Slashdot Mirror
The Economist Contrasts American, European Patent Approaches
fiannaFailMan writes "The Economist has summarised recent developents in software patents and contrasts the American and European approaches. 'The European Commission wants to avoid the American situation, in which case law drives authorities to issue computer-related patents all too easily, in particular for business methods and algorithms.'"
Stupid patent/copyright laws, the department of homeland security, total^H^H^H^H^H terrorist information awareness, patriot act, patriot act II, and cute girls with British accents made me move to London.
There is a lot of authoritarian crap going on in America at the moment I agree, but have you any idea how much power the authorities here (UK) have? Under the Terrorism Act 2000 the Police are allowed to break up a meeting of three or more people without *any* sort of court order if they believe it is for terrorist purposes. There are cameras everywhere. The authorities (Police, Customs, Inland Revenue and a few others) can see who you've been emailing without a court order (RIP Act 2000). There's talk of introducing a compulsory ID card (smuggled in through the back door as an 'entitlement card'). I hope you don't drive or smoke, because you'll pay through the nose for it (unless you bring it in from abroad). But this is turning into a rant, so I'll stop now. And yes, I like our girls very much as well.
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
EPC simplified says:
- // EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2003-0238+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&L=EN &LEVEL=1&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y
/ e/ ar52.html
EPC 52.2 Programs for computers shall not be regarded as inventions.
EPC 52.3 The provision "programs for computers shall not be regarded as
inventions" shall exclude patentability of programs for computers only
to the extent to which a patent relates to programs for computers as such.
Which is equivalent to the swedish law:
"As an invention is never regarded what alone constitutes a computer program"
("Sasom uppfinning anses aldrig vad som utgor enbart ett datorprogram.")
This contradicts Amendment 14 of Article 2 in the directive which simplified says:
a "computer-implemented invention" means an invention the performance of
which involves the use of a computer and having features which are realised
by means of a computer program
Article 2 in its present form is a Trojan Horse, not a washing machine.
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=
http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc
If Europe really wants to become more independent from US influence, avoiding a US-style patent regime would be a wise choice.
Unfortunately, Europe is entirely capable of creating its own gaffes, as well as grafting them on top of US-originating ideas. Currently, in the EU/EPO system, it seems that in practice there is an unwillingness to come out and explain clearly where the boundary lies between 'technical' (patentable) and non-technical (literary? aesthetic?) (non-patentable). It will leave the door open to future weird decisions in the software field.
Actually tactics behind the EPO were well constructed. The EPO is formed by a group of countries who signed a common agreement. They built it up without noise, with the support of local patent offices. The EPO then started to grant patents at its own will, under the "public's radar". But it was still not associated by any means to the Eurpean Union, an organization being even competent in the regulation of fat percentage in milk.
Creating a de facto situation, they approved software patents even despite the 1972 TRIPS agreement, which explicitly forbids software-only patents. This simple collision of law and agreements went unnoticed -- for at least 30.000 registrations/occasions(!). Most of the patents were granted to all mighty US firms, the likes of IBM, Adobe, Amazon etc. The fee prevented SMB-s to do the same, they were also lacking legal departments even to gain awareness about the problem itself.
Therefore a legal "ambiguity arose" that had to be addressed: are the already registered patents legal or not? What is the role of the European Union's Institutions and Agencies if they can be so easily circumvented by sidekick agreements? The supposed answer is meant to be simple: ofcourse software patents are legal and appropriate, it is the same practice in the US! So the only logical step required now, is to pass an European Union Directive blessing the activity of the EPO.
Would the patents not be about money (and would rather be connected only to innovation as such) the above would not be an issue.
See
http://swpat.ffii.org/players/us/
a page that gives a small glimpse.
At the recent OECD conference, the US government's representative said that such conferences are useless and the debates of the economists harmful, because the patent system as is is "basically good" and the US will not permit any policy except one that "extends and strengthens" this system. The same representatives have also been doing their best to kill discussions on proper limits of "IP" at WIPO and other UN organisations.
I've never quite understood what's so horribly wrong with a compulsory ID?
I'm not sure there is any intrinsic problem with one.
In the UK it's partly a cultural thing. We had them in World War II I think, and destroying them afterwards was a sign of things returning to normality. Bringing them back sounds like a backwards step.
Also, successive governments have come up with spurious arguments for why we should have one, which makes everyone suspicious and uneasy.
It's a bit like the Intel processor ID thing: there's no problem with the idea in principle but when they come out with that rubbish about it being to aid internet shopping people get nervous wondering what the real reason was and why they were lying about it.
Mostly the UK Government has tried to claim that having an ID card would reduce crime but then refuse to say what crimes (bank robberies? murders? pickpocketings?) and how.
For situations where evidence of ID is desirable, it isn't that hard to require some (which I'll admit is one reason for saying that an ID card can't do any harm in itself). There's a cost issue as well, though that isn't a reason people would usually react so negatively.
A fair number did. It was a short item on tv and some more time was devoted on radio with interview with various people with different points of view. It wasn't a media spectacle if that is what you meant..
after some age (13?)
You get issued your Personalausweis (Personal Identity card) at the age of 16.
I remember a friend being checked when he didn't have his on him one time. In the middle of the night, in the middle of the forest. what else are a couple of young guys gonna do besides drugs, right?
anyway they asked him what his name was and where he lived, ran a check on him, and everything was alright. As the parent said, the police in general are much more relaxed about stuff like that here, than what I was used to in the states.
"Be careful or be roadkill" - Calvin
The Russians didn't want to get involved in the war. The Russians didn't care about the wellbeing of Europe in the least. Hitler and Stalin had a non-aggression pact, which was broken by Hitler, at which point Stalin had a nervous breakdown. The Russians were more than happy to carve up Europe with the Nazis, but Hitler wouldn't have it; he kind of saw it as his life's mission to get rid of the "Bolsheviks." The Russians only got into the war because the Germans attacked them. The Americans were not in a direct threat from the Germans, unlike the Soviets, and could have easily not gotten involved in the war, unlike the Soviets. The Russians were forced into the war against their will, whereas the Americans were there voluntarily.
The Russians would have crumbled without the money and equipment given to them by the Americans. If it wasn't for the Americans, not only would Hitler have owned Europe, but he would have also owned Russia. Furthermore, the Russian soldiers did not want to fight in the least. Behind every Russian soldier, there was a man with a gun making sure that the soldier would advance; if not, the soldier was shot. Contrast this with the Americans, who although they were conscripted, were willing to advance on their own accord. Most Americans willingly risked and sacrificed their lives for a cause in which they believed, unlike the Russians, who sacrificed their lives because they had no choice. As for the massive losses the Russians suffered, this was not because they were somehow extremely devoted to the liberation of Europe, it was because of their own incompetence and shitty war machine (even after the Americans pumped them full of money and equipment).
Finally, let's look at how the Soviets handled the end of the war. While they were advancing, the Russian army conducted themselves in a manner not fit for even the most disorganized army and committed many atrocities. They occupied and imposed "friendly" regimes in all the countries through which they steamrolled on their way to Germany. Contrast this with the Americans, who remained in Western Germany to insure that the Russians stayed on their damn side of Germany.
If anything, the Russians did more harm to Europe than the Nazis could have ever done. Just ask any of the inhabitants of the Eastern European countries, or the East Germans. People weren't risking their lives to get into West Berlin just for the fun of it you know. This is all the stuff that happened at the end of the war, and doesn't even take into account all the shit that the Russians pulled afterwards.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
The Russians were forced into the war against their will, whereas the Americans were there voluntarily.
I remember something from history class called "Pearl Harbour"...
In the beginning of WW II the USA was sponsoring both the UK & Germany, selling weapons, machines, food, etc. to both sides.