Slashdot Mirror
Protests Delay European Software Patent Vote
vinsci writes "According to CNET News, 'The European Parliament has delayed voting on a controversial software-patents directive, following protests and criticism by computer scientists and economists.' ZDNet UK adds: 'Warnings that a controversial directive could devastate European software businesses have struck a chord with MEPs. The European Parliament has delayed voting on a controversial software-patents directive... the vote, originally planned for Monday, will now take place at a plenary session starting on 22 September.' Wired also has a story on the protests."
At least protests have an effect there. In the US, we need to protest tens of times to get the point across...
... a protest actually accomplished something? Here in Portland, the primary accomplishment of a protest is to stop traffic.
"Derp de derp."
...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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
India.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
No it is the SEVENTH time it has been postponed:
EU Software Patent Plans Shelved Amid Massive Demonstrations
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.
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)!
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
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 !
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!
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!
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
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
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!
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
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
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.
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
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