Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Amends Software Patent Directive (Suggestions)

Posted by Hemos on from the still-in-draft-form dept.

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.

18 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Old draft from June by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Old draft from June by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you check the European Parliament site, you'll find there's a briefing dated 1 September 2003 that implies those amendments are still on track, acknowledging significant differences in opinion among MEPs and concern for the impact on SMEs. The information is still relevant, unless something dramatic has changed this month.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  2. article 4a: exclusions from patentability by sandman4k · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...
    1. Re:article 4a: exclusions from patentability by aderuwe · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd say 13c is pretty important, as well:

      Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a method involving the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any patent granted for such a method would not monopolise the algorithm itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent.

  3. good and bad by ZorroXXX · · Score: 2, Informative
    At least they have the rationale behind patenting right:

    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").
  4. Main Amendments by Marlor · · Score: 4, Informative
    As far as I can see, here are the amendments that will have the most impact:

    (13a) However, the mere implementation of an otherwise unpatentable method on an apparatus such as a computer is not in itself sufficient to warrant a finding that a technical contribution is present. Accordingly, a computer-implemented business method or other method in which the only contribution to the state of the art is non-technical cannot constitute a patentable invention.

    (13b) If the contribution to the state of the art relates solely to unpatentable matter, there can be no patentable invention irrespective of how the matter is presented in the claims. For example, the requirement for technical contribution cannot be circumvented merely by specifying technical means in the patent claims.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  5. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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

    No One Click.

  6. Re:Well it's a start by haeger · · Score: 2, Informative

    I got the news that the Finns have adopted the FFII's thoughts about this issue and will vote against SW-patents.
    Let's just hope that there are more people that will "get it" soon.

    I tried to include the letter but the lameness filter thought that there were too many whitespaces. *sigh*
    It's probably somewhere on FFII's homepage anyway.

    .haeger

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  7. There never was a Software Patent Free EU by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.)

  8. Re:Some points by sufehmi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thats nice, but it is unlikely (Or at least, less likely) to work in the EU. Here, the looser generally pays court costs. Which means that a big bully corporation with no leg to stand on can't just throw acusations in an attempt to kill the small guy in the court systems.


    This can still be circumvented with good (read: mighty expensive) lawyers - something that big corporations definitely can afford.

    "Then the small guy should just use a good lawyer as well" - well, he's fine if he wins.

    But since the court can be like lottery sometimes, what IF he lose?
    No way me (for example) will be able to pay several hundred grant for lawyer's fee.

    The law should be leaning heavily towards the small guy, and this is a chance for us to realise it on the topic that we all care about - IT.
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: FFII take on it by TeXMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    An analysis of these amendments is available here

    --
    "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
  11. Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW? by Michael+Hackl · · Score: 3, Informative

    no LZW will ever be excluded from patentability because you cannot patent anything that is only code, algorithm or formula

    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.

  12. Re:Amazon patent excluded? by Elektroschock · · Score: 2, Informative

    FFFI has a story about it with regard to this amendet proposal called Why Amazon One Click Shopping is Patentable under the Proposed EU Directive. I guess this will answer your questions.

  13. This is NOT the version they will vote on. by klokan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:Not good enough & What can we do about it by Elektroschock · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is the McCarthy-Juri amendment proposal we fight against. This is what we protest against.

  15. Re:Too bad by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 2, Informative

    You didn't read it, did you?
    Article 4a excludes lots of shit that the USPTO sucked up without questioning.
    Article 6a now pretty much permits reverse engineering.

    This is a _massive_ improvement on what it was before.

    --
    Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion