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.'"
A clicking bomb
Sep 4th 2003
From The Economist print edition
An explosive row over how to protect intellectual property in Europe
WIDGET inventors file patents. Prose and pictures are protected by copyright. But what about a new piece of encryption software or an internet business method, such as Amazon.com's "one-click shopping"? Should they also be covered by patents, or do copyright and trade secrets suffice?
These questions underlie a heated controversy in Europe pitting open-source advocates, software developers and academics against big software firms, intellectual property lawyers and the European Commission. Because of the row, the European Parliament has again postponed the first reading of a directive on computer-related inventions, scheduled for this week. And it remains to be seen whether the parliament will tackle the controversial proposal when it reconvenes on September 22nd.
The issue of patents for software and business methods has been causing a stir in America ever since the Patent and Trademark Office started issuing patents on internet business methods in 1998, most famously that for one-click shopping. Proponents argue that these patents provide the necessary incentives to innovate at a time when more inventions are computer-related. Critics claim that such intellectual monopolies hinder innovation, because software giants can use them to attack fledgling competitors. Moreover, as software is often built on the achievements of others, writing code could become a legal hurdle race. By analogy, if Haydn had patented the symphony form, Mozart would have been in trouble.
If the debate is more heated in Europe, it is because the directive in question is supposed to achieve two things at once. For one, it aims to harmonise how computer-implemented inventions are dealt with across the European Union--in order to avoid situations in which an invention is protected in one member state but not in another. Now, although many patents are centrally awarded by the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich, national courts have the final say over a patent's validity. In Britain, business methods are generally not patentable, but they can sometimes be patented in Germany. The EPO, by the way, granted Amazon a patent in May covering computerised methods of delivering gifts to third parties, a descendant of its one-click patent in America.
Such cases illustrate the directive's other thrust. 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. Software, say to control an X-ray machine, should remain unpatentable, but the entire apparatus--the combination of software and hardware--could be protected by a patent. In the words of the directive, to be patentable an invention must make a "technical contribution"--meaning "a contribution to the state of the art in a technical field which is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, rather unlike lunix.".
Unsurprisingly, this definition is particularly controversial. Larger software firms in the Business Software Alliance are happy. Smaller firms and dirty linux hippies, such as the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, are up in arms. They think the directive's lack of clarity will make American-style patents possible, and are arguing for a more watertight definition.
Arlene McCarthy, the rapporteur of the European Parliament's committee for legal affairs and the internal market, has now proposed an additional test for patentability: an invention must teach a new way to use "controllable forces of nature" (really) and have an "industrial application". This aims to strengthen the exclusion of pure software and business methods.
Finding the right balance will not be easy. Patents can be a spur to innovation, but they can also be an obstacle, and the great advantage of digital technology was supposed to be its very malleability. Moreover, there is another headache. The harder it is to patent computer-related inventions in Europe, the wider will be the legal gap with America.
The Economist generally doesn't use phrases like "dirty linux hippies". This is a troll.
Furthermore, the The Economist web site is not slashdotted.
Only if they're Mexican.
traitors can't hide
just how does won become won of the walking dead contingent?
/.puppets.
.asp on that. when the lights come up, there'll be no going back, & no where to hide.
why greed/fear based disregard for humankind of course.
the difference between US corepirate nazis, & their EU contemporarIEs? why none at all, of course.
amnesty? that's something that dissolving dictatorships offer the riffraff when their badtoll has been lost. there are no amnesty plans in the works for the walking dead. their mindless/selfish harming of the creator's innocents, leaves them with a badtoll they cannot win, fighting a power they must deny the existence of.
they are self deleting buy their owned egos/megalomania.
which leaves the entire planet/population rescue initiative up to you/US. no problem. it's what we're really here for anyway.
that's right. this works on several (more than 3) dimensions.
it's also free, & available immediately to you/all of US.
as you can maybe already see, yOUR survival/success is not the least bit dependent on the gadgets of the greed/fear based corepirate nazis, & their phonIE ?pr? ?firm? buyassed
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet (sometimes that means not buying anything, a notion previously unmentioned buy the greed/fear/war mongers). seek others of non-aggressive/positive behaviours/intentions. stop wasting anything/being frivolous. that's the spirit.
investigate the newclear power plan.
J. Public et AL has yet to become involved in open/honest 'net communications/commerce in a meaningful way. that's mostly due to the MiSinformation suppLIEd buy phonIE ?pr? ?firm?/stock markup FraUD execrable, etc...
truth is, there's no better/more affordable/effective way that we know of, for J. to reach other J.'s &/or their respective markets.
the overbullowned greed/fear based phonIE marketeers are self eliminating by their owned greed/fear/ego based evile MiSintentions. they must deny the existence of the power that is dissolving their ability to continue their self-centered evile behaviours.
as the lights continue to come up, you'll see what we mean. meanwhile, there are plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the planet/population rescue (from the corepirate nazi/walking dead contingent) initiative.
EVERYTHING is going to change, despite the lameNT of the evile wons. you can bet your
we weren't planted here to facilitate/perpetuate the excesses of a handful of Godless felons. you already know that? yOUR ONLY purpose here is to help one another. any other pretense is totally false.
pay attention (to yOUR environment, for example). that's quite affordable, & leads to insights on preserving life as it should/could/will be again. everything's ALL about yOUR motives.
take care, we're here for you.
You're an idiot. It's quite the opposite. And I live in London as I have done all my life, care to disagree?
That's your right.
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
If it's so important to you and you're not just trolling then why are you posting as AC?