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.

Comments

Good news!

[TwistedSquare]

At last - some good news regarding patents appears on slashdot. A step in the right direction at least for the EU...

Well it's a start

[Kevin_ap]

but the patent system still need a radical revamp

Re:Well it's a start

[haeger]

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

Lesser of two evils?

[Zocalo]

Great, they've removed some of the harsher language. Woohoo! Of course, the flip side of that is that MEPs that were erring over that language are now more likely to vote for it than before. We used to have a chance of a Software Patent free EU, but I doubt that is going to happen now.

Still, at least it shows that MEPs *do* listen to their constituents, so there is some hope...

Re:Lesser of two evils?

[azzy]

> Great, they've removed some of the harsher language.

Yes, they changed fucking software patents to software patents .

Re:Lesser of two evils?

[jez_f]

Still, at least it shows that MEPs *do* listen to their constituents

Once they recover from the shock of hearing from them that is.

Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW?

[Xner]

(13c) 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.

On the surface it seems this amendment would stop patenting general purpose algorithms. On the other hand, a suitably lax definition of "technical problem" makes this all moot. "The LZW arithmetic coding algorithm" is not patentable. "Using the LZW algorithm for data comression" however is. You are still free to use it for other things (like what? Creative Garbling?), but we all the the Phyrricity of that victory.

Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW?

[fulgan]

On the surface it seems this amendment would stop patenting general purpose algorithms. On the other hand, a suitably lax definition of "technical problem" makes this all moot. "The LZW arithmetic coding algorithm" is not patentable. "Using the LZW algorithm for data comression" however is.

Actually, I don't quite agree here: others amendment makes it clear that, in order for something to be "patentable", they must a) not be made only of the assembly of unpatentable items (art. 13a and 13b) and b) involve an "inventive" (and patentable) step (Art. 13c)

Therefor, it can be argued that, if LZW is not patentable, mearly applying it to data compression isn't either since it doesn't invlove anything that is patentable and it doesn't invlove and "new way" to solve the technical problem at hands.

Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW?

[Xner]

Suppose there is an algorithm to obtain two primes from their multiplied form (not patentable). Now suppose someone found code that could do that x times faster. I guess that would be patentable under these terms.

What you are suggesting is either a different algorithm (I presume that it would have a different "big O", therefore a different "recipe", therefore a different algorith) or a specific optimized implementation of the same algorithm. The latter may or may not be patentable, I have not studied the full text of the directive. However, look at the text:

the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the method is used to solve a technical problem.

This implies that while "algorithm to obtain two primes from their multiplied form" would not merit a patent, "Method to decrypt ciphered content" that uses the same algorithm would, effectively precluding its use in its main application area. My thesis is that allowing this kind of protection is but a short step from allowing patentability of the algorithm as a whole, since alternative applications for most alorithms are few and far between.

Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW?

[Michael Hackl]

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.

Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW?

[Anonymous Coward]

This 13c alone might not be, but 6a seems to be enough to quote:

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 it seems to be allowed to compress data using LZW if that is need to communicate to a system that assumes data is compressed with the LZW algorithm.

This still does not allow use of LZW in whatever application you want, but as soon as it is needed to communicate with some other system that happens to use LZW it should not be considered patent infringement.

Since i am not a lawyer i have no clue what happens if you want to communicate with a system that uses LZW illegally, but this 6a seems to offer some possibilities at least

Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW?

[harriet nyborg]

(13c) Furthermore, an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot constitute a technical invention.

anyone who believes an algorithm is "inherently" non-technical has obviously never tried to solve an engineering problem.

take, as example, the viterbi algorithm, invented by dr. andrew viterbi one of the founders of qualcomm.

most digital receivers do not attempt to "undo" the effects of the radio channel, rather digital receivers attempt to model the radio channel to estimate what would have been received given an assumed binary sequence. by comparing what was actually received to what the receiver expected to receive, one can estimate the binary sequence which was sent. this is known as MLSE, or maximum likelihood sequence estimation.

a major problem with MLSE is that digital sequences can be very long, and the number of possible paths quickly becomes enormous and unmanageable. viterbi's algorithm is a clever way of "pruning" the number of paths so that the number of possible sequences is reduced to a manageable size. modern, low-cost, digital communications would not be possible without dr. viterbi's algorithm (which he, by the way, never patented.)

viterbi's algorithm is a mathematical equation which does not describe a natural phenomenen (like E=mc^2), but is an invention of mankind to solve a particularly vexing problem facing digital communications.

when programmed into a DSP, the viterbi algorithm has technical effect, but the invention itself is the algorithm.

one could copyright the code used to program the DSP, but this doesn't protect the algorithm, only a particular implementation of it. copyright does very little to prevent someone else from coding the algorithm in a different way or from implementing the invention in firmware. this is the weakness of copyright and why patents on algorithms are needed.

Re:Is this enough to stop a repeat of LZW?

[Wolfbone]

A quick google search reveals that Viterbi most likely didn't patent his algorithm because he knew it wasn't new, having been described - in a more general form - by R. Bellman in his book "Dynamic Programming", published in 1957.

As expected, since the algorithm applies to such a general class of data (data generated by a HMM process) I also found that the Viterbi algorithm is used in other fields such as molecular biology and speech recognition.

It is dangerous and foolish to assert that some mathematical scheme is not a representation of any natural phenomenon. Logic dictates that in order to make such an assertion one would need to know every mathematical description of all natural phenomena.

This is typical of the (often deliberate) short-sightedness used in the arguments of those who advocate patentability of mathematical algorithms.

Old draft from June

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Old draft from June

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Amendment 20, Article 6 a (new)

[perttu]

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

Holy Crap!

[kurosawdust]

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

Seems good.

[levell]

The changing seem pretty good e.g.from the justifications:

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!

article 4a: exclusions from patentability

[sandman4k]

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

Re:article 4a: exclusions from patentability

[aderuwe]

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.

Re:article 4a: exclusions from patentability

[Daniel Phillips]

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.

These are weasel words that can easily be circumvented by an appropriate definition of "technical effects". For example, this rather pointedly leaves "the user" out of the list of physical interactions. So any "technical effect" on the user, such as saving mouse clicks by using cookies when shopping online, for example, can be patented.

Some points

[sufehmi]

• "...(online) petition can make a difference" ?
  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)
  
  
• It STILL allows software to be patented.
  
  
• Although with many restrictions, including declaring that business method/algorithm to be non-patentable.
  
  
• BUT we have witnessed cases where corporations are able to twist interpretations, and challenge everyone who questioned to go to court.
  Small companies/individuals, which can not afford the cost, will simply admit defeat and comply to whatever the big corporations are demanding them to.
  
  
• So personally, I think we still need to do a lot of real (not virtual) lobbying to ensure that software are not patentable.
  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.

Re:Some points

[sufehmi]

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.

Yes, you are getting your hopes up.

[Xner]

First of all, MS has enough inertia(not to mention cash) to keep coasting along on their installed user base for decades. Then you must remember that this actually allows software patents in the EU, they are forbidden right now. This plays in MS's hand, though less so than the system that is in place in the US. Also the DMCA-like EUCD is moving in the same direction.

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.

good and bad

[ZorroXXX]

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).

Good Thing

[RAMMS EIN]

I am happy to see that the EU listens to criticism. I am even more happy to see that they adapted the directive to make it abundantly clear that algorithms as such cannot be patented, and explicitly upheld the right to reverse engineer. This is a Good Thing.

However, there is still cause for alarm. For example, what is meant by:

In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible of industrial application and new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an inventive step, a computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution.

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.

Not perfect, but some good stuff here

[Glassbear]

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:

(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.

* * * * *

(13c) 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.

* * * * *

2. A claim to a computer program, on its own, on a carrier or as a signal, shall be allowable only if such program would, when loaded or run on a computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, implement a product or carry out a process patentable under Articles 4 and 4a.

Actually, my favorite part might be one of the preamble amendments:

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.

This part should be required reading at the USPTO... :-)

Main Amendments

[Marlor]

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.

Faster than you think..

[k98sven]

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!

There never was a Software Patent Free EU

[CrystalFalcon]

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.)

Re:There never was a Software Patent Free EU

[Daniel Phillips]

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.

What do we know, are they enforceable or not?

Re:There never was a Software Patent Free EU

[CrystalFalcon]

If you ask me, the response would be that stupid and trivial software patents aren't, algorithm and process patents aren't, computerized 14th century practices aren't, whereas those that are classic patents that just happens to involve a computer, like "method for improving output of sawmill involving computerized scales and sorting" or similar, will be.

But IANAL. In any case, in my view of the world, this directive is a step forward from the current situation.

(Especially given that everything interop is nonpatentable and noninfringing.)

Europe vs. U.S.

[rolux]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: FFII take on it

[TeXMaster]

An analysis of these amendments is available here

Re:protests and petitions can make a difference?

[dazk]

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.

MOD PARENT UP!

[infolib]

Stop the misinformation please. The editors have been fooled. This guy, on the other hand knows what he's talking about.

Amazon patent excluded?

[Frans Faase]

The real test will be whether the patent that already has been granted to Amazon by the European Patent Office (EPO) will be excluded. It is a patent about sending gifts through a web site, e.g., the possibility of sending an item to an other address than where the bill goes.

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.

Re:Amazon patent excluded?

[Elektroschock]

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.

This article it totally crap

[Elektroschock]

This is the JURI proposal as introduced by rapporteur Arlene McCarthy and voted in JURI we fight against, an amendment to the original Business Software Aliance/EU Commission proposal.

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

The Green/EFA group in the European Parliament has called on the EU, and in particular on the European Parliament, to support free/open-source software by introducing it into their IT systems. In a letter to the Secretary General of the Parliament, Julian Priestley, dated 9 September, the two Green/EFA Co-Presidents Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, argue that - as well as supporting Europe's software industry - switching to free and open source software would benefit the Parliament in terms of data continuity, technological independence and budgetary considerations. It would additionally take note of the Parliament's Echelon resolution, which recommended using non-proprietary software to increase technological security.

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.

Not good enough & What can we do about it

[sufehmi]

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.

Re:Not good enough & What can we do about it

[Elektroschock]

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

This is NOT the version they will vote on.

[klokan]

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.

We're hardly out of the woods yet...

[Serious Simon]

Good to see that protests and petitions can make a difference

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...

Re:Insightful?

[-brazil-]

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.

Actually, it is. Or at least trying very hard to be. The European Patent Office has been issuing software patents for years, even though it isn't allowed to. They can't be enforced yet, but that will change if the directive passes and is implemented.

Furthermore, the quality of the examination of patent application has decreased drastically for some time now.

Re:Too bad

[You're All Wrong]

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.

Has NO ONE read the amendments?

[ciaran_o_riordan]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You can't do that...

[soboroff]

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..."