Slashdot Mirror
EU Parliament Approves Software Patents
AnteTempore writes "The voting has just ended. Few good and several bad amendments were accepted. The directive proposal was accepted: 361 for, 135 against, 28 abstentions. The precise numbers and results for each amendment will be available on
europarl.eu.int tomorrow." Reader swentel submits this report on the vote (French) with slightly different numbers (364 voting yes, 153 No, 33 abstaining) but just as bad. Watch this story for updates. Update: 09/24 15:44 GMT by T : Dr.Seltsam writes to say that the early reports are "not quite correct. The German publisher Heise states in this article,
that the vote concerned strong changes on the directive." In particular, "pure software patents will not be allowed." Google's translation engine does a decent job with the German.
Looks like lawmakers in Europe are just as stupid as US lawmakers after all.
The most positivt thought I can have is that "maybe things must go to worse before they can get better".
<sigh>
Belief is the currency of delusion.
..when so many corporations own patents on so many intangible things that a corporate dynasty like IBM can bring anyone in the world to their knees financially.
Even foreign governments.
Intellectual property in all of its various forms is being abused by the corporate world - both friends and foes of Linux and otherwise. The madness is the laws supporting this behavior continue to pass, bypassing the individual and wholeheartedly supporting the corporation.
Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds? There is a balance to be maintained, and our rights are not unlimited, but more and more across the entire globe the individual is lost.
Not to be funny but has anyone considered the implications of all these recent intellectual property rights and how it seems more and more that we're being pushed into the draconian future of Johnny Mnemonic and Shadowrun? The only way you get information is to steal it. The only way for another corporation to get information is to hire you to steal it.
I grow more and more distressed at the world my son will grow up in, the conditions he will consider normal, the laws he will break just by trying to think.
Talonius
My reality check bounced.
It seems that the struggle to avoid Europe becoming like America isn't really working. There are a lot of things happening over here in Europe which we call "American circumstances". Things such like frivolous lawsuits, higher gun-related murders/accidents, apathy and now software patents.
I believe poeple don't want to live in an "American Europe".
... governments don't understand what they're governing because it has all becoming too complicated. They go along with whatever their advisors would say.
so that a data-processing program is patentable, it is not enough that it is new, it is necessary still that it allows a technical innovation independently of its own execution.
;)
So, if I write a dataprocessing program that can be used by another piece of software to do something new....then I can patent it...or the other bit of software...or neither...
The text of origin was considered to be "fuzzy" and "ambiguous"
Looks like they did a good job clearing it up...
What were those recommendations and amendments? And, more importantly, why were they chosen, and what is their effect?
Er, yeah, right. This is nothing like the DMCA.
1. There is no such thing as contributory patent infringement, I believe.
2. You are guaranteed the right to describe how a patented technology works. In fact, it must be adequately described in the patent claims for someone knowledgeable in the field to implement it. And patent claims are (I understand) freely republishable, as they are a matter of public record.
3. Providing somebody with (eg) software which violates a patent is not (necessarily) an offence, as they are permitted to use the patented technique for personal experimentation purposes.
So, no, I don't think this can be used to close websites and stifle free speech.
You have a good point, but the counter-argument is that the corporate interest _is_ the public interest -- if corporations don't have an environment conducive to business and profit, the economic engine of the country becomes weakened. This ultimately leads to a loss of jobs across society.
Sure, I find it hard to believe that it is impossible or even difficult to make a profit without these software patents laws, but this is the logic that is used to make decisions such as these and cast them as being in the public interest.
I think I'm going to cry. Words fail me.
I'm becoming more afraid that lawyer is going to be the only true moneymaking profession in the future.
The way things are going now everyone in a profession other than lawyer, will be being sued by one.
All us geeks should move to Puerto Rico, proceed to vote to cede from the US and make our own laws.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
That is a disturbing statement. It reminds me of the quote by General Motor's President Charles Wilson: "What's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa." This is flawed logic. Corporations may employ people, but their only interest is profit. Time and time again we see that the interest of the people is NOT the interest of corporations. Read some books, google Monsanato's milk hormone problems, Exxon's complete disregard for people in Alaska afer Valdez, car manufacturer's intentional ignoring of safety studies in the 60s, big pharmaceutical companies that cover up defects etc. It goes on and on. Corporations do serve a purpose in employing people, but that purpose is moot if they then go about eroding centuries of work to place the will and health of the people above any other entity. You have a good point too, but it is rendered dangerous and defeatist upon investigation: working solely for the corporate interest is courting disaster without appropriate regulation, or better yet, true accountablity.
--rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
For example, from the french article, it appears that any program which simply copies a procedure that can be done by hand cannot be patented in the EU.
The loop hole, as far as I understand it, is that to be patentable, a program must show a significant technical innovation (go figure what significant means). More precisely, this is phrased in the negative: A program which merely allows a computer to do something is not patentable.
So if we write a program, and can prove that it merely performs a task by computer, which could be done by hand, it can't be patentable. So for example xcalc is not patentable in the EU.
There's got to be other loop holes like that. Why doesn't the Free Software Foundation develop a knowledge base specifically containing recipes for exploiting loop holes in patent legislation? I could be writing a program, and when it's finished, I could browse that knowledge base for tips on how to argue that what my program does could be done by a couple of trained people with a stack of papers and lots of pencils.
It's not as good as a blanket no to all software patents, but it is not as bad as it would have been without the tremendous effort that has been put in.
It is a compromise, but that in itself is a massive victory: the industry lobby has NEVER had to compromise with the consumers on these matters before. Look at laws like the DMCA and EUCD: compromises between the media and communication industries, where consumers where never even considered. The age of such laws ends here.
Even if we end up loosing this, a new political force has placed on the map.
Ah, but the politicians are representing national interests in this case... or at least they think they are.
I know Bolkenstein, the man who drafted the original Directive, from when he was active in national politics. His line of thinking is 'good for corporations = good for the economy = good for the people'. He fails to see how this equation is false in many cases, including the case at hand. Because of this line of reasoning, he will give more weight to the opinion of large corporations, whose impact on the economy is largest. Smaller companies carry less weight, and the least weight of all is given to the voice of an individual person.
Another issue with Bolkenstein and many, many, many other politicians is that they believe that most issues are way too complex for the common people to understand. That is why they think they act in our interests even if they go against our express wishes'. And it's not just the majority of the common people, but all of them: professors and garbage collectors are all equally ignored. In true spirit of the Dutch 'poldermodel', the only groups that have this politician's ear are corporations, unions, and other politicians.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
6a is great for SAMBA f.e.
/Dread
Next time a MS rep, hints that "they owe the patents" to a SAMBA maintainer, now they can not only smile as a response, but plain laugh aloud!
Small companies can't afford to go around patenting every little detail of their software, like some big companies. Lawyers cost money, lots of money. I know.
The real problems is the broadness of the patent law. The people giving out the patents have no idea what makes the patent novel. Patents should be revolutionary, not evolutionary. Crap is getting let through and then it is off to the races with attorneys. Then who wins?
Sorry for the cynical tirade, but:
I'm not so sure it is a matter of those in power being 'uninformed' although they may well be. I think it is more a matter that politicians world-wide represent the interests of those with money (i.e. be they corporations or individuals) over all others. The interests of citizens at large, fairness, and morality, are always just after-thoughts by comparison. Completely straight and moral policitians that won't play ball with the rich, tend not to get very far.
Governments are always corrupt to some degree -- it is only a matter of extent. It has always been that way. It always will be that way. Be thankful ours has some pretty favourable limits as to how far they will go in oppressing the population -- many governments worldwide, and historically, have had no real limits and anything goes.
Yes, I prefer IE to exist, as long as I can also have lynx and opera and konquerer.
Competition, even agains MS lets the better products surface instead of getting us stuck with patent protected monopoly, inferior products.
Your gun manufacturer analogy is right on the money, patents can be used defensibly as can guns, but are essentially a destructive tool.
Plus, EU software patents can only harm EU competiveness, EU companies could always register their software patents in the US while ignoring US software patents in the EU. Now US companies will rush to register their patents in the EU.
Patents may have a place, but today's systems are really out of control.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
The laws is abit tricky on the whole EUCD thingy. You can legally break copy protection if it prevents you from viewing DVDs on Linux e.g.- I guess the same would be true for DRM. You can't break copy protection to make copies of DVDs and sell them however.
Basicly it is a question about having players available on all platforms I think. Im no legal expert but I think it means that if you can't listen to a cd , because of the copy protection, then you can break it. But Im not sure.
The main problem is a conflict of interest. Many politicians are lawyers by training and the EU is no exception. Software patents are an area where a lot of disputes will end up in court (mostly because an algorithm is less well defined than something physical like a jet engine or automobile). The guy who can pay the best lawyers will win.
See my journal, I write things there
I am sorry my good sir I most vehmently disagree with you.
Patents do nothing but slow down an industry and promote laziness....
1) Ford, which is considered the model on how to build cars and do processes HAD to get around patents so that he could build a car that EVERYONE can afford.
2) Windsurfer which invented the windsurfing board had a patent, which they only enforced two years before the end of the patent. Until five years before the end of the patent there was no Wind surfing industry. Windsurfer then cashed in and forced bankruptcy of major windsurfers. Where is Windsurfer today? Sitting on money doing nothing.
3) Laser had a patent which caused nobody to do anything with lasers. Once the patent expired we ended up with laser pointers, last light shows, etc, etc..
4) Patents CANNOT be bought and defended by "small" people. Patents cost about 40,000 EUROS a pop and this is not money for the "small" company. This is money for the large company.
Now about your reference to MS and Internet Explorer. Say what you will, but Netscape was no better than Microsoft. I was around in the Netscape days and they were bastards. Once I represented a company who wanted to purchase five thousand licenses to Netscape. Netscape ignored the company because it was too small and companies like Deutsche Telekom were more important.
Microsoft might clone ideas, just like all of the other companies do as well in the industry. The software industry is like writing, we all clone!
The problem in software are the contracts. For example why do I have to buy Windows 5 times for a single computer?
Sir, I would have wished that you would have used your lawyer abilities to reign in the contracts instead of going for the easy cash in Patents. Remember you are going to be responsible for a mess that *I* have to live in.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Some points from the article (loosely translated):
1 and 2 seem to prevent most of the abuses of software patents. Taking a normal business practice and adding "over the Internet" (wait, that's old fashoned. Nowadays it's "using XML") would not be accepted.
With number 3, it would be useless to patent file formats or communication protocols (if they even are patentable), since anyone would be permitted to write their own implementation.
(But anyway, IANAL.)
WWTTD?
"Right to use of patented techniques without authorization or royalty, if needed solely to achieve software interoperatibility"?
Wow. The closest US equivalent (a clause in the DMCA) only applies to legitimate copy control bypassing, and only applies to interhost network protocol interoperation.
This is *incredible*, and could have a sweeping impact on patents. It's a *huge* lever.
May we never see th
Now, suppose we would get software patents, then this article would allow you to use an mp3 decoder to connect some audio aparatus to another one which only outputs sound in MP3 format. It will not allow encoders, unless they are only used for encoding sound which is then fed into something which can accept only mp3 encoded audio. So it also won't allow plain mp3 players (I don't think that the argument "I want to make my MP3's interoperable with my earbuds" would hold).
It really is a restriction to make sure that a company with a dominant market position cannot exclude everyone else by making all of the interfaces of its machine depend on patented technology and thus doing a vender lock-in (since compatitors cannot make any compatible devices). Jonas
Donate free food here
A lot of the comments here indicate that people think that this is a universally bad thing - in fact, the draft directive was so heavily amended by MEPs in support of the proposals of the FFII and related organisations, that the resulting document is actually quite supportive of realistic limits on software patents.
Full details here . Check it out!
I'm sorry. You've violated 86,732 sections of PATRIOT, PATRIOT II, and DMCA.
Please stay where you are. Your exectioner will be along shortly. It does not matter if you are outside the U.S. There is no outside the U.S. anymore.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
which means :
Another amendment specifies that the utilisation of a patented technique is not considered law-breaking if it is necessary for communication between different systems or networks.
I don't know if anyone knows what that means but OSS software has nothing to worry about.