so one of the 60's?

Re:Size of protests in Europe by Art+Tatum · 2003-09-01 15:55 · Score: 0, Troll

That's because here in the U.S., most of the people who protest things are simply a bunch of spoiled rich brats who have never had to deal with anything tough in life. So they try to find meaning by throwing rocks through windows and screaming 'Fuck the man!' They're nothing but a bunch of immature punks.
Re:Size of protests in Europe by mOdQuArK! · 2003-09-02 02:44 · Score: 1

Doesn't anyone remember the enormous protests, marches and so one of the 60's?

Anyone in the US who protests something too visibly is obviously a hippy/troublemaker-type who doesn't appreciate hard work - so they get fired from their jobs. When you're worried about your job being shipped to China in the first place, you tend to try avoid rocking the boat.
Re:Size of protests in Europe by Kphrak · 2003-09-03 06:08 · Score: 1

The protests in Europe struck me as being focused, and maybe that's why they work so much better. In the 60s, they were often focused as well: Civil rights, anti-war, etc. American protesters have perhaps lost that focus.

Consider the recent Iraq-war protests in Portland, OR. I saw signs advocating everything! Signs claiming that Bush cheated in the election -- what does Bush's legitimacy have to do with whether Iraq should be attacked or not? Isn't that a separate issue? Signs decrying corporate media -- yeah, that has a lot to do with bombing Iraq. Signs demanding global equity in trade, better environmental regulations, abolition of the U.S. government....what do they want? What is the protest for?

It's no surprise to me that the majority of Americans view protesters as wackos bent on destruction. Most of the time they give the impression that rather than being concerned citizens protesting because of an interest in their country, they're just trying to make trouble. Stopping traffic, smashing windows, and throwing acid were among the things that went on in the Portland protests.

Protests in the US in the 60s, IIRC, were more peaceful and more focused on whatever issue was at hand. Size simply is not as important as delivering a clear message.

--

There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.

It's much more complex by Bozovision · 2003-09-01 13:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

The situation is somewhat more complex than presented in the blurb.

Patentability of hardware is a well accepted principal. But what if the hardware contains software? For instance when it's a cellphone. Should the hardware still be patentable? What if the phone is only special because of functionality implemented in the software portion? For instance if it can talk to a Jabber server. Should it then be patentable because of the special features?

Now what if it's not Jabber, but some other IM server and the intelligence is in the server. Should the system of phone plus IM server be patentable? If not why not? If yes, then aren't you allowing patenting of software on general purpose hardware?

So that's the background.

Having organised a couple of meetings on the issue in Cambridge, I'm of the opinion that the case that the directive is damaging is overstated. The author of the language of the amendments introduced in JURI says that by the nature of the EU system the language can't be very tight, but that a key feature is that patentability can now be reviewed by the courts, and that JURI has made its wishes clear in the Recital, which courts use as a guide to the intention.

There is still a crucial issue of how Free and Open Source software authors are protected. The directive is inadequate in this regard, but then the situation as it stands is inadequate. We need to take a social decision that protects authors of Free and Open software because they make the efforts of their labours available without charge and that's to the benefit of society.

An interesting side effect of such a settlement would most likely be a decrease in software patenting in favour of the use of trade secret. This isn't necessarily a god thing; patents were invented to make it possible to expose trade secrets in return for a limited monopoly on their use. An example - if you invent the ultimate search algorithm but kept as a trade secret it might never enter the public domain.

A second serious problem is the length of a patent - around 20 years. For software, which typically has a life span of 5 to 8 years, this is ludicrous. On the other hand it typically takes around 2 to 4 years for a patent to be granted. But software intro cycles are around 12 to 18 months. So unless you have a spectacularly good invention, or some indirect need, it may very well not be worthwhile patenting. (The number of patents involving software suggest that this isn't generally true - numbers of 15,000 to 30,000 in Europe are commonly reported.)

The way to solve the problem of software falling under the same banner as hardware is to alter the European Patent Convention to vary the rules for software. This won't be easy, but it's probably possible.

Jeff Veit

Re:It's much more complex by Flower · 2003-09-01 18:20 · Score: 1

Having organised a couple of meetings on the issue in Cambridge, I'm of the opinion that the case that the directive is damaging is overstated. The author of the language of the amendments introduced in JURI says that by the nature of the EU system the language can't be very tight, but that a key feature is that patentability can now be reviewed by the courts, and that JURI has made its wishes clear in the Recital, which courts use as a guide to the intention.
So in essence, this will be the same system used in the US. Except Europe will have a directive specifically stating that software is patentable. Currently in the US we have a number of court decisions that while setting precident could be overruled at a later date.

There is still a crucial issue of how Free and Open Source software authors are protected. The directive is inadequate in this regard, but then the situation as it stands is inadequate. We need to take a social decision that protects authors of Free and Open software because they make the efforts of their labours available without charge and that's to the benefit of society.
There is a huge problem with this when it comes to patents. If you allow some form of loophole to permit free software to use the patent you have completely undermined the value of the patent. Free software, to be free, has to be available for commercial use. I can use apache at home and my company can deploy it at work. If you accept that axiom (and I do) then you realize that patents and free software are anathema to each other.

An interesting side effect of such a settlement would most likely be a decrease in software patenting in favour of the use of trade secret. This isn't necessarily a god thing; patents were invented to make it possible to expose trade secrets in return for a limited monopoly on their use. An example - if you invent the ultimate search algorithm but kept as a trade secret it might never enter the public domain.
I agree with the side effect but disagree with the assessment. A trade secret can be REed and made available. I would be willing to bet for most software it could be done in much less time than the current term for a patent. And such an effort would have to be done once.
In many ways this is preferable. The trade secret provides the inventor a psuedo-monopoly of variable duration. Those who need the software immediately will buy the license and sign the NDA. Those who don't and/or can't abide by the NDA can RE the product. In theory, the greater the utility and size of community that needs the trade secret the faster it would be REed or that it would be developed independently. Heh, I'd love to see what an economist makes of that model v. software patents.

A second serious problem is the length of a patent - around 20 years. For software, which typically has a life span of 5 to 8 years, this is ludicrous. On the other hand it typically takes around 2 to 4 years for a patent to be granted. But software intro cycles are around 12 to 18 months. So unless you have a spectacularly good invention, or some indirect need, it may very well not be worthwhile patenting. (The number of patents involving software suggest that this isn't generally true - numbers of 15,000 to 30,000 in Europe are commonly reported.)
This opens a serious can of worms that most PTOs are unwilling to do. You are giving preference to an industry by providing them an additional protection (funny that limiting the term is called that.) And pretty much you are doing it to advance free software. So once its done in software why not do it for drugs? For manufacturing? For the auto industry? All of those examples have a greater immediate impact on society by having shorter terms than software.
And you are talking about a major reduction in term. The question then becomes "Once the term has been so diluted does the patent provide any significant incentive t

--
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Re:It's much more complex by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 18:41 · Score: 0

All your examples should be non-patentable. The phone itself would be patentable, A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, but now we are just talking variation of the same basic idea.
Re:It's much more complex by MickLinux · 2003-09-01 20:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not entering the public domain is also not necessarily a bad thing. If you invent the world's best search engine, and keep it private, then as long as your service, minus its cost, is more valuable than the effort to do better, then you're managing the search engine for the public, responsibly.

Nothing says that the inventor has to starve to death, or even has to be desperately poor.

So it's not necessarily bad for trade secrets to exist. In fact, it is arguably better. Take Coca-Cola(TM), for example. Coca-Cola(TM) provides one standard by which other drinks can measure themselves. That is not to say that other drinks are inferior -- but Coca-Cola(TM) is something you can compare it against. Nor are other drinks damaged by the fact that Coca-Cola(TM) is in private hands.

That said, lots of competitors have sprung up, and some have made a superior drink (IBC root beer, for example). You may not get more development out of the intellectual dead-end that Coke represents, but in providing a standard, the public domain does get something out of it.

My next problem with your post is that you ask for benefits for free (no cost) and open source software, by pointing out that it is to society's benefit to get something without cost. However, that is not what Free Software is about. RedHat and Suse could be utterly destroyed by this: ultimately, the inventor has to eat, and if he is too worried about where his next meal is coming from [or where his kid's next meal is coming from], he isn't going to be inventing. To only give anti-patent, anti-big-company protection to cost-free software is therefore a way to ensure the demise of free and open source software. The special thing about free and open source software is not that it is provided without charge. It is that you can modify it and redistribute it without royalties or hassle.

Ultimately, patents are a bad thing for all involved except those who already have power, money, and the will to step on others. The difference between the hardware and software patent is that with software, it becomes really obvious. With hardware, it's easier to wear the blinders.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:It's much more complex by Halo1 · 2003-09-01 21:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Patentability of hardware is a well accepted principal. But what if the hardware contains software? For instance when it's a cellphone. Should the hardware still be patentable?

The European Patent convention explicitly states that computer programs as such are not patentable. This means that adding software to something does not make something suddenly unpatentable. The opponents of software patents are not asking for this to be changed.

What if the phone is only special because of functionality implemented in the software portion? For instance if it can talk to a Jabber server. Should it then be patentable because of the special features?

No, because they're entirely realised in software. Otherwise, since the phone has a built-in processor that's simply executing some code which allows it to talk to a Jabber service, you would just have patented the ability of talking to Jabber services on any kind of computer.
There is no inherent difference between programming a cpu that's inside a cell phone and one that's inside a desktop PC. Yes, you have less memory and speed available, but if that's a criterium, then any kind of software improvement that causes less memory to be used or more computing efficiency would have to be patentable.

Having organised a couple of meetings on the issue in Cambridge, I'm of the opinion that the case that the directive is damaging is overstated.

I don't think so. Have you looked at how http://swpat.ffii.org/players/ibm/#gajn in the US?

The author of the language of the amendments introduced in JURI says that by the nature of the EU system the language can't be very tight, but that a key feature is that patentability can now be reviewed by the courts, and that JURI has made its wishes clear in the Recital,

Absolutely, like saying that a "computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution in order to be patentable", then correctly deleting article 3 which said

Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention is considered to belong to a field of technology.
and then introducing an amendment to recital 12 which says

Accordingly, even though a computer-implemented invention belongs by virtue of its very nature to a field of technology,
The JURI amendments were full of that kind of silly tricks.

which courts use as a guide to the intention.

The average cost of a court case in the US to get an invalid patent declared invalid, lies between 1 and 2 million USD. Suppose that for some reason in Europe it would even only cost 1/4th of that. What will companies pick when they can choose between a licensing deal of EUR 50,000 or such a lawsuit? I really don't think it's a good argument to say "We must keep the law as unclear as possible and let case law figure everything out."

There is still a crucial issue of how Free and Open Source software authors are protected. The directive is inadequate in this regard, but then the situation as it stands is inadequate. We need to take a social decision that protects authors of Free and Open software because they make the efforts of their labours available without charge and that's to the benefit of society.

The directive is not worse for Free Software than it is for small companies. Neither have the means to obtain the defensive patent portfolio you need to survive in an economical system that allows software patents. Making an exception for Free or Open Source software could actually help monopolies. Microsoft would probably grasp this chance with both hands to crush anyone with an annoying patent they can't get a license for: just release a mediocre product based on that idea that's open source until the other person is squash

--
Donate free food here

Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i by ralphdaugherty · 2003-09-01 14:31 · Score: 1

I particularly liked her example of a UK company for whom, filing for patents is an excellent idea, lest a US multi-national will just steal the idea and patent it themselves...ahem prior art!

Yes, you're right, but I do see where an MEP would think it is easier for a constituent business to extract licensing fees from a patent than from a copyright. It's difficult for me to imagine the specific technical basis for this voice recognition patent different from all the other voice recognition patents granted. Saying that we can't parse though digitized sound and try to identify words because of some patent is insane.

Protection should be limited to keeping someone from ripping off copyrighted software by duplicating the effects of key algorithms. Of course, that will require reverse engineering to determine, so all that crap about no reverse enginering needs to be thrown out too.

rd

My Letter to Arlene Mccarthy by stock · 2003-09-01 14:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 06:50:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: Robert M. Stockmann
To: arlene.mccarthy@easynet.co.uk
Subject: Re : "Small fry patently need protection" (fwd)

Dear Miss McCarthy,

Here i write again to you, 1.5 months later. Sofar i haven't received
a response to the below email message yet. Today the EUROPEAN Law on
Software Patents is to be passed. Well i can only say one thing here :

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, AND NOT ONLY BY ME :

If you as Labour MEP member just implement rulings and laws which are
not supported by a majority of the people, things might turn real bad
for you. Maybe not today but in the future.

you wrote :

"Numerous people from small to medium-sized enterprises have written to me
in support of my proposal. "

Well i have worked for several smaller and medium-sized software and
programming companies. NONE OF THESE HAD LAYWERS ON THEIR PAYROLL.

Getting Patents on Software is something only BIG CORPORATIONS will be
able to achieve.

Today , Monday 1 September 2003, I ask you again to reconsider your
proposal, and admit that SOFTWARE PATENTS only SUSTAIN the POWER of
BIG SOFTWARE CORPORATIONS. Oh i forgot: In the current ICT World allmost
all software is created by SOFTWARE CORPORATIONS from the USA. I sure
hope you realize we are talking about SOFTWARE PATENTS regulations inside
the EU.

Do you realize there are no NO BIG SOFTWARE CORPORATIONS inside the EU?

Thank you for your attention.

Regards,

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:00:49 +0200 (CEST)
From: Robert M. Stockmann
To: arlene.mccarthy@easynet.co.uk
Subject: Re : "Small fry patently need protection"

Dear Miss McCarthy,

In your article in the Guardian "Small fry patently need protection" :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,9 751 26,00.html

you write this :

"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
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

Re:My Letter to Arlene Mccarthy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 19:53 · Score: 0

stock quotes Arlene McCarthy in an article in the Guardian:

"Numerous people from small to medium-sized enterprises have written to me in support of my proposal."

With the exposure on the widely negative effects of software patents in the trade journals, I find this very difficult to believe as real. Could it be that there's a large astroturfing campaign such as this, paid by the usual suspects?
Re:My Letter to Arlene Mccarthy by Silburn_Luke · 2003-09-01 22:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Robert, with respect, you aren't helping the cause with these missives. Misuse of capitalisation and sloppy email-speak are the internet age equivalent of writing a letter in green ink; whilst making vague threats and ranting about LAWYERS and BIG SOFTWARE CORPORATIONS plants you firmly in McCarthy's 'kooks and cranks' mental box.

People if you are going to contact a legislator on this issue you've got to make it count! Use short, punchy sentences written in grammatically correct, properly spelled English (or French or whatever). Explain what you are opposed to and why you are opposed. Outline what you want the legislator to do about it. Use simple examples to support your arguments and avoid rambling, off-topic digressions. Do not pepper your letter with dark mutterings about the Gnomes of Zurich, UN black helicopters, corrupt politicians or sleazy lawyers. Be polite and thank them for their time. Remember to include a return address.

Once you've finished save the file and then go and do something else for bit - walk the dog, go for a run, relax with friends in the pub - whatever. Once you've cooled off come back, read your draft and correct the spelling mistakes that leap off the screen at you. Try and get someone (preferably a non-geek) to look at the letter. Listen to their comments. Perhaps redraft a couple of sections in response to what they say.

Finally, when you are happy with your final version, print it off onto a decent weight of paper, sign it and send it to your intended recipient via snail-mail.

Regards
Luke

--
#include witty_one_liner.h

we had protests in the US? by sydlexic · 2003-09-01 14:33 · Score: 2, Funny

when did that happen? I must have missed it on FOX NEWS. they're usually so careful to get the big, important, meaningful stories.

Re:we had protests in the US? by Illbay · 2003-09-01 17:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You're right, they are. Which is exactly why CNN is dying the slow death, ABCNBCCBS has become "entertainment 24/7", and PMS-NBC is yet another failed division of Microsoft.
You people who slam Fox never seem to mention that FNC came out of nowhere to stomp the competition. And why? Because it's news for the silent majority, without the Walter Cronkite-wannabe "let's talk down to the unwashed pointy-headed masses" bullshit.

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Re:we had protests in the US? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 18:52 · Score: 0

You people who slam Fox never seem to mention that FNC came out of nowhere to stomp the competition. And why? Because it's news for the silent majority...

No, the reason it "came out of nowhere to stomp the competition" is because they dish out "good news" making everything that the majority(GOP) does look good. People like to hear good news.

When is the last time you saw on CNN or NBC the title "When Repubs Attack" and all of the newscasters all had a laugh about how "dumb" the republicans are? They say that about the dems on Fox... It seems everytime I see Fox news, Ann Coulter is sitting there telling everyone how "liberals" are evil and treasonous back-stabbing communists who are here to enslave lady liberty and report back the their commander in China.

If Fox News is so good, where are all of its awards?
Re:we had protests in the US? by Illbay · 2003-09-05 09:55 · Score: 1

When is the last time you saw on CNN or NBC the title "When Repubs Attack"
Read Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" for the answer to that (hint: You see it all the time).
If Fox News is so good, where are all of its awards?
Who gives out these "awards"? Oh, that's right, the same people who congratulate each other over their "objective" leftist-slanted news reporting from the last six decades.
I might ask where ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBC's viewers are.

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Re:Who gives a rats ass by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 14:38 · Score: 1

Umm.. yes it is.

Even though we technically don't claim Michigan, it's still a part of the USA.

Well, the servers are in California...

Maybe that does make it a Non-US site? :)

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

I'm actually impressed by sydlexic · 2003-09-01 14:41 · Score: 2, Funny

The only way we can 'educate' our representatives here in the good 'ol US is with a basket full of cash and attached Hallmark card. 10 words or less.

Microbloat Rules by ralphh · 2003-09-01 14:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here in the US, I'm afraid to release some stuff I've done. My lack of proof of when and where I got my ideas could lead to a) someone "reinventing" my ideas and patenting them (as in M$ vs. Burst.com, even though Burst actually has patents and ducumentation, as well as decent lawyers) or b) being sued because I've unwittingly created something that resembles someone's patent.

And don't forget we have a sleazy outfit suing businesses too small to fight back basically for using FRAMES on their web sites. There is plenty of similar nonsense going on.

How could this not be affecting innovation and holding back the US software industry? Isn't this at least partly why M$'s toy software is now running virtually all US businesses, and not at a bargain price, might I add? Re the economy, there are other forces at work here, but the M$ monopoly absolutely is not helping things.

--
"A worthy cause has never been harmed by the truth" - Gandhi

Re:Whats This About My Rights Online?? by arkane1234 · 2003-09-01 14:45 · Score: 1

Quite a few have tried to teach us lessons in the past. The British Empire burned our capitol, the German empire sunk our ships, and the Japanese empire bombed our harbor. Hell, the Soviet Empire even tried to teach us a lesson in economics and you see where that got them.

And now we have the British Empire with a quasi-democracy, Germany with a proliferating economy in the midst of being a formidable power politically, and most of our electronics made in Japan.

The Soviet Union.. well... they tried. I gotta give it to them. Democracy didn't exactly sit well with their economic stability.

I agree with you though, I'm not trolling you or anything. I just find it funny that in the beginning of the next century after the great wars, the opposing countries are in that form.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

IT Jobs are leaving the country... by chiasmus1 · 2003-09-01 14:48 · Score: 1

...because they are trying to escape software patents.

Re:IT Jobs are leaving the country... by Flower · 2003-09-01 18:59 · Score: 1

IT jobs are leaving the country because labor overseas is dirt cheap.

Don't think for a second that some company outsourcing software development to India wouldn't take the time to patent it here in the States.

--
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Re:IT Jobs are leaving the country... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 03:10 · Score: 0

"IT jobs are leaving the country because labor overseas is dirt cheap."

Yes. And that's so because of a lot of mixing causes... one of them being foreign software companies don't have to pay almost a lawyer per programmer just to rest assure they are not violanting any patent, and/or rush for patenting the new little detail the programer has come with.

What's the point? by Daimaou · 2003-09-01 14:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have never been to Europe, so I don't really know what the outcome of this will be, but if it were the US it wouldn't matter. The government would just postpone legislation until a future date, where they would go ahead and do whatever the hell they wanted to do in the first place.

Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i by Daniel+Phillips · 2003-09-01 14:50 · Score: 1

It has been suggested that the Parliament's report will for the first time allow the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. This is simply not true. The patenting of computer-implemented inventions is not a new phenomenon. Patents involving the use of software have been applied for and granted since the earliest days of the European Patent Office (EPO).

Is he intentionally twisting the truth by implying that software patents are valid in Europe, when they aren't, or that the EPO has followed the letter and spirt of the law in granting those patents, when it clearly hasn't? One way to approach this is to give him the benefit of the doubt, and explain to him why his statement is incorrect. Give him a chance to prove his honesty. If he proves otherwise, at least we know where he stands, and perhaps his constituents would like to know as well.

In any event, perhaps it would be possible to find out something about his affiliations, does he have any obvious vested interest that would prompt him to distort the facts in this particular way? Is there any such thing as a public record of campaign contributions for an MEP? Do you know anybody who knows him personally?

At a time when many of our traditional industries are migrating to Asia and when Europe needs increasingly to rely on its inventiveness to reap rewards, it is important to have the option of the revenue secured by patents and the licensing out of computer-implemented technologies.

Glibly overlooking the fact that the net cost to the public of patents, in the form of lack of availability of free software, will certainly exceeds the revenue to be earned by the owners of patents. Furthermore software development in the EU will slow down, denying European software companies an advantage they could have had. If he wants to hand the advantage to Asia, he has certainly set out on the right path to accomplish it.

Perhaps he needs some help understanding the fact that there is no shortage of evidence that copyright provides all the protection nessary for a software company to survive and prosper.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?

Link to growth of IT industries by Daniel+Phillips · 2003-09-01 15:03 · Score: 1

MEP McCarthy said in a June analysis of the proposed directive that there were links between the patentability of computer-related inventions and the growth of IT industries in the United States. Such patents aided "in particular the growth of small and medium enterprises and independent software developers," she wrote, citing a study on the issue carried out for the European Parliament by London's Intellectual Property Institute.

Roughly analogous to the tobacco industry carrying out a study on the risk of cancer from smoking.

Does anybody have a copy of this study, on which Ms. McCarthy relies?

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?

has anyone found the weakness for lobbyists yet? by zenyu · 2003-09-01 15:13 · Score: 1

Cold Hard Cash.

Preferrably in small non-sequentially numbered bills.

Re:Whats This About My Rights Online?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 15:36 · Score: 0

I agree with you though, I'm not trolling you or anything. I just find it funny that in the beginning of the next century after the great wars, the opposing countries are in that form.

I didn't think it was troll at all, in fact I'd say it was pretty damn insightful.

But I don't find it strange at all that Britain, Germany, and Japan have come out of all this for the better being that their societies are now more or less based on the same ideas on which the U.S. was founded.

Certainly we don't always implement these ideas in the most fair or effective manner and are constantly debating the best way to achieve a balance between individual freedom and social necessity. But, since the ideas themselves are good, when we fight we are usually "fighting the good fight."

Self perpetuating belief by Chuck+Chunder · 2003-09-01 17:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

It seems to me that Americans seem to have actually abandoned the belief that democracy can work.

Most of the effort seems to go on "minimising" government or using the constitution to stop the government from doing bad things rather than getting the government to want the right things in the first place..

Frankly I find that a bit scary.
</huge generalisation>

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Re:Self perpetuating belief by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-09-01 21:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's based on the (IMO incorrect, and I'm British not American BTW) that you ever had a democracy and that democracies work at all.

You, like those of us in the UK, are living in an oligopoly with a carefully engineered public front which gives the illusion of democracy. You can choose between a number of representatives or parties, but the representatives you can pick from are chosen for you (or the bar to entry to real independants is so high that it is virtually impossible ot be elected). Even when you do get the candidate you want, they are almost always subject to the party rules first with what you want some way down the list. And you can be certain that your voice is nowhere near as important as, say, the voice of the CEO of the local multinational who happens to have a nice brown envelope full of green objects to hand.

This is not democracy.
Re:Self perpetuating belief by EJB · 2003-09-02 02:29 · Score: 1

So when it doesn't happen as one individual wants it, it's not democracy? Have you considered that the majority of the people actually agree with how things go, and may not cast it in your cynical light?
Re:Self perpetuating belief by Heisenbug · 2003-09-02 02:44 · Score: 1

I think you're right to some extent - my parents (hard-nosed moderate liberals both) have certainly given up on American politics.

Then I look at someone like Howard Dean, who has 300,000 people on his email list already, raises money from individual online contributions, and spoke to some 40,000 people on tour last week alone. Have those 300,000 people abandoned the belief that democracy can work? Not yet, I think ...
Re:Self perpetuating belief by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-09-02 02:45 · Score: 1

Yes, I have. And I came to the simple conclusion that the majority of people wouldn't know democracy if it hit them on the head with a big stick.

If these amendments were accepted: by Serious+Simon · 2003-09-01 18:43 · Score: 1

I recently stumbled across this European document, a report written by the Dutch liberal mrs. Elly van Plooij-Gorsel.

If all the amendments in it were applied to the Directive, I would have much more confidence in its self-stated objective to clarify the status quo, and would be less worried that it will have the effect of greatly expanding the possibility of software patents!

Amendments

Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i by Enucite · 2003-09-01 18:55 · Score: 1

Indeed recently, a small ten-person company in an economic black-spot in the UK granted a licence to a US multinational for its voice recognition software patents. Without European patent protection in this field, the small company could have found itself in the perverse situation whereby its R&D efforts and investment would simply have been taken by a large multinational company, who, with its team of patent lawyers, would have filed a patent on this invention. The EU company could have been faced subsequently with patent infringement proceedings.

Let me start out by admitting that I don't really understand the legal issues of software patents, am not familiar with standard legal practices in Europe, and I'd really appreciate a correction if I am wrong anywhere in this post.

That being said, how would this situation be any better with the acceptance of software patents in Europe?

First of all I thought software patents weren't recognized in Europe, so they are saying the UK company had a patent on the voice recognition technology in the US? And if so, they're saying it's good that a poorly-managed UK company was saved because they could sell a license to a successful multinational corporation? Forgive me if I am wrong, and maybe it's good that the people who work at that company aren't starving, but.. If the only way a company can stay in business is by using software patents to force larger companies to keep them afloat, doesn't that imply they aren't really providing any valuable service and maybe they really should go out of business? If their invention really was 'that good' couldn't they create their own product and sell that to make money? Or is the issue that they were too small to work with the great idea that they "created" and by selling this idea they had created a valid business model?

Second, how would they find themselves in a situation where a multinational would have filed a patent and sue them for infringement if software patents weren't allowed in Europe?

Message content by SgtChaireBourne · 2003-09-01 19:02 · Score: 1

It's not the size, it's the message, that determines whether the protesters get belittled. I guess it ultimately depends on whether or not the press feel it's in their interests, or their owners interests, etc, to cover it.

I'd agree there. Things that are not in line with the owner's poitical or economic ideology seem not to make it onto the U.S. broadcasts.

But as time's progressed, the press seems to have gotten steadily worse, less and less rational and more and more ideologically bonkers. It's now almost as bad as the British press.

That's the beauty of it. You also see the same efffect in technical discussions -- the losing side segues away from fact into opinion and if the others don't catch it, the discussion then becomes one opinion versus another. Thus, anything can be turned into an emotional issue or an opinion, then the winner is the one holding the microphone. That and facts cost money.

I was forced to sit through some "news" broadcasts on my last visit to the U.S. and found them focussing exclusively on numbers of arrests or injuries and steering clear of the reasons of some protests. Only one of the broadcasts seemed to even indicate that there was a controversial issue, and even then it was framed to try to make the protesters look more like European Ghost Dancers.

It's not exclusive to the U.S. or Britain. AFP's presentation of issues can be quite amusing.

Perhaps, the European protests can directly or indirectly provide a positive example for the U.S., which needs to find a way around the 1 dollar == 1 vote problem.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Long term effects by mcrbids · 2003-09-01 19:04 · Score: 1

If software patents are really so bad, then the laws of economics will eventually kick in and favor those nations/areas that don't allow them.

Really. It's that simple.

I have mixed feelings about software patents. I don't think that the concept is really so awful, but the way the US Patent office has been handing out S/W patents like lollipops has been evil and destructive.

However, if *any* decent economic power refuses software patents (India, anybody?) the clear advantages would be enough to favor them economically - and those clueless enough to uphold s/w patents would pay and pay, like Europe has for missing such a large piece of the information revolution.

Assuming, of course, that s/w patents are *really* all that terrible.

As a software developer, I rely heavily on open-source tools to write very proprietary software.

Anything that doesn't offer a clear advantage to me to keep gets tossed into the public pool - I've donated large amounts of patches, software, and projects into the public sector - and it nearly always comes back to *help* me later.

But there's plenty I still hold close to my chest.

So, really - time will tell if it *really* is so horrible to have software patents. Although, in the case of the US, time will tell if it *really* is so horrible to have incompetently granted software patents.

I suspect that the whole area of S/W patents in the US will get so bad that the whole thing gets trashed eventually - but we'll see.

-Ben

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.

Re:Long term effects by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 22:22 · Score: 0

You are judged by your past. With IT, Europe missed the bus completely. The drugs and biotechs are or will be American. The screwdriver jobs destined for Europeans - have gone to china.
What makes them think differently this time round? It will be a disaster, and they are shutting up about how honouring pre-patent goldrush patents. They have already lost.

Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 19:16 · Score: 0

He is a she. Glenys Kinnock is the wife of Neil Kinnock who was the leader of the Labour party in the UK for many years, always failing to get into power against Maggie and Major!

Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 19:34 · Score: 2, Informative

I think you'll find this is a standard copy-and-paste response being used by all Labour MEPs. I send letters to two of my region Labour MEPs (UK NW), and got the exact reply back for one, and a near identical one for the other (this was from Arlene McCarthy herself, so the only difference was that the reference to the rapporteur was in the first person rather than the third).

Clearly Arlene McCarthy's office has sent a draft response for all UK Labour MEPs to use.

Software cannot be patented in Canada already by Hamster+Lover · 2003-09-01 19:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

From a website on patent law in Canada:

"The difficulty with software is that programs generally centre around the use of mathematics and algorithms. It is clear that a software-related invention must do more than merely perform a calculation and must be more than an algorithm embodied in software. Otherwise, it will fall into the category of a "mere scientific principle or abstract theorem" and therefore be unpatentable. .

The test for determining whether a software related invention is patentable was set out in Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents (1981), 56 C.P.R.(2d) 204 (F.C.A.). The test considers, what (if anything), according to the application, has been discovered. The court held that if the invention was merely the discovery that by making certain calculations according to certain formulae, useful information could be extracted from certain measurements, then the application should be refused on the basis that it lacked patentable subject matter under section 2 of the Patent Act. Essentially, the court suggested that if the program interacted with physical objects other than the computer in a novel, useful and inventive way, the invention was patentable. In response to Schlumberger and related decisions, the Patent Office developed new guidelines, used by the Patent Office Examiners to assess the patentability of computer related subject matter. The guidelines are as follows:

1.Computer programs per se are not patentable;
2.Processes which are unapplied mathematical calculations, even if expressed in words rather than in mathematical symbols, are not patentable;
3.A process and/or computer program which merely produces information for mental interpretation by a human being is not patentable, nor does the process or program confer novelty upon the apparatus which uses it;
4.Claims drawn up in terms of means plus function which merely produce intellectual data are not patentable;
5.New and useful processes incorporating a computer program, and apparatus incorporating a programmed computer, are directed to patentable subject matter if the computer related matter has been integrated with another practical system that falls within an area which is traditionally patentable; and
6.The presence of a programmed general purpose computer or a program for such a computer does not lend patentability to, nor subtract patentability from, an apparatus or process."

Thus, if a computer program is used to interact with a system or as part of a process, ie. electronically controlled sawmill machinery, then the software could be patented. Which raises the question on how the LZW algorithm was granted a patent in Canada (patent 1223965) as it clearly is nothing more than an algorithm.

Re:Software cannot be patented in Canada already by 91degrees · 2003-09-01 21:53 · Score: 1

Which raises the question on how the LZW algorithm was granted a patent in Canada (patent 1223965) as it clearly is nothing more than an algorithm.

Probably down to it being an algorithm with a practical application. I guess you can say it effectively increases the storage capability of a computer or something.
Re:Software cannot be patented in Canada already by Ed+Avis · 2003-09-01 22:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

But of course, if LZW increases the storage capacity of a computer and so is patentable, then any algorithm is patentable since you can always think of a practical application. This is the nonsensical doctrine of 'technical effect' adopted by the European Patent Office: an algorithm is patentable if it has a technical effect, despite the explicit exclusion of computer programs under the European Patent Convention. Then a couple of years later the EPO decided that since all algorithms do have a 'technical effect', it might as well just grant patents on them immediately without the fig-leaf. Thus do patent offices get around explicit exclusions of computer programs.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:Software cannot be patented in Canada already by brlewis · 2003-09-03 03:11 · Score: 1

Thus, if a computer program is used to interact with a system or as part of a process, ie. electronically controlled sawmill machinery, then the software could be patented. Which raises the question on how the LZW algorithm was granted a patent in Canada (patent 1223965) as it clearly is nothing more than an algorithm.

That's not what it says. A process that includes software may be patented, if and only if the system as a whole is patentable. The software itself is not patentable.

This is the same as what the US Supreme Court said in Diamond v. Diehr. The opinion reaffirmed previous rulings that held software not patentable, and had a whole section devoted to pointing out that people couldn't make software patentable by re-drafting their application to make it look like a system. Many people have mis-read Diamond v. Diehr the same way you mis-read the six points you listed.

The same question you asked about LZW could be asked about all American software patents. The answer is USPTO policy changes followed by a lower-court ruling that contradicted Diamond v. Diehr.
Re:Software cannot be patented in Canada already by Hamster+Lover · 2003-09-04 08:43 · Score: 1

I understand fully that software on its own cannot be patented. What you do not understand is that software as part of a system or process can be patented.

In my case I gave a real world example, a computer controlled saw in a mill. The saw and associated components including the software AS ONE UNIT can be patented. My point in singling out the patent of LZW compression is that there is no accompanying system, so I am at a loss to understand how and why this patent was granted.

SIGN THE PETITION PEOPLE!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 20:06 · Score: 0

http://petition.eurolinux.org/index.html

(can't say this enough :-))

SIGN THE PETITION by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 20:16 · Score: 0

Anti software patent petition

Yes, replied to this parent because it's the top-level one when it comes to its score, but hey, we really need to sign this petition! ;-)

Re:SIGN THE PETITION by Eric+Ass+Raymond · 2003-09-01 21:26 · Score: 1

I doubt petitions not to menion on-line petions have any effect.
Petitions are too easy and too easily forged.
Keep writing those letters to your MEPs and make them unique - do not mail them carbon copies of some example letter. Write it in your own words, your own ideas and feelings.

--
BOO! TERRO
Re:SIGN THE PETITION by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 21:00 · Score: 0

ACK, letters to MEPs are of course perfect. But signing the petition does have some effect. Without a petition or with a petition involving very few people, the MEPs might miss something (even if it's only just unconsciously).

Re:Really that bad - YES! by Halo1 · 2003-09-01 20:34 · Score: 1

Please read this post to see why it really is that bad.

--
Donate free food here

Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i by Halo1 · 2003-09-01 20:49 · Score: 4, Informative

I particularly liked her example of a UK company for whom, filing for patents is an excellent idea, lest a US multi-national will just steal the idea and patent it themselves...ahem prior art!

The company they're referring to is Allvoice Computing from Devon, UK. A thorough analysis of the Allvoice situation can be found here.

If you don't want to read that much, the bottom line is this: Allvoice managed to squeeze money out of IBM and a division of the then still dying Lernout&Hauspie, with it's patent on an interface between speech recognition software and word processors (allowing you to correct mistakes made by the speech recognition software).

Nice detail those Labour MEPs (read: McCarthy sock puppets, as they're just sending our her standard letter) leave out: both of those lawsuits were filed in the US and won based on US software patents held by Allsoft. They hold similar patents in Europe, but here they aren't enforceable yet (as software patents are still illegal here for the time being). In fact, should we have had software patents in Europe, IBM would probably have countersued faster than you can say "screwed" for infringement on one of the thousands of software patents it owns.

So not having software patents in Europe is a strategic advantage to European companies: as long as they don't sell their software in the US, they can obtain and enforce software patents in US against US companies without fearing to be countersued. I.e., they can play leech in the US...

--
Donate free food here

Patentability of hardware not understood by 2901 · 2003-09-01 20:59 · Score: 2, Informative

It is wrong to say that "Patentability of hardware is a well accepted principal." There are fundamental problems with patents on hardware. The European Pariliament should be fixing them first before considering software.

Without patents, inventions are public goods. A businessman puts up money for research, but without patents the invention belongs to everyone, so the businessman cannot get a return on his investment. He doesn't repeat his mistake - result: lack of money for research.

Pay attention, this is where it gets difficult. The number of owners is a number. How big does that number have to be before the businessman finds that he cannot get a return on investment?

I reckon no more than a dozen. If a product is covered by more than a dozen different companies' patent portfolios, it is a write-off. The holders of the junk patents will leach the return from those who made the investment to come up with the key inventions.

So the patent system, even for hardware, only rewards business for successful research if the threshold for inventiveness is so high that few, preferably only one, patents cover each sellable product. Much work is needed to reform the current system for hardware.

Software comes in packages and suites. Even a single program is created by a linker, linking many object files. It is unrealistic to imagine a patent system that will reward businessmen for investing in research in computer software.

Notice that the patents system does force companies to have research departments, so that they can build up defensive patent portfolios. But the vision behind the patent system is that it rewards success. The license fees go to the company that finds a filament for an electric ligth bulb, or a way to transmit sound by electricity. That is the central point. Rather than having government funded research that consumes lots of money but never comes up with anything much, you privatise research, via the patents system, and those who don't come up with anything important lose their investment. But the way the system works today is based on quantity not quality. Companies build defense patent portfolios on the basis that they can use them to tie rivals up in court. The patent system in practise is a frictional cost, not an incentive system. Why throw grit into the wheels of the software industry?

Simple test... by hughk · 2003-09-01 21:21 · Score: 1

We may not be able to dodge patents completely so how about just codifying what many EU countries already do and that is to allow patents relating to the physical implementation of an algoritm only.

For example, if I create a machine that counts white cells in blood for example, composed of a microsocope, CCD camera and image analysis software, then the software may be covered as a component of the machine but not separately. So, a program that counts white spots against dark ones has no patent protection, but the machine as w whole does.

--
See my journal, I write things there

Re:Simple test... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 22:42 · Score: 0

Then you patent the machine. Well, nothing new here. Everyone agrees with that. ;)

Actually, here's how it is: by harriet+nyborg · 2003-09-01 21:27 · Score: 1

...the level of education among the EU lobbyists is quite impressive.

really?

i'd say that it is rather the level of zealousness, than the education of, EU lobbyists which is impressive.

this issue is vital to the interests of european competitiveness and deserves to be framed in the proper economic context.

1. knowledge has economic value.

increasingly, competitive advantage is conferred through the skillful use of knowledge. today, improving how a machine operates is often more valuable than the addition of one more machine. the value of knowledge, compounded by the connectivity provided by the internet, provides enormous leveraging power. in other words, ownership of the "means of production" is irrelevant in the 21st century. today it is the ownership of "knowledge" which is relevant to economic development.

2. knowledge is a rivalous asset.

contrary to existing economic theory, knowledge is NOT a non-rivalous asset. if i copy google's search methods and open up a competiting site, i have not deprived them of their knowledge, yet i have deprived them of their competitive advantage. in this regard - from a purely economic point of view - knowledge is inherently rivalous.

knowledge, embodied as software, provides competitive advantage. software inventions which are non-trivial, non-obvious, and truely groundbreaking - such as google's search engine -can provide enormous competitive advantage.

why, pray tell, should such inventions not be worthy of european patent protection?

what incentive do european software developers have to become the next "google" if their inventions can simply be expropriated by corporate giants?

3. rivalous assets need legal protection against theft.

for a small company, patents are often the ONLY tools they have to keep from being steamrolled by their larger rivals. copyright is not enough. software patents, because they prevent the theft of knowledge, are valuable economic tools of the 21st century.

4. what should be the nature of the debate in the european parliament?

the value of software patents must, of course, be balanced against the harm caused by "trivial" patents.

everyone is against "trivial" patents. it is actually the job of the EPO to avoid issuing patents on inventions which are obvious, lacking in inventive step, or already in the public domain whether or not these inventions are electrical, mechanical, chemical, or agricultural. software is not exceptional in this regard.

framing the debate "against" software patents purely on the grounds that the EPO may, in error, issue invalid patents does not, in my opinion, reflect an impressive level of education on the part of EU lobbyists. it rather reflects an astonishing ignornace about today's ecomomic realitities.

the failure to ammend the EPC to extend patent protection to software will harm small european companies and undermine their competitiveness.

instead of opposing software patents, lobbyist efforts should be directed towards improving the quality of the examination of software patents at the EPO so that these vital economic tools are available to european companies.

Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i by Silburn_Luke · 2003-09-01 21:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

As the AC mentioned, he is actually a she.

I've met Glenys Kinnock a couple of times and she is, personally, a pretty sharp cookie but technology issues aren't her primary focus as a legislator and this reply has all the hallmarks of a formula reply - chances are she has a bundle of these handed to her for signature by a staffer once a week or so.

Its probably worthwhile trying again with a reasoned rebuttal to the points in the letter - provided its understood that at this point you are hoping to catch the ear of whichever member of her staff is fielding letters on this issue.

The realities of life as an MEP are such that she can't be fully up to speed on all issues that come up to vote and so will trust to parliament's division of labour and accept the rapporteur's position unless given a reason to take an interest. The objective here is to get the issue onto her radar screen so that she engages with the arguments herself and one of the ways to do that is to create a noticeable trend of cogently argued letters in her postbag. Once you have her attention, I think you have a solid chance of persuading her of the merits of the anti case - as I said before she's a bright woman.

Regards
Luke

--
#include witty_one_liner.h

Outsourcing to India could be patented by hughk · 2003-09-01 21:35 · Score: 1

As a business method, I reckon that I can patent the idea of outsourceing. I could make a fortune!!!!!!

--
See my journal, I write things there

Re:Whats This About My Rights Online?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 21:42 · Score: 0

The history of the USA is a textbook history of revisionist jingoism.

Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 22:53 · Score: 1, Informative

Here is a deconstruction of the Labour MEP Form Letter.

People should object to trivial patents by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 23:03 · Score: 0

The fact that patents are granted, does not mean that they are enforcable.

It would be good if people started to read patent applications and send in objections to trivial patents or patents with prior art. Every patent application is published and people can object to the patent before they are granted. This is free, any (EU) citizen can do that. If spread over a large number of people, then it will cost only a small amount of time per person to do this work.

Furthermore, people should contact their MEPs to make sure EPO does what it is supposed to do. Currently patents for business methods and pur software patents are granted. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the EU law is that this should not be possible.

Re:Whats This About My Rights Online?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-01 23:20 · Score: 0

The history of the USA is a textbook history of revisionist jingoism.

Partly true, though I don't believe I spouted any "jingoisms". But that still doesn't change the fact that when someone tries to bat the U.S. with a cluestick it usually bounces right back at the clue giver knocking them out.

YOU DID IT! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 00:03 · Score: 0

You FAILED to get the first post!

Software patents in EU by Per+Abrahamsen · 2003-09-02 00:05 · Score: 1

You cannot patent software alone, it is explicitly stated in at least Danish law.

However, you *can* patent a system that, among other things, contain software. Which mean you can patent a system consisting of a general purpose computer plus some software. Which kind of circumvent the explicit rule against patenting software.

IAWTP by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 00:29 · Score: 0

I agree with this post, and I'm European.

Damn I wish I someday had the money to move to USA...

Not quite... by tolan-b · 2003-09-02 00:31 · Score: 1

Contrary to the hysterical claims you read in /., Europe is not free of software patents now.

That refers to patents which _involve_ the use of software or computers but are not limited to them. So for example if i invented CAD/CAM then I could patent it. However if I just invented CAD then I could not.

The aim of the proposed legislation is to change this to allow software only patents.

MEP cotact details by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-09-02 01:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Only a few MEPs give their email address on the Europarl site, but you can get a list of names and address and you can often find their email address with a google search for their name.

Listing of MEPs by country:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repar tition?ilg=EN&iorig=home

Please try to be as informative as possible. Many MEPs have said that they have been inundated with post and emails about this topic. What they want to hear is how they can fix the proposal, so mail them amendments and ask them to adopt existing amendments that are helpful to us. Portuguese MEP Jose Ribeiro E Castro has tabled the FFII mini-proposal, this is a great one for MEPs to adopt.
Ciaran O'Riordan

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

You forgot the last part by MickLinux · 2003-09-02 01:28 · Score: 1

... and then realize that you've sent your electric bill to Arlene McCarthy, and your letter to ... oh no... Some of us can never get it right. Which is why we have software patents here in America.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's

Patent Holders & Defendents Should Sue the EPO by FreeUser · 2003-09-02 01:51 · Score: 1

It is true that a lot of software patents were already granted by the EPO. However, they were granted clearly against the letter of the current directive.

The EPO should be held financially accountable for any legal costs incurred by both sides (the patent holder AND the defendent), as well as any costs incurred as a result of lost or stifled business resulting from their violation of law in issuing these patents.

Then perhaps they would deign to obey the laws the rest of us are expected to.

I would say the same about the USPTO, but alas, our laws on this subject are in such disarray that the USPTO can wreck untold damage on the economy and not be in violation of a single statute, more's the pity.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

A really simple,foolproof solution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 02:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Think about the real problems with software patents for a moment.
1: trivial ideas are being patented
2: non-trivial but otherwise obvious ideas are being patented, ideas that will be independently discovered over and over again in a world full of programmers.
3: patents last too long

3 definitely needs changes in patent law.
1&2 simply need existing novelty and obviousness rules applied properly (perhaps adding a requirement to consider the number of likely inventors in the market to the obviousness rule).

But as long as patent offices are run as businesses there's no incentive for them to do the job properly and I'd expect a lot of resistance in the US to any attempt to force them to do it right. You lot don't seem to like regulation of business even when its in your best interests.

Re:Whats This About My Rights Online?? by DataCannibal · 2003-09-02 02:11 · Score: 1

once we became strong enough we even had a hand in helping those threated by totalitarist regimes from being subjugated

You really helped the people of Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran... didn't you?
No, the US is a much like all great powers past and present. It bumbles along doing a combination of doing what it thinks is right and what best serves it's own strategic interests. Occasionally it does things right, like getting rid of Saddam, occasionally it gets things wrong, like Somalia.
Of course it was on the side of good in the second world war, for which I am, to this day, grateful. I'm a great supporter of the US but some of the people who spout off in it's defence in Slashdot do it no service, and as for the infantile anti-americanism of some europeans, well most of them are as jingoistic and short-sighted as the unthinking flag wavers.

Thank you

--
No but, yeah but, no but...

Re:Whats This About My Rights Online?? by DataCannibal · 2003-09-02 02:17 · Score: 1

Hey big boy, what's wrong with cheese? Sorry I'd forgotten that you never get to taste any real cheese. Monterey Jack? more like Jack-off. Give me a bit of Mature Blue Stilton or a proper Farmhouse cheddar, with RIND. The cheeses that built the greatest empire that the world has ever seen.

BTW and don't call us Pansy Ass Euro socialists or we'll send you Tony Blair...permanently

--
No but, yeah but, no but...

Re:has anyone found the weakness for lobbyists yet by mOdQuArK! · 2003-09-02 02:36 · Score: 1

You want to get rid of the lobbyists, not feed them.

Continue writing to MEPs, find their email ad here by haedesch · 2003-09-02 04:30 · Score: 1

You can search for their party or country of origin here: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repar tition?ilg=EN. If their e-mail isn't listed, try checking out their personal site. Not a bad idea to mail the political party's hq in your country neither.

so that's your way of saying... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 05:23 · Score: 0

hi, i'm a big stupid redneck. yeehaw. let me tatoo another 'mercan flag on my ass before i go shoot me some colored peoples.

one thing for all european people need to think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-02 05:34 · Score: 0

about...

if software patents become legal there... IBM and Microsoft will own you faster than you can say "what??"

I guarentee they are watching that very closely, and ready to fire off their teams of lawyers to beat the truely native companies there to the punch.

do you really want your countries computer industries owned by US based companies?

I strongly reccomend that you point this fact out to your government officials... Microsoft UK and Microsoft Germany and so on probably already have the patent's already drawn up and ready...

Socialism to the rescue; offtopic but I don't care by dcavanaugh · 2003-09-02 05:45 · Score: 1

If you do a great job taking care of a problem, you can expect plenty more of that problem. Compared to America, The Europeans do a great job taking care of the unemployed. Nationalized heath care, subsidies for this and that. They have 10% unemployment because they are good at keeping the humanitarian situation under control. I wonder how the Europeans get people to do crappy jobs that nobody wants. Why empty the trash at EuroDisney if you can sit home and live roughly the same life?

In America, we do less for the unemployed than some third-world countries. The assumption is that poverty is a powerful motivation to work. By inflicting (hopefully) short-term misery, we create more growth and less unemployment in the future. If we had long-term 10% unemployment, we would have to do what Europe does.

The Europeans are big on worker's rights and mandated benefits. They impose crippling taxes to pay for all of this. Nobody in Europe is going to hire more than the bare minimum number of people to stay in business. The result is of course higher unemployement. It all works well enough if they act as a closed society, with protectionist measures against the "work or die" approach of the Americans, Asians, etc. So long as the socialist burden is applied equally to all, they can supply a tolerable lifestyle to 90% of the population, and take pretty good care of the other 10%.

I sometimes wonder if America could improve the economy by paying 10% of the dumbest people to stay home. If we could carefully pick and choose the unemployed, maybe we could get more than 10% more productivity from the other 90%.

Re:Socialism to the rescue; offtopic but I don't c by Moridineas · 2003-09-02 07:45 · Score: 1

I wonder how the Europeans get people to do crappy jobs that nobody wants. Why empty the trash at EuroDisney if you can sit home and live roughly the same life?

They import turks (~2 million in germany), arabs (~10% of the French population) and eastern europes to do their dirty work.

Actually, here's how it is: by harriet+nyborg · 2003-09-02 10:41 · Score: 1

Further, what you're saying is that if an organisation gets creative with the law, we should adapt the law so that this behaviour becomes undoubtedly legal. I have to admit that's an interesting point of view, which you share with Arlene McCarthy. I prefer to try to adapt the EPO to the law.

I prefer to adapt the EPO to the needs of European industry. It is not the EPO which is being "creative with the law," it is the clients of the EPO - primarily European industry - who frustrated by the limitations of the EPC are the ones forced to be "creative."

It is my experience that the EPO follows the letter of the EPC. They are actually rather picky about this. Accusing them of being "creative with the law" does them a gross disservice. The directive is a response to the needs of European companies and has little to do with clarifying behaviour at the EPO.

I still fail to see how introducing software patents, with 75% already owned by US and Japanese companies at the start, would help European companies.

C'mon Halo1. Think. European companies file patents in the US and Japan and own a substantial number of software patents in both of those countries. The issue which we are discussing is European patents where - due to the current prohibition against software patents - neither American, nor Japanese companies have any lead whatsoever.

You're talking as if we currently have some kind of underdeveloped economy, while the European software economy is actually quite healthy and diversified.

Healthy and diversified, yes, but it would be a stretch of imagination to say that the European software economy compares in any way with the dominance of the US.

What I want to achieve is parity. Following the lead of the United States of America with regard to software patents would seem to me to be the way to go.

I, for one, would very much like to see a European Microsoft. Especially in my little country, where the number of jobs which this would create - and the increased tax base - would restore public finances to ensure the continued high quality of life which we have enjoyed for many years. Instead of the slow and pitiful decline which we have been experiencing for 20 years....

Re:My MEP is all for it...and apparently full of i by tnmc · 2003-09-02 22:44 · Score: 1

It's not just the Labour MEPs.... this from my Tory MEP.../Taras

Dear Mr. Ciuriak

Thank you for your letter regarding the upcoming Directive on the
patentability of computer-implemented inventions (software patents)
currently under discussion in the European Parliament. The vote has now
been postponed and is expected to take place on September 23rd. I am
replying on behalf of all the West Midlands Conservative MEPs, including
Philip Bradbourn, as I am responsible for this issue within the
Conservative team.

The European Commission published the draft Directive in February of last
year as it become increasingly clear that European law on patenting
software needed to be clarified. The aim of the Directive is to set out
and defend the status quo in Europe following changes to the patent system
in the USA and also planned for Japan. There is a clear intention across
the EU Member States to see that Europe does not follow the USA and Japan
in allowing widespread patent availability for software and business
methods. Copyright will remain the principal method of protecting
intellectual property in these cases. I and my UK Conservative colleagues
support the general line that the Commission has taken which builds on and
clarifies the existing patent law across the European Union and makes it
clear that only software which forms part of a technological process will
be patentable. This will allow patents to be provided for genuine
technical inventions and stimulate European economic development in areas
of economic strength like mobile telephony, digital television and computer
controlled machine tools to name just a few possibilities. Contrary to the
impression given in your letter there is no intention whatsoever to allow
generic patenting of software or business methods in Europe.

The proposed Directive would set a fair test for software (deciding whether
it has a technical effect) before authorising a patent. Any technical
invention in a field outside software can be patented so it does not make
sense for technical inventions, which happen to use computers to be
excluded from the system. The amendments agreed by the Legal Affairs and
Internal Market Committee, and supported by Conservative MEPs, have
clarified the test conditions for software (deciding whether it has a
technical effect) before authorising a patent. The Parliament amendments
improve the text while ensuring that its principles are supported.
Codification of the existing position will also avoid raising complicated
issues of the validity of existing patents across Europe or allowing
current unpatentable technologies to claim new patents. This will allow
European businesses the chance to develop ideas with certainty as to their
legal position. It will also reduce the pressure from companies holding
permissive American software patents who wish to gain an extension of their
patent rights in Europe.

Finally, I must point out that the Directive contains detailed provisions
for review of its operation and for early revision should its provisions
not work as intended. If it is clear, from the type of inventions being
patented or from ongoing legal cases, that the goals of outlawing generic
software patents are not being met, then a process of revision can be
implemented quickly.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Harbour MEP
Manor Cottage, Manor Road, Solihull, West Midlands B91 2BL
Tel: 0121 711 3158 Fax: 0121 711 3159
ASP 14E209, European Parliament, Rue Wiertz, B1047 Brussels
Tel: +322 284 5132 Fax: +322 284 9132
Brussels E-Mail: mharbour@europarl.eu.int
Web Site: www.torymeps.com

Re:My Letter to Arlene Mccarthy (her reply) by stock · 2003-09-03 00:41 · Score: 1

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:39:17 +0100 (BST)
From: Arlene McCarthy
To: stock@stokkie.net
Subject: Response to your correspondence regarding the draft EU directive
on patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

Dear Robert M. Stockmann,

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the draft directive on the
patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

The European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee has voted on my report
on the directive and there will be continuing debate and further
democratic scrutiny before the directive becomes law.

At this early stage of legislative process, it is nonetheless important
to establish the facts about what the draft EU directive and what I, as
the Parliament's rapporteur, are aiming to achieve in the amendments
tabled to the Commission proposal.

It has been suggested that the Parliament's report will for the first
time allow the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. This is
simply not true. The patenting of computer-implemented inventions is not
a new phenomenon. Patents involving the use of software have been applied
for and granted since the earliest days of the European Patent Office
(EPO). Out of over 110,000 applications received at the EPO in 2001,
16,000 will have dealt with inventions in computer-implemented
technologies. Indeed, even without an EU directive, these patents will
continue to be filed, not only to the EPO but also to national patent
offices.

As you will be aware, in the US and increasingly in Japan, patents have
been granted for what is essentially pure software. Some EPO and national
court rulings indicate that Europe may be drifting towards extending the
scope of patentability to inventions which would traditionally have not
been patentable, as well as pure business methods. It is clear that
Europe needs a uniform legal approach which draws a line between what can
and cannot be patented, and prevents the drift towards the patentability
of software per se.

My intention is clear in the amendments tabled and in a new Article 4 in
the text, to preclude; the patentability of software as such; the
patentability of business methods; algorithms; and mathematical methods.
Article 4 clearly states that in order to be patentable, a
computer-implemented invention must be susceptible to industrial
applications, be new, and involve an inventive step. Moreover I have
added a requirement for a technical contribution in order to ensure that
the mere use of a computer does not lead to a patent being granted.

Furthermore, the amended directive contains new provisions on
decompilation that will assist software developers. While it is not
possible to comment on whether any patent application would be excluded
from the directive, the directive, as amended, would not permit the
patentability of Amazon's 'one-click' method. As far as software itself
is concerned, it will not be possible to patent a software product.
Software itself will continue to be able to be protected by copyright.

With an EU directive, legislators will have scrutiny over the EPO and
national court's decisions. With, in addition, the possibility of having
a definitive ruling from the European Court in Luxembourg, thus ensuring
a restrictive interpretation of the EU directive and a greater degree of
legal certainty in the field of patentability of computer-implemented
inventions.

Some concerns have been raised that the directive may have an adverse
effect on the development of open source software and small software
developers. I support the development of open source software and welcome
the fact that the major open-source companies are recording a 50% growth
in world-wide shipment of its products.

In the amended proposal, I have imposed a requirement on the Commission
to monitor the impact of the directive, in particular its effect on small
and medium s

Slashdot Mirror

Protests Delay European Software Patent Vote

316 comments