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.'"
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
If the gap were closed by fixing the US patent laws, that would result in less headaches than having Europe repeat the mistakes made in America.
If you enjoy reading trolls, browse at -1. That's what I do. If you'd rather only read on-topic comments, use a higher threshold. The system is working as designed; the people who browse at 0 or above don't want to see the article modification posts.
I'm not sure if everybody realizes it, but if it is true, the most important part of the article is that supposedly Arlene McCarthy has finally agreed to include the "use of controllable forces of nature" as part of deciding whether an invention makes a technical contributions.
Let's backstep a few decades. By the late 70s/early 80s, the German Federal Court had to decide on a number of patent applications. One involved an accounting program, one a system for anti-lock brakes (which was controlled by software). They found the former unpatentable, and the latter patentable. The distinguishing criterion was that the anti-lock brakes taught new ways to control forces of nature, whereas the accounting program was essentially an "instruction for the human mind", even if it was executed by a "machine that was used according to its intended use".
With criteria for the patentability of these two extremes (a pure software solution, and a hardware solution with some tightly integrated software aspects) established, and technicality being the distinguishing criterion, and this state of affairs subsequently encoded in European patent law by saying that "programs as such" (as opposed to programs that were integrated with hardware solutions), the past few decades courts and patent offices started a battle over the gray area in between. The German Federal Court later allowed patentability increasingly to encroach on the software side, but the greatest abuse was done by the European Patent Office, which came up with more and more convoluted rationales to interpret the "as such" clause to allow for software patents, despite the clear legal precedent.
Now things are in the hand of JURI, the European Parliament's committee for Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The initial committee proposal for the patent directive had a wishy-washy clause about something being a "technical contribution", that wouldn't have changed anything and harmonized nothing, and would have especially allowed the EPO to extend its creative twisting of the law even further. And with the planned enactment of the Community Patent, to be granted by the EPO, the door would have been wide open for EU-wide software patents. Note that the problem with the proposal was not so much that it allowed for software patents, but that it was poorly written law, with a million ways to interpret it. A number of clarifications -- including the "controllable forces of nature" criterion were proposed to JURI, but they were rejected.
So, if JURI finally concedes the point and allows for a proper, clear, and unambiguous criterion for technicality, that should alleviate quite a few concerns.
I hope they're right. If Europe really wants to become more independent from US influence, avoiding a US-style patent regime would be a wise choice.
Even if they don't want to become "independent", avoiding US-style patents would be a good thing on its own merits.
(Of course, if they did want to become independent of US influence, their best bet would probably be to increase productivity, encourage research and innovation, reverse the brain drain, and so on. Ironically, software pattents are supposed to help with most of that. In reality...well, I hope they manage to dodge them.)
Mr. Wade's point is not very interesting. To rephrase his opinion: (1) America has a lot of influence in the world, (2) it uses it further its own interests, and (3) the power is projected [also] via monetary/financial institutions.
Brief comments on these: (1) Great powers have existed in most of civilized history, and examples of one-country hegemonies are not unusual. (2) All countries try to further their own aims. (3) Power projected in this way is usually preferable to military power. Thus, the situation Wade discribes is neither unusual, nor necessarily bad or immoral.
It is quite possible to argue that compared to all other hegemons, America has done less wrong and more good with its power. It is very easy to imagine worse hegemonies - imagine what e.g. a maoist Chinese, marxist Soviet or islamic Iranian hegemony would be like. I personally disapprove of major parts of American foreign policy, but I also try to be realistic about it and its alternatives.
Btw, it is wrong to use the word "empire" in the sense Mr. Wade does. My Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines an empire as "Group of countries under a single supreme authority" (my emphasis). Taking the word 'supreme' out of the definition would make it include the UN, the WHO, the International Olympic Committee etc. etc. The US empire at present covers the American homeland, Iraq and nothing else.
I think it works the other way as well. European software companies are afraid that if unable to patent their innovations, their market will be invaded by American companies who hold American patents to said innovations. This will cause a situation where American companies can compete against European companies in Europe, but Europeans can't compete against Americans in the US.
Rather than implement similar software patents than in America, the EU should argue with the WTO that American software patents inhibit free trade and should therefore be struck down. It would make no sense whatsoever to implement weaker software patents than in America, since American companies would still hold the edge of stronger patents and European companies would still be blocked from competing in the US.
Excuse me? How many million did they have to pay in restitution for patent infringement this week? What about last month?Its because average american is not aware of any real life issues. He is simply herded by the mainstream media and the news "manufactured" by them. Thats not the case in Europe or other part of the world where real life issues are reflected in the media to a great extend. And I think its because of the decentralisation of media infrastructure in these countries. So small players and public entities contribute to the diversity of the news. In US media(mostly) owned by a bunch of business groups who treat it just like any other profit generating business. Goverement agencies like BBC and small magazines/newspapers like "La monde" are good examples.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Unfortunately, Europe is entirely capable of creating its own gaffes, as well as grafting them on top of US-originating ideas.
[rant]Why is that nearly every good law the US has that is replaced by a crappy one is passed "because europe does it" and nearly every good law europe has that is replaced by a crappy one is because "the US does it"
Everybody seems plagued by this. They seem to want to take all the crappy laws from each country, the most restrictive from each country, and create a homogenized structure based on that. Why can't they take the good stuff from everyone.
Bah, politicians the world over suck.[/rant]
Ok, I feel a little better.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
I don't know much about European politics, but I do know that my government, the Dutch government, will not go against the American will. Money and grand words come from the US, so why bother about the public opinion?
The Dutch people were against the war on Iraq. Our government didn't do or say a thing.
The VS wants the UN to clean up in Iraq. Dutch public opinion: Clean up your own mess. The Dutch government goes to the White House to concur with Bush about sending the UN to Iraq to rebuild it, instead of telling Bush he should have thought about it before launching a war.
The US didn't sign the Kyoto treaty. Our opinion: What the F*CK?! Our government: "Um, Mister America? Could you maybe please, if it isn't too much trouble, please maybe sign it? Of course we don't want to push you or anything, but please reconsider, could you? Please? Pretty please?"
JSF? Don't ask, ok? Just don't ask...
Just some examples to show that The Netherlands won't stop software patenting if the US says the laws are good.
Like a child following his father, the Dutch government holds onto America's hand, following it blindly while looking at all the pretty clouds and birdies.
Do I sound bitter? I apologize.
Please don't mind my spelling and grammar mistakes.
No you didn't - learn some history. Russia saved Europe - if they hadn't beaten the crap out of Hitler's eastern army he would've rolled over the American-British invasion army in an instant.
Hollywood don't teach history, they teach fiction.
it's in my head
You'd be surprised what just 30 metres of protest faxes can do (provided they are reasoned rather than rants, of course)!
Anyway, just days before a similar vote last year, people also lamented about there being "nothing more they could do" in the same way when the EU tried to legalise spam, but then intense popular opposition did help overturn the pro-spam majority at the very last minute, making a solid anti-spam provision part of the Telecommunications Data Protection Directive instead (unfortunately a similar success could not be achieved to eradicate another article which "allows for" data retention, however this is mostly inconsequential though, as trying to implement what the directive tries to permit in this regard is unconstitutional in many Member States anyway).
Therefore, heck, no, it's only too late if we let the proposed Directive get parliamentary assent. On the other hand, the geek crowd will not be forgiven (nor ever forgive itself) if it lets this happen, especially not on the eve of an international conference like the WSIS that aims to make this whole world a better place by promoting our technophile way of life.
To see for yourself that contacting the MEPs directly is possible, follow this link, find a wealth of information regarding the MEPs from your respective country (especially the socialists seem to be reconsidering their support right now) - and then use it.
This who IP/legal mess that the US has created will sort itself out in time.
These laws in the US are essentially used to claim stake to larger and larger territories of what might be done, not what will be done. Many patents filed today are to simply protect an ever widening space of technology and business the center of which is their flagship product.
Many of them never intend on utilizing the existing patents, but to prevent any competition from getting too close to them
It's easier to think of this as patents being grazing territory that you are staking out for your own source of food. In many cases, patents extend over more territory than the residents will ever be able to feed upon in their lifetime.
Given this, you have not created a space of potential invention which cannot be used to 100% of it's capacity, but at a reduced level. We now have certain territories of which we cannot enter.
As a whole, the species of inventor cannot utilize all of the potential grazing space available to them and will therefore procede to evolve, grow and thrive at a reduced rate.
The note of evolution is important because inventions are generally based on the previous inventions of others. Without electricity or the transistor we wouldn't have much to play with in computers
Under this restricted access condition, the environments available which provide for a higher level of utilization of the territory will provide for a faster rate of growth and evolution.
What this translates to in terms of Patent development is that the areas which have looser patents laws will provide for a higher utilization of the ideas people come up with. And with that higher utilization will come a faster rate of application and development of even newer ideas. The rate will continue to increase.
Meanwhile, back at the grazing land where everyone has staked out larger territory than required, they will progress at a much slower rate of development and have a overall lower population of viable resources.
This will eventually balance itself out because the US will start to dramatically fall behind the EU in their technological innovations and inventions and the pace will quicken as the US legal system starts to slow down developments in the US further.
The US will become an area not to do business in because of the risk of legal assaults. While the US terroritories and interests (of their Intellectual Property) will be protected, there will be no one from the outside of the US interested in directly participating, contributing, or attempting to profit from this economical environment.
Additionally, no one will be too inclined to accept business from any US held companies because they are backed by their home-based legal system and their own, unappetizing, rules of IP/Copyright/Patent litigation which means that doing business with a US company could land you into a US court room regardless of their being the buyer or seller of a product.
As this process stagnates, the EU and others will continue to thrive on their own and become ever more attractive and viable. People will migrate from the US towards other nations of greater prominence.
This will be to a lesser degree similar to the migration of Cold-War scientists towards the West. They were given the opportunity to think freely and to practice their trakes more openly than they were allowed to under their Communist governments.
This won't be a whole-population migration, it will be a migration of those who have the intellectual drive to be inventive. They will want to go someplace where they can invent rather than litigate. We already have cases of people leaving the USA for better lands where they can develop products and businesses without being asaulted by the US legal system.
The US will become an area to avoid. The US will be required to give concessions to outside nations/business to reduce their IP/Patent/Copyright restrictions in order that they might once again become vi
Well, Communism is responsible for over 200 million deaths worldwide, and a considerably larger number of people were subjected to horrible living conditions because of it (I myself was one of them). If Communism had propagated into Western Europe, there is no telling of what horrors might have ensued; it might have served as a launching pad into North America, and I suppose that would have been the end of it. As eerie and unlikely as that sound, there was actually a large possibility of it occurring; there were active Communist parties in both Western Europe and North America. The Nazis would have had a hard time taking over North America through military means, but the Commies could have done it much more easily from within. As for the damages actually done to Europe, while those done by the Nazis have mostly dissipated, those done by the Soviets remain apparent to this day.
:)
By the way, I do not believe the Goodwin Law can be invoked in a conversation regarding World War II.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Yeah, in the U.S. you need a lot of ID (including SSN) to get a bank account, a credit card, or a job (you don't always need it to get a job though, but most you do).
I think that most American cops would behave the same way. You can actually get away with a lot here unless you're rude to the cop. I still don't like the idea that a cop could ask for ID at any time though. I think it's for the same reason US citizens don't like to be searched without a warrent (or probable cause, depending on situation).
Theoretically, nobody should mind a search if they've done nothing bad. However, Americans are generally the type of people to break a law if it doesn't seem wrong to do so. For instance, people under 21 years old drink here all the time, even though it's illegal (I read s statistic that at least 20% of alcohol consumption is by people under 21). So, I wouldn't want a cop asking for my ID at that time! I think there are some instances that they can anyway, but I think they have to have probable cause. Same with searches, I wouldn't want a cop to search my car if I'm pulled over for speeding, and then see alcohol. They can look in an see if it's in plain sight, but they can't make me to open the trunk (they can ask though).
I think it's good in a society to have the rules in place that make it difficult for the government to stop all law-breaking. A certain ability to break the law (if you're smart enough not to be caught) keeps the bad laws that are inevitably passed in check. Unfortunately, it also allows police too much discretion, since pretty much everyone breaks the law somehow or another.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
In many countries, you are legally required to carry a drivers' license while driving. In the U.S., you're required to carry it in order to enter a bar (if you look under retirement age), pay by check, travel by plane or complete many other tasks. (A passport will do instead, provided it's from a well-known "friendly" country.) However, you don't need it at all times.
The problem with compulsory ID cards is, as you say, that people would have to carry them even if they just go out for a walk. Under the govt.'s preferred scenario, failure to produce an ID to a policeman on demand would be a criminal offence, or at the very least a cause for a long interrogation while the police find some other means to verify identity.
The other risk is that many businesses would come to rely on the universal ID card, making it easy for either the government or some data-mining corporation to cross-reference information and keep detailed, relatively accurate files on everyone.
That is true, but while it might sound morbid, Jewish people actually benefited to a certain degree from Hitler's extreme anti-Semitism.
Presumably you're referring to the Jewish people who weren't killed, not the ones who were, right? I can't see how any amount of benefit to the group that weren't killed could even be remotely relevant to considering the fate of those who were.