Slashdot Mirror
EU Amends Software Patent Directive (Suggestions)
jopet writes "The EU has amended its draft proposal for a directive on how to handle patents on "computer-implemented inventions'. Several harsh points have been dropped and clarifications on what is patentable at all have been added. Good to see that protests and petitions can make a difference." YHBT. These are the suggestions from June.
At last - some good news regarding patents appears on slashdot. A step in the right direction at least for the EU...
that they only changed the wording a bit with the central point staying the same.
Oh well.
but the patent system still need a radical revamp
Still, at least it shows that MEPs *do* listen to their constituents, so there is some hope...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
This looks like it could be the end of Microsoft in the EU. Or am i getting my hopes up?
It says clearly that the draft is from 18th June 2003 in the top left corner. So how can this be news? Does *anybody* REALLY know/care if all those petitions against eu-it-patents are really still relevant? Does the right hand know what the left hand does? Do petition site owners know what place their petitions belong to? A MEP or (already!) the toilet? I don't know...
Article 6a
Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement
Linus and Alan Cox must've said something to light a fire under the EU's ass! Maybe they mentioned off-hand that they had been hanging out with ESR and were starting to take a "liking" to firearms... :P
Unlimited patent protection for software could make it illegal under patent law to engage in reverse engineering practices employed by software developers to achieve interoperability as currently permitted under the exceptions in the Software Copyright Directive. Therefore future EU-legislation related to software patents must include an explicit exception to patent rights in order to ensure that developers of software can continue to engage in the same acts to achieve interoperability under patent law as they are allowed to today within the limits of copyright law."
and: "It is essential to monitor the impact of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions on small and medium-sized undertakings. "
and: This recital makes it clear that it is not enough to specify the use of a computer (i.e. of technical means) to make a computer-implemented invention patentable. The invention as a whole must make a technical contribution. Ordinary data processing is not enough.
and finally: It is essential to make it clear that this Directive is not revolutionary and will not change the status quo as regards the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. It will, however, make for legal certainty and set clear limits as to what is patentable in this area.
As someone who wrote to their MEP, I'm pretty pleased with the changes, looks like we made a difference!
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
One of the most important amendments they added is article 4a:
Exclusions from patentability:
A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable
...it does not say anything, but it gives an impression...
Linus and Alan write on Sunday, and the EU jumps on Monday. Good show, gentlemen!
I won't be too sure about that, not when many MEP doesn't (have time to) browse Internet regularly.
(read Tom Chance's story about his lobbying efforts)
Small companies/individuals, which can not afford the cost, will simply admit defeat and comply to whatever the big corporations are demanding them to.
EU have no software-patent legislation now, and to my knowledge, there are no CLEAR cases that justifies this (feel free to enlighten me though)
Just my 2 pence on the topic.
But the most important thing is that, in order to curtail predatory business practices one must prosecute effectively, because failure to do so renders the entire legal framework a waste of paper. I love the EU with all my heart, but sometimes wasting paper is all they seem to be good at.
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
Justification
The object of any law relating to patenting is not to ensure that patent-holders enjoy an advantage: the advantage granted to the patent-holder is only a means of encouraging the inventive process for the benefit of the society as whole. The advantages granted to the patent-holder must not work against this ultimate objective of the patent principle.
Too bad that they fail to realise that for the vast majority og patents today the benefit of the society as whole is close to zero while the benefit for the patent holder is an opportunety to create obstacles for competitors (som much for "free" competition).
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
However, there is still cause for alarm. For example, what is meant by:
There are quite some terms here that could be interpreted wide enough to still pose a threat. Moreover, this is just one proposal; it may change again in the future. Still, I sigh in relief.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
A lot of the proposed amendments add new clauses that specifically limit software patenting. Probaly not enough limits to satisfy the "no software patents" crowd, but still... it sure would be nice if U.S. law took some of these principles a little more clearly to heart:
Actually, my favorite part might be one of the preamble amendments:
This part should be required reading at the USPTO... :-)
[insert randomly selected declaration of absolutist meta-moderation philosophy here]
So, business methods and algorithms are not patentable, and normally unpatentable inventions cannot be patented just because they are implemented in a novel way.
Also, an exemption has been added whereby you can't be charged with patent infringement if you are simply attempting to achieve interoperability with another program.
Quite a few of the major issues with the legislation have been fixed. I am surprised... politicians have actually listened to the complaints, and not just made token changes.
The link given is dated from June 2003. This is nothing new, and there is still no news about what's happening right now in the EU parlement.
Please check your sources before publishing news that are not.
Linus and Alan write on Sunday, and the EU jumps on Monday. Good show, gentlemen!
Given that the amendment is from June they're even faster than that!
This seems very dangerous. There are more then 100 amendments filed, but lots are not really improvements. Some don't even clarify anything, but just obscure what is/isn't patentable even more!
e n0 309/index.en.html
Please monitor the ffii.org website for a table of fake and real limits on patentability:
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/pl
There are _tons_ of software patents in the EU. It's just that their status have been rather undetermined, and filing for such a patent - while possible - has been a sort of a gamble, as nobody has known the future of their enforceability.
Now, thanks to this directive, we do know. And I think it's a huge step forward, and in the right direction to boot.
(Given that it passes, at least.)
Sorry to break the news to you, but it had nothing to do with these online protests and petitions. You see, a wandering hobo sold me a magic 'anti-patent legislation/anti-tiger/rain making' rock a couple days ago. I find this to be the more likley cause of not only these events, but the fact that the sun continues to come up, no tigers have appeared on my lawn, and that rain is forecasted in my area next week.
Everything will be taken away from you.
...a draft from 3 month ago already outdating all running petitions! Does anybody of these petition site owners really care about patents or just about collecting emails?
We're witnessing a community of million(?) peoples that need 3 month to discover such a critical document.
Maybe the next time I want to change things I'll learn how to crash a plane into a building instead of wasting my time with petitions.
Europe's political stance towards the U.S. is shifting, from close alliance to more competition, if not confrontation.
So Europeans start to notice that pushing Open Source, be it adopting Linux on the desktop, be it simply not passing laws that make OSS development impossible, is going to give them a competitive advantage in the long run.
As a European, I would be as critical about "European Linux hegemony" as I am about "American Microsoft hegemony", but still... Issues like this one may sooner or later make U.S. lawmakers realize that in the end it's the economy, stupid.
My next comment will be ready soon, but moderators can beat the rush and mod it up early.
...first of all, it's an old story, look at the dates!!!
Secondly, it isn't anything close to a move preventing software patents! Learn to read before assuming victory!
May the US system needs a revamp but do you know anything about the European?
You may be thinking about patenting processes, ideas, DNA and other rubbish but the EU system isn't as abused or open to abuse as the US.
How in frag did this get modded up to insightful?
I would have thought the author would have at least needed to mention what in his opinion needs revamping.
This is as insightful as 'Microsoft needs to be nice' and 'Hot chicks should love geeks'.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
An analysis of these amendments is available here
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
You are wrong. Individual Homepages being shut down might not have made a difference but European politicians already started to complain about the amount of letters and mails they got. Also the voices of quite a few small and medium sized businesses joined the choir. I really don't think all of this went by unheard.
Stop the misinformation please. The editors have been fooled. This guy, on the other hand knows what he's talking about.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
This is just one of the 30.000 software related patents that have been granted by the EPO but which are not enforced yet by any European law. If the new law is not going to invalidate some of those patents, then it is simply useless, because patents granted by the EPO would define the interpretation of the law.
It is very common that patent protagonists lied to the general public and their collegues. Patent lawyers are like crackers. Cracker circumvent security, patent lawyers circumvent restrictions of patent law. A patent lawyer that cannot file a patent on software patents with the current "JURI amended"-directive proposal would not be worth his money.
Here you find the amendments that will be voted on and FFII's recommendation. FFII and the Eurolinux Alliance are very strong in Brussels and they grow stronger every day. Many parliamentarians listen to us and then the directive protagonists sell the directive as an fulfillment of our concerns, switching rhethorics, but not substance. About 200 people now focus on this issue as activists on our mailing lists. You can subscribe to patent@aful.org or take part in theOnline demonstration or become a member/supporter of FFII or sign the Eurolinux Petition. You can support FFII by donations or even better by contributions. The European Parliament underestimated us. The patent lawyer slaves in Europarl came under strong pressure. We will be a mayor stakeholder in any future debate. The Green Party/EFA Groups impressed by our work even called for Open Source in the EU institutions
I also would like to remind you that the US government lobbied against us, esp. against interoperability in the directive. The wrote a letter to EU parliamentarians. I think it is time to internationalize the debate and we need your help to get rid of EU, US, JP ecc. trivial software patents. Unfortunately OSI does not support anti-swpat action and very few US activists joined forces with us. An OSI representative (Russell Nelson) from the board of directors says they are "neutral" not really caring about Intellectual Property, and that's what is written in their FAQ.Even though this is not at all perfect and what we all would like to have ultimately, this itself have debunked some myths.
Myth #1 Only "big lobbyist" groups like RIAA and "big money" have the capacity to lobby effectively and change laws.
Myth #2 Software programmers , especially FLOSS people can be only arm chair activists and not real activists.
Myth #3 European politicians are completely sold out to bug business corporations and are there to protect their interst only.
In short this one incident shows that small groups like free software activists and other groups CAN make a lot of change if they shed off the cynisism and coplacency and start to act. European activists really took the matter and ACTED rather than being cynical and complacent(yah, weird coexistence of 2 bad characters) like US counterparts. If they continue to do like this, more success is sure. This should be a real boost for all the activists and they should be able to work more vigorously for the next steps. I wish US people take a clue from this incident.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
The amendments still allows software patent.
Worst, it's indeed aimed to enable a party to patent the idea.
(search for " opyright" in the document - don't forget to type the extra space in the beginning)
I agree with various parties, including Linus, that copyright (protection for the expression / the actual code) alone is already enough for software developers.
Ideas should never be patentable.
I know that business method and algorithm are non-patentable by the amendment, but:
[#] EU currently forbid software to be patented, and it's doing OK with numerous software houses, big and small alike, flourishing.
[#] So there's lack of justifiable case for this legislation to exist at all.
A software-patent legislation means making a small opening, which may lead to currently unseen consequences in the future.
[#] This software-patent legislation should not exist at all.
We should aim for its cancellation, not its amendment.
But as revealed by a lobbyist (Ciaran?) some time ago in Slashdot, MEPs doesn't like the idea of rejecting a legislation proposal; since they view it as a waste of EU resources.
So this definitely is not going to be easy. But I think we have to aim that high, for our own future.
I've also written another comment that may be relevant here.
Anyway, I'd like to write/fax (not email/other virtual means of communication) to my representative in EU parliament. But so far I've failed to find out how.
Can anyone enlighten me please ?
Thanks.
This is the draft version of June 18, which is the one that was supposed to be voted on on 1st September. That vote has been postponed and new changes have been made. Let's wait the real thing, before commenting any further.
Unfortunately, that remains to be seen.
First of all, as far as I know a vote is necessary to determine if these amendments make it into the directive.
Even so, most of these amendments are just polishing language. They do not really change the character of the directive proposal, in that it allows software patents (in contradiction to what it says in the explanatory part that it intends to clarify the existing European Patent Convention, and not to replace it. The EPC explicitly prohibits software patents).
A big problem is the definition of the term "technical". It can easily be argued that the use of a certain algorithm e.g. to improve software performance is "technical" and can be patented even if the algorithm itself cannot be patented. Hopefully the following amendment will be included in the final directive:
The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.
The following amendment:
Member States shall ensure that wherever the use of a patented technique is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or network so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement.
looks promising, but it would still allow the abominable GIF patent as a conversion when it is not specifically used for data exchange between computer systems.
We can always hope the MEPs will vote for a directive that prohibits patenting of any software (and the process of running such software) that is intended for general purpose computers, such as operating systems, office suites, data base software etc, etc, in line with the existing EPC. However, I am not too confident that this will happen...
"Hello! By ourselves, we are insignificant! But let's band together so we can pretend this is the 2nd millennium and feel important!"
We refer to that phenomenon as "E Pluribus Unum", or "Out Of Many, One" on our side of the pond.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I contacted all Swedish MEPs last time around, and urged a couple of my friends to do the same. I'm really glad to see that is made some difference, especially as I got a bit pessimistic seeing the stance that our Swedish Social Democratic Party took regarding this.
The liberals, however, were on our side. I haven't had time to read through the whole thing, but it looks like the same conclusion that Canada came to.
Go Europe!
:wq!
I'm still very sceptic to these amendments. They require a technical invention to allow software to be patentable.
Software in conjunction with a technical invention is called a device driver. So basically, this amendment still allows device drivers to be patentable.
The EU has amended its draft proposal
Not to be a pessimist but will wording matter in the long run? I believe the US patent office claims that patents have to be novel and I know they insist there be no prior art and we've seen example after example of stupid, non-novel and pre-existing technologies being patented. This leaves me curious: does anyone here know if the EU patent office is better at following the letter of their law than the US seems to be?
I'm really glad to see that is made some difference
No it didn't.
Not yet.
Are you stuck in a time/space continuum breach?
Does it not seem ironic that the motto you trot out is in the language of a European culture that fell a thousand years before your European colonial "Founding Fathers" demanded a nation of their own?
LUG de Strasbourg
e tail.php?id= 1521&lg=fr)
:
Communique de presse
Pour diffusion immediate.
Manifestation contre les Brevets Logiciels le 23 septembre 2003
Strasbourg, le 16 septembre 2003
La proposition de directive concernant les brevets logiciels, qui sera
soumise au Parlement Europeen durant la session du 23 septembre, donne lieu
a une vague de protestations sur toute l'Europe.
Le groupe Verts/ALE au Parlement europeen invite a une conference de presse
avec des invites prestigieux le 17 septembre 2003 a Bruxelles.
(http://www.greens-efa.org/fr/press/d
De leur cote, le LUG de Strasbourg, la FFII et l'Alliance Eurolinux
appellent a manifester a Strasbourg le mardi 23 septembre 2003 a partir de
11h00 place Kleber pour une marche en direction du Parlement Europeen. Cette
action sur le terrain sera appuyee par des manifestations en-ligne.
Derriere ces manifestations, on trouve une coalition d'organisations
representant pas moins de 2000 entreprises du secteur logiciel et de plus de
200 000 individus, pour la plupart des professionnels de l'informatique et
les signataires d'une petition en-ligne.
Pour les organisateurs "la proposition legaliserait des milliers de brevets
deja delivres par l'Office Europeen des Brevets, contre la lettre et
l'esprit de la loi. Cela rendrait impossible aux cours de justice nationales
de continuer a les rejeter." La directive proposee protege les interets des
possesseurs de brevets et des juristes en brevets, des gens que la
Commission appelle "une majorite economique", ignorant le rejet unanime des
brevets logiciels exprime via la petition de l'Alliance Eurolinux sur le
sujet : 94% de reponses negatives !
Le programme des protestations a Strasbourg est le suivant
11:00-12:30 | Place Kleber | Defile dans les rues de Strasbourg jusqu'au
Parlement Europeen
12:30-14:00 | Manifestation devant le Parlement avec spectacle, enumeration
de brevets absurdes deja deposes, discours.
"Le brevet europeen est defini par la convention de Munich, traite
international ratifie par 19 etats independamment du traite de Rome.
L'article 52 de la Convention du Brevet Europeen stipule que les brevets sur
les programmes d'ordinateur en tant que tels sont interdits en Europe.
Pourtant, l'Office Europeen des Brevets a accorde des centaines de brevets
portant sur des programmes d'ordinateurs", nous dit Eric Bischoff du LUG de
Strasbourg, "Accepter cette proposition de directive europeenne serait
suicidaire pour les PME et PMI europeennes, cela revient a livrer pieds et
poings lies l'ensemble des petites entreprises europeennes a la merci des
grosses societes americaines et japonaises, qui ont depose 65% des brevets
logiciels europeens."
"La grande majorite de nos supporters ne sera certainement pas presente le
23 septembre. Mais ceux qui ne peuvent pas se deplacer a Strasbourg pourront
participer a la manifestation en ligne, via leurs serveurs web ou d'autres
services Internet" explique Harmut Pilch, president de la FFII. "Nous avons
propose differentes facons de participer a la manifestation en ligne. Tout
le monde en trouvera certainement une qui lui convient. Il vaut sans doute
mieux rendre l'acces a sa page web un peu plus difficile pour les quelques
jours a venir plutot que de perdre sa liberte de publication pour les dix
ans qui viennent. Rendez-vous compte que si le rapport McCarthy est approuve
tel quel, sans y introduire des amendements drastiques, le Droit d'Auteur et
la liberte de publication deviendront sans valeur. Les programmeurs et les
fournisseurs de services Internet seront regulierement poursuivis pour
violation de brevets. Le 23 septembre est la derniere chance de faire
entendre sa voix."
there's no place like ~
So..time to write en extra email to your MEPs (if you haven't done this yet ..) with these arguments...
The EU patent office has already deviated in its practise from already has been EU patent law before. The new proposal is even more specific of what is and what is not patentable. This does not mean of course that the EU rejects software patents alltogether (though I would certainly welcome that :) ). But at least it is a step in the right direction that probably renderes several of the "famous" patents invalid, should it get officially adopted. The bottom line is IMO that it is worth the effort to contact the politicians, sign petitions etc.
I've already posted this in the other thread, there's also an english translation of this (actually several, just modify the url).
Slashdot, you should be ashamed of yourself (more than usual).
These are the amendments from the pro-patent camp, the people pushing the directive.
The only good thing in there is the exclusion of Business Method patents. Everything else is just moving words around and generally strengthening the "software innovation = invention" stance. (inventions are patentable).
The vote is on the 24th of this month. No amendments have been adopted yet, that's what the vote is for.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
The amendments include such things as introduction of software claims (amendment 18 from by Mr. Galgani, PPE-DE) and a definition of technical contribution which is exactly the same than the one proposed by the pro-patent European Council intellectual property committee.
For an analysis see:
Analysis of JURI amendments by FFI
Sounds good.
The European Union is exactly like the Soviet Union, except nobody is under the illusion that the control will one day lie in the hands of the people. (as if that's where marx went wrong...)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The industry already has a patent on the power of suggestion.
"You are getting sleepier... you will believe dancing cleanroom guy when he says 2x GHz == 2x speed increase..."
Patents are intended to protect inventions that are specific and tangible. An algorithm is neither. It is not specific in that it can be implemented in several different ways and it is obviously not tangible since algorithm must be expressed in a program and run on hardware of some sort (DSP, general purpose computer, etc.). Even hand execution of an algorithm such as a minimal spanning tree algorithm, etc. still requires a person to perform the steps of the algorithm.
Patenting the algorithm in your example would meant that *any* expression of the algoritm, even one developed independently, would infringe on the patent. Copyrighting an expression of the algorithm (e.g., a DSP with the algoritm in encrypted firmware) does not present the same issue. Thus, a company that puts significant resources into inventing some complex algorithm for solving a problem can rely on a combination "trade secret" protection (e.g., the formula for Coke, the recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc.) and copyright protection with the copyright ensuring that someone doesn't simply copy their invention and the trade secret approach protecting the actual invention.
So there are sufficient protections besides patenting for *non-trivial* software/algorithms. Trivial software patents (e.g., Amazon's one-click shopping) appropriately receive little or no protection from this mechanism (trade secret plus copyright) since they implement something that is obvious. Amazon is free to copyright their expression of the "one click shopping" but their copyright just means that a competitor can't use a verbatim copy.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
"Mensa member, beware of the high IQ"
We're not worried, you appear to be mainly a danger to yourself.
Those are the people that will really earn money on this.
I would even bet that they, themselves are doing some major lobbying to introduce things like this.
It should be possible to patent legal practices and the idea of patents in itself?
What the f-? This article is an outrage. Does the guy willfully misrepresents this thing, or what? The amendments he's talking about are those of the McCarthy stance!
The whole point was and is, fighting against this proposal, that, by it's superb vagueness, actually allows softwarepatents, even if they claim it's for holding the status-quo. The thing sucks: they use terminology as 'technological contribution' and 'business implementation', but refuse to define them, making it useless for any restriction on granting those patents.
I'm really baffled that someone dared to suggest that this proposal was created thanks to the protest. No, it was that which we protest against! The guy must not be a bright light, or he's doing it on purpose.
http://swpat.ffii.org/papiere/eubsa-swpat0202/ustr 0309/index.en.html
right... very good... just f*ck off i with it all, not a lil' bit.
... beacuse I, not been European, have not taken interest in contacting politicians (which I wish I could do, but as a foreigner I think it is not kosher to get involved in local issues).
Any way, phone calls to Brussels are cheap, Call the European Parliment and ask them for the name of the EMPs of your country, if possible with constituency names. Your local authority (council, village, whatever) must know this information as well.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.