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.'"

Comments

On the other side of the pond

[CGP314]

It's reasons like this that I moved to London.

People is Europe know and care about issuses like patent law and copyrights. No one in the States (outside of slashdotters) has a clue.

Re:On the other side of the pond

[CGP314]

Yes, I'm sure software patents made you move to London.

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.

Re:On the other side of the pond

[rking]

I do believe it does prevent crime to some extend.

Could you explain how this happens? I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm honestly interested in knowing how it is supposed to work.

Is it because you are asked to show your ID card so often that if you do commit a crime and then flee the crime scene that someone who saw you will have a record of who you are and be able to track you down? That's the only scenario I've been able to dream up so far in which it could have an impact and it doesn't sound very plausible, are you rally showing your ID every 5 minutes?

Re:On the other side of the pond

[The_DOD_player]

:)

Obviusly it wont work in the way you discribe.

Take ecomonic crime like insurance fraud, tax evation or cheating with social security. Well, for you to do anything with money, you have to have a bank account. Since you cant open a bank account without your CPR, all financial transactions you make can be traced back to you via your CPR-number with ease.

Take missing persons. Often when a person is missing, tracing is easier because all credit cards, drivers license, health care are linked to your CPR number.

So its not so much the card it self, as it is the CPR-number that on it, that matters.

Most of this can be done without a CPR system, but its more convinient both for common people and the authorities with this system.

Its not like you have to show this card every other day. I cant remember that I ever shown my latest card to anyone, since I recieved it more than half a year ago. In most cases your credit card or drivers license will do for identification.

Re:On the other side of the pond

[DGolden]

The problem with the cameras in my book is not that they exist, but that real-time access to their data is often limited to a select few (though theoretically one can request the footage under FoI, it usually takes months, and there's therefore plenty of time for the authorities to doctor the tapes)

If all the cameras were required to be public-access webcams, there would not be an inequality of information flow - it is the fact the authorities have so much more information than the man on the street that in part gives them the power. i.e. the watched can't watch the watchers. Remember, in big brother, big brother could see you, but you couldn't see it.

The Economist

[n0nsensical]

The Economist is great. They frequently have articles about patents, SCO, and all of our favorite /. topics, and I haven't seen any bad information like you get so often in lesser publications. This article on patents is just another great example. Bill Gates once said he reads The Economist from cover to cover weekly, hmm...

Re:The Economist

[n0nsensical]

Also, four times a year they run a special called the Technology Quarterly that covers new things in the tech world, which coincidentally was also in this week's issue. The topics this time around included cheaper solar cells, superconducting power transmission lines, nanomaterials, and quantum encryption.

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.

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.

Simple Rule (with Rider)

[IBitOBear]

This is not that tough an issue...

If it is, or it *can* *be*, implemented on a computer bought "off the shelf" and optionally modified only by parts bought "off the shelf" [e.g. "I added an eithernet card"] then it can not be patented.

If it has been patented, and the state of "the comercial shelf" from which parts are normally bought [e.g. comp-USA etc] advances to the point where the above rule would make it un-patentable, the patent has reached its terminal lifespan and is no longer valid.

In short, if you don't need a soldering iron [etc] it isn't patentable.

(CPU Microcode is Copyrighted, not patented)

That's it.

[And yes, my name is on a patented thing just now (unless my employer lied about the inventor) so I do know the range and impact of what I am suggesting.]

Re:Simple Rule (with Rider)

[JanneM]

Interesting idea, but with some loopholes.

Say you need Thingy X to work the patent (where X is anything from some strange add-in card, modified motherboard or whatever). Big Company Y does not want to pay for the patent when using it. They commission small company Z to build Thingy X - not the five or ten that Y needs, but five or ten thousand. Pay off one or two store chains to carry the remaining Thingy X. Voila - it's off-the-shelf, patent is void, Big Company Y wins.

Even easier loophole: THe patent covers something that by it's nature would be used in off-the-shelf components. Build aforementioned components and sell. Patent is void.

The principal idea is sound, but needs to be refined quite a bit, I'd think, and less connected to definitions of "standard" or "off the shelf".

Economist opinion column

[Anonymous Coward]

The Economist had a reader suggesting the following, which is the real reason why the EPO (Attention, this is not an EU Agency!) needs to be legitimized by the EU Parlament and why it needs to adhere (uh, harmonize) to current US guidelines:

"Empire, state building?

SIR - You say that American military and nation-building intervention in other countries is likely to be short, because imperialism and democracy are at odds with each other ("Manifest destiny warmed up", August 16th). In the end democracy will win because the subjects will protest and so, eventually, will Americans. Your argument misses the economic face of empire.

Over the past three decades, America's government , particularly the Clinton administration, has constructed an international monetary and financial framework which ensures that the normal working of market forces shores up American power. The framework yields disproportionate benefits to Americans and confers autonomy on its economic policymakers while curbing the autonomy of all others . It provides the material basis of American military supremacy.

The key political feature of the system is that it is not an empire in the sense of an imperial centre and colonies. It is based on "sovereign" states. These states can be left to manage the costs of the system, including the protests of those whose lives are disrupted by it. This is how the modern-day empire can quietly escape the trade-off between imperialism and democracy, most of the time.

Robert Hunter Wade
London School of Economics
London"

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm? story_id=2020866

Re:Economist opinion column

[ThyTurkeyIsDone]

(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.

Discrimination against people on the basis of their race, sex etc. has existed in most of civilized history, and examples of it are not unusual. All societies have at some point, or even over an extended period in their history, discriminated against some groups on the basis of their race, sex etc. Such discrimination is usually preferable to hauling said people off to concentration camps.

Thus, this situation is neither unusual, nor necessarily bad or immoral.

Sound like a logical argument? What is unusual and what is bad or immoral are two entirely different questions; "it's always been like this" and "everyone does it" are no moral arguments at all; and your number (3) is a textbook example of a strawman.

Re:Economist opinion column

[Jeremy Erwin]

Really?
My dictionary defines empire thusly:
Empire
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a neoclassic style, as in clothing or the decorative arts, prevalent in France during the first part of the 19th century.

In political terms, there's still a fair bit of debate whether the United States constitutes an empire or hegemony. The distinction seems to be rather too subtle to be of much value. But for you conspiracy fans out there, the US could be said to control the World largely through manipulation of the World Bank and IMF--the policies promoted thusly may seem neutral, but tend to favour the US view of things.

Regardless of whether the US is a hegemon, an empire, or hyperpuissance, the fact that US policies are translated into political control over persons who have no say in the matter should be of grave concern to USians. It matters not how benevolent this rule may be-- the ruled must be given the opportunity to choose for themselves.

Patents and propaganda

[D4C5CE]

The European Commission wants to avoid the American situation

...or so they say. In fact, many European politicians do know that allowing software patents and business method patents inevitably leads to countless trivial patents.

You wouldn't believe it, but here is what the Directive's proponents have admitted themselves:
"Arlene McCarthy, chair of the legal affairs committee, said earlier this month she was not prepared to consider any proposals for amendments that do not acknowledge the patentability of software."

In other words, they do want to conjure up a legal framework which scares even IT industry giants such as SAP, and not just small and medium enterprises, open-source advocates, academics and initiatives such as Attac that are of little importance to those prepared to discard or ignore any arguments made from what is just "the commie corner" in their view of the world.
(P.S.: I am posting the google links rather than the direct URLs, for as of this writing, FFII.org itself seems to be unreachable, at this crucial moment in time...)

The plenary vote on the new patents directive will be held within a few days, so please do contact some Members of the European Parliament (rather not just by eMail) right now and tell them that the introduction of software patents is a mistake their voters will never forget, no matter whether it is made knowingly nor out of ignorance.

Moreover, there is no need to rush to precedential judgment now, only weeks before the World Summit on the Information Society, which (according to proposals such as these) may well turn on its head overreaching IP laws.

Re:Headaches

[Baki]

Who cares about a legal gap? Does america care about a legal gap with europe? Why should europe adapt, what would be the benefit?

In the past an argument used to be that (large) corporations are important for our wealth, so we have to adapt our laws to suit them. I think recent developments show that corporations are less and less beneficial to the state of our economy (think outsourcing, bookkeeping scandals, tax fraud) so there should be less incentive to suit them, and more to push them away if that would be the result of sensible and just laws.

I hope that anti-globalization (the non radical part of it) gains and europe will bet more on its local small- and medium sized companies instead.

info on the EU software patent vote...

[nickos]

I just got this email from Dr Caroline Lucas, a Green MEP for the South East of England. It makes for interesting reading, and highlights the positions of the major parties. At the bottom of the email she includes a press release called "MEPs must back EU plans for patents for inventions" that was given to all of the Labour MEPs.

Subject: software patenting - the vote has been postponed until the week of 22 September

As a constituent who has emailed me recently on the issue of software patenting I am writing to inform you that the vote, due to have taken place on Tuesday, was postponed until September 24th. The reason for this is as follows:

Back in July we Greens wanted to delay the vote as we knew that some of the big political groups in the Parliament were divided. Furthermore, we want to wait for the conclusions of the work of the Committee of Petitions as there is a petition, signed by 200,000 people against software patents, being presented to the Committee on 30 September.

The PPE (of which the UK Conservatives are members) agreed with the Greens asking for a postponement of the vote, then changed their mind. The Socialists then asked for a delay realising that they were hopelessly divided.

The current state of play within the Socialist group is that the Rapporteur, Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy, is only supported by the other Labour MEPs and half the Germans. The PPE group are mostly in support of Arlene McCarthy's proposal, except for the Catalonian and Scandanavian members (among the UK Conservatives, Malcolm Harbour MEP has been very supportive of Arlene McCarthy). Furthermore, the lead member of the PPE on this issue is Mme. Janelly Fourtou MEP, whose husband is the CEO of Vivendi Universal. The UK Liberal Democrats have been quite silent on this issue despite party policy being opposed to such patents.

The reason why no vote is taking place is that the pro-patenting lobby is refusing to negotiate a sensible compromise, simply arguing that the law, as presently drafted would not grant unlimited patentability of software.

This is simply not true.

Given the strong lobby against the proposed legislation, Arlene McCarthy has launched a counter offensive and below I have copied a press release issued by the Labour Group of MEPs.

I will of course contact you again to let you know if and when the vote proceeds. The Greens are co-organising a demonstration against software patents on the morning of the vote outside the Parliament building in Strasbourg.

Yours sincerely,

Caroline Lucas
Green MEP for South East England

This Press Release was sent out by the "UK Labour Delegation in the European Parliament" to all Labour MEPs on monday Sep 1st 18:11 for immediate publication.

Subject: MEPs must back EU plans for patents for inventions
For immediate release

1st September 2003

MEPs must back EU plans for patents for inventions

Controversial new legislation on patents for computer-implemented inventions will be put to a critical vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg at the end of this month (Parliamentary Session 22-25 September).

Following a barrage of misinformation about the new EU wide patenting proposals, Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy - who wrote the Parliament's Report on the new proposals and is steering it through the Parliament - spoke out against the systematic campaign of misinformation being waged against new rules in the run up to the Strasbourg vote saying:

A proposal for an EU wide law on patents for computer-implemented inventions is essential both to protect the interests of European Industry and prevent the drift towards US-style patenting of business methods. In a situation where both the European Patent Office (EPO) and the 15 national patent offices are handing out patents for computer-implemented inventions, an EU law can assist in clarifying the limits to patentability in the field of computer-implemented inventions. This would give industry more

Patent Laws on Software

[hackus]

Essentially what have we got with patent laws on software?

A very very sick US software industry that is on life support, with very little innovation.

And what about the largest markets for software right now such as China? What do they think about our software IP system?

Obviously they do not think it is fair. China is taking steps to make sure they do not incorporate ANY western software technology into thier products, going as far as constructing thier own Microprocessors, Motherboards and version of Linux to avoid software IP controls.

No country with a expanding market would agree to the US version of IP or its restrictions.

In the end, what does that do for the US except lock us out of new markets by governments who recognize the American copyright and patent system for what it is: To prevent and exterminate competition, kill the idea of ownership of ANYTHING and create a legal system that allows any company with enough cash to set artificially high prices.

Everything about computing in the US has become cheaper outside of Microsoft's control, except software. Why is that?

Why MUST OS software cost more than half of the basic price of computer equipment, and continue to increase when every single solitary aspect of computing has followed a cheaper, faster route?

I will tell you why: American Software Patents, American Copyright Laws and crooked politicians who have been bought off and have tossed our Anti-trust laws out the window.

From that window they also tossed out future access to markets as companies and countries over seas see how sick the American information technology industry is and what it has become.

If you have been a reader to slashdot, you already know that many MANY products released over seas are far better than anything you could possibly buy here.

Why is that? Why is this increasingly becomming an issue that better PDA's, better Cell Phones, better software is increasingly NOT in the US and you cannot BUY it here either.

All we get is a new version of Windows to make it easier to use...

easier for Hackers, terrorists and foreigners to break into our corporate and government institutions, to use, I mean.

Europe should ask itself does it really want this sort of legal lunacy, where even if you wanted to FIX software under our copyright law, to prevent such breakins it would be illegal to do so?

Even if you bought it for Christ sake after signing a DMCA copyright EULA that says you cannot sue the company you bought the software from?

The US IP law and Copyright law as written is out of control, and it be rewritten to prevent our allies and far east block nations from viewing us and our software products with such suspicion.

In the end it locks us out of these markets and sends jobs over seas.

Is it any wonder? Software in the US is incredibly expensive, but not directly because of what we pay our programmers, but because software IS expensive in a market that has not competition.

American software companies can innovate, if they are forced to do so, when faced with cheap labor overseas.

But innovation is impossible in a market that patents ideas, copyrights information for 100 years at a time and allows companies like SCO to not produce anything innovative with thier OS except a legal summary against IBM.

Our very own laws are preventing us from competing effectively in all levels of maunfacturing software.

I hope Europe doesn't make the same mistake we have so at least they can participate in the enourmous software market opportunities in the far east to sell thier products thier, unlike the US which is basically a write off at this point.

-Hack