Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds And Cox Write EU Parliament On Patents
replicant_deckard writes "Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox have sent an open letter to the members of the European Parliament. They ask for strict limitations to software patents, argue for open standards and ask the members of the parliament to follow FFII's voting recommendations. Vote on the controversial software patents directive will be on Wednesday and it is expected to be a very close one. Well, do you believe these guys have any impact in Brussels?"
Daer UE,
Patanst r teh suckzorz!!!! Say ON TO TEHM!!!
Loev,
Anonimouse cowerd
I understand that one can patent a process for doing something, but one can also patent an end-product. A program is an end-product of the source code used to compile it, so wouldn't software patents, in effect, cause the much feared "functionality similarity" disputes to become more substantive in the legal system?
Esoteric reference.
Before you start the main purpose and body of the letter you might explain why you are a crediable person to listen to. If they aren't particularly technically inclined then they may have no idea who you are. Tell them who are are, why you are important, and why they should listen to you. Without that, you usually loose your influence.
-Foxxz
Well, do you believe these guys have any impact in Brussels?
I don't know - how big a check are they including with their letter?
Given that Linux is generally stronger in Europe than the US (where MS pretty much rules all), comments from the likes of Torvalds and Cox will carry more weight than they would in the US.
Then again, hefty campaign donations from rich software firms probably carry a fair amount of weight too...
It should be interesting to see what happens.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
"Subject: Open Letter on Software Patents from Linux developers
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds
Open Letter to
the Honourable Pat Cox, the President of the European Parliament,
members of the European Parliament:
Dear Mr. Cox,
We have been following with growing concern that Europe has been
extending patentability to computer programs. Now European Parliament
is about to vote on a directive that could put a stop to this
development, or make it worse, depending on how it is amended by the
Parliament.
US experience shows that, unlike traditional patents, software patents
do not encourage innovation and R&D, quite the contrary. In particular
they hurt small and medium-sized enterprises and generally newcomers
in the market. They will just weaken the market and increase spending
on patents and litigation, at the expense of technological innovation
and research.
Especially dangerous are attempts to abuse the patent system by
preventing interoperability as a means of avoiding competition with
technological ability. Standards should never be patentable! Likewise,
patents should never be used as means for preventing publication of
information - the whole idea of patents is to provide time-limited
monopoly in exchange for publication of the invention.
Software patents are also the utmost threat to the development of
Linux and other free software products, as we are forced to see every
day while we work with the Linux development. We want to be able to
provide the world with free high class, high quality, highly
innovative software products that really empower the users and offer
the best and only real chance to narrow the digital divide. Please do
not make this harder to us that it already is! In conclusion, we would
recommend You to vote for such amendments that
* clarify limits of patentability so that computer programs,
algorithms and business methods really cannot be patented as such;
* make sure that patents cannot be abused to avoid technical
competition by preventing interoperability of competing products; and
* ensure that patents cannot be used to prevent publication of
information.
To that end we would suggest following FFII's voting recommendations
on this directive (see www.ffii.org).
Sincerely,
Linus Torvalds Alan Cox"
Now im all for this non-violent, direct action stuff, but if Linus and Alan are going to around defacing patents, im not sure i understand the relevance of 'EU Parliament'.
Perhaps it would be better to stick with the classics, "Linux and Alan woz ere" or "Linux rules OK?" for example.
Politicians don't like being criticised, you should be nice to them then suggest something slightly different to their proposals. Criticise them and they go on the defensive.
So in this case, the only question is whether it can be amended to address our concerns - it will almost certainly pass one way or the other.
Dream on! Your brand of apathy is exactly what we don't need right now. If the large software vendors can change the law to what suits them, then they can certainly stop us from changing it back in 5 years. This is our best, and possibly our last real chance to stop the damage being done to immigration by the unholy alliance of intellectual property lawyers, keen to milk the industry for legal fees, and the monopolists of the software industry, keen to let IP lawyers milk their smaller competitors dry.Open letters are read by everyone else, sure... people on the street might take a look, journalists might use them as an easy out when they're looking for something to write this weeks column about, but does anyone have any evidence to suggest that politicians even know these letters exist?
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I think it should be pretty clear by now (given the passage of the EU version of the DMCA, among other things) that the EU parliament and other European governments are very much in the pockets of corporations just like the U.S. government is. It's more a matter of degree than anything else.
That's why I don't think we who value our basic liberties have much time left. Others might ask why I haven't moved (I live in the U.S.), without realizing that there really isn't any place on the globe worth moving to. As far as I know, there isn't a single government on the planet that cherishes liberty and works towards maximizing that for its people. And even if there were, chances are most people wouldn't be able to go there anyway because of strict immigration laws.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Would you take a chocobo's advice on patent law?
You: So, Mr. Random Chocobo, what are your recommendations for changing the law as it currently stands with regard to patents?
Chocobo: Kweh?
You: Or do you think that no change is necessary?
Chocobo: Wark!
You: What's that? You want me to give you some greens? I seeeeeeeeee...
graspee
Linus has always maintained his reputation as a simple hacker-- someone not concerned with politics but rather technology.
.sig
This is the second such letter bearing a Torvalds
Is this the start of a new (albeit, not necessarily bad) trend of more coders voicing their opinions on IP law and its current state of affairs?
First, I want to say that it is fantastic that both Linus and Alan saw the importance of getting involved in this issue. It is very politically important after the disaster with "software" patents we've had in the United States.
And I normally don't publicly criticize anyone about the mechanics of their message because I spent my time playing Dungeons & Dragons in high school rather than paying attention to grammar and spelling, but I really wish that they had run this by a 12th level grammarian with +2 red pencil before widespread open publication. I think that the letter itself will have a large impact, but I wish it were just a bit more refined.
Addressing the letter to "the Honourable Pat Cox" but opening with a salutation of Mr. instead of President.
Leaving out definite articles. Using a mixture of technological, legal, and political terminology but not spelling out or giving background on the different terminologies. Not saying it's wrong or unclear, but just that it might have benefitted from a bit more clarity.
I am really proud of the Linux leaders for doing something so important and inspiring. If not to the leaders of the European parliament then to me at least. I just wish I had no reservations about the form it takes.
The second most significant problem is that they give them a hyperlink to indicate what they can do to address these issues. They need to SPELL OUT what an MEP can do to help the anti-swpat cause. This means saying "this URL contains a list of amendments which are essential if this proposal is to protect competition and innovation in the European software industry".
Every additional second it takes for an MEP to figure out a) Why they should agree with you? or b) Given that they agree with you, what do they do? costs us votes.
I agree that software patents are a bad idea and I would like to do something to stop Europe from having software patents.
However, I'm not a citzen of the EU.
I don't expect politicians to care about the opinions of those who can't vote in their country.
But perhaps someone with more knowledge of the situation can suggest a way for me and other Americans to help.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the grammar, scanning and structure of this letter as very, very poor indeed?
Not only is there no explanation as to who the signatories are but also a number of the sentences scan very badly indeed.
I realise that LT is not a native English speaker, but really, it doesn't come across as very well thought through IMHO...
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
First, the interaction between patent law and antitrust law needs to be adjusted. If you have a dominant market position, you should't be able to use a patent to prevent interoperability with your de-facto standards. This is an antitrust issue because it's only a big problem when someone has market dominance. Interoperability with Microsoft Word is important. Interoperability with AbiWord is not.
This is not totally out of reach politically. Current antitrust law in the US and the EU arguably support this position, but enforcement is hard. A bright-line standard would help here.
Second, it needs to be clearly established that Government-mandated standards (ANSI, ISO, DIN, EU) preempt patents unless patent holders object prior to the issuance of the standard. The government standards organizations should be directed to adopt policies preventing the use of patented technology in standards unless the patent holder waives their rights under patent for all users of the standard.
Finally, "business method" patents seem to have been a mistake. However, the first one (4,346,442, the Merrill Lynch Cash Management Account, attaching a credit card to a brokerage account) has already expired.
These things do time out, and soon enough that it matters. The GIF patent has expired. The RSA patent has expired. The SyncSort patent has expired. All those technologies are still in use.