Slashdot Mirror
Second Round of EU Patent Fight, Coming Up
An anonymous reader writes "Seems that last fall's victory over EU patent regulations was just round one. The current draft rejects all clarifying amendments made by the European Parliament, allowing direct patentability of computer programs. A net-wide protest is being
organized on April 14."
From this link:
Nokia's Patent Department is collecting signatures from CTOs for this letter in support the "working document" of the EU Council "Working Party on Intellectual Property", a group of patent administrators who run the European Patent Office. The letter portrays this document as a "balanced compromise" which "takes the Parliament's concerns into account" and says that this is needed in order to assure that electric household applicances, medical technology etc do not become unpatentable. Thereby the letter drafters deceive both their signatories (CTOs who usually do not read the directive proposals) as well as their readers.
It disturbs me to see Nokia taking taking the role that they have been. Their statements seem to be quite misleading, and it is clear that they will have significant gain from software patents. With all the heat they've been getting lately, you would think that they might try to take it easy on such controversial issues. Either way, I am fully against software patents.
Wireless News www.DailyWireless
Some interesting parts from a letter you can send to people, hopefully law makers who can make a difference:
http://slashdot.org/~Sanity/journal/60471
--
Patents are well suited to fields where new innovations require years of research and large amounts of capital, however this is not the case with software. Every new innovation in software builds on a multitude of previous innovations, and even a single software engineer might solve hundreds of small problems in a single day of programming. Against this backdrop, the notion of the programmer seeking a 20 year patent on each of those small solutions is clearly ridiculous.
Worse still, imagine now that this programmer is forced to ensure that every small innovation they might want to build upon is not covered by someone else's patent. The programmer might need to conduct hundreds of patent searches in a single day of programming, and even then they would have no guarantee that they aren't violating a patent! Clearly this situation would be ridiculous, yet this is exactly the situation that programmers in the US and Japan now find themselves, and is exactly the situation that current UK government policy will impose on European Software developers!
Even large companies are not invulnerable to such parasitic practices. In the US, Microsoft is currently fighting against a small company called Eolas who have acquired a patent on an obvious technique fundamental to the operation of any web browser. This company, if successful, will be able to extort a tax on every company and individual in the United States that uses the Internet! It is worth noting that this company's only purpose is to generate revenue through extortion using this patent, they have never written a line of computer code, nor do they have any intention of doing so.
What we really need is to get sites like google involved. That would have an impact.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Nokia's position is a bit on the extreme side, which makes it all the more curious since most of the stuff they use is being written by Opera. From the article:
One almost gets the impression that Nokia may be looking to do a bit of "embracing and extending", and then relying on the slow pace of the courts to kill off competition?
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
It's true that MP3 compression technology was developed by a German company, but without U.S. patents on the technology, Fraunhofer would be long dead.
:)
Nice talk, too bad you shoot yourself in the foot at the end. Fraunhofer is a huge german institute for research, and mp3 compression is just a very small part of the thing. I don't think they rely solely on royalties on the mp3 format
It would certainly raise a lot of awareness if Slashdot went ahead and put up an entry-page or banner.
I know this won't happen (such action would set a precedence -- all petitioners would expect the limelight) for obvious reasons but it would sure be interesting if it did.
Isn't it amazing how these guys just keep re-introducing the same (or worse) legislation over and over again without regard to the voiced desire of the citizenry?
I've noticed this too... Isn't it about time for direct democracy?
Representatives are 'central' as are federal governments... Hence a big slow-moving target with a lust for lobbying perks. Of course the EU is as central and federal and big as it gets. The more centralized, the easier to lobby. Open to abuse.
If only ignorance was less common, more people cared and more people were informed. Then maybe direct democracy would work, but they wouldn't be the unwashed masses. Alas the silent majority will remain forever silent... As peasant rebellions went in ancient times: they only rebel when they have nothing left to lose.
Till then, I guess its pitting 'concerned citizen' letter writing, faxing and calling vs. big corporations with deep pockets paying lobbists large sums to pursue big governments... Who will win this race? My money is on the big companies. Don't agree? Look at the US.
M
Whenever I read articles like this I get very upset, but it's difficult to do anything about it. Why? Because try stopping a dozen random people and asking them what their position is on software patents. It's not like abortion or gun control or taxation, stuff people hear about all the time. And even if you could communicate to them what it is, you still can't show them the negative effects. Sure, you can describe the effects, but not at a this-will-affect-you level where you can say "this will take $$$ out of your wallet" or "this will cause somebody physical harm."
Incidently, most people I've asked who do know what a software patent is have told me that they just pretend they don't exist.
This will fall under the label of civil disobediance perhaps, but a really good way to get attention to the anti-patent cause would be for those with technical power to shut down as much as was safely possible (not power stations, etc.) in protest.
..."
When 2/3 of the net is suddenly gone, that might gain some attention. And then a suitable argument for doing such a drastic thing would be, "imagine if TCP/IP was patented, this is the internet you'd have; or imagine if BT had won its hyperlink coup; or
Singly we have little power other than to perhaps get ourselves fired. But collectively we have the ability to put a grinding halt on e-commerce and more.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
This is a bummer that the non elected members who run the EU have rejected what looked to be a better compromise. My take is that we reject all software patents in the EU and repeal them in the US and Canada.
Software patents are stupid it's like patenting an alphabet or individual words.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
I'm using a Debian Linux box with the Mozilla browser to write this. I built it myself, and with the help of Slashdot, the web site that introduced me to free software, open source software, and widened my eyes over the years to the complicated logistics and truly revolutionary nature of collaborative development. I recommend that Slashdot and its editors take the lead once more and join in the demonstration against software patents in Europe. Slashdot itself is in the crosshairs of this legislation, and high profile action may be necessary.
Let's fight these bastards.
Steve Scherer
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
If you care about the future viability of FOSS for business use, you might want to read this: h++p://www.penguinpros.com/Viewpoints/TollRoadAhea d.html
The European parliaments are almost as bought and paid for as members of the U.S. congress and senate. So while it's more likely that this fight can be won in Europe than the U.S., it's not that much more likely.
But the defeat of software patents is such a worthwhile goal that it's worth fighting for no matter the odds.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Do what the corporations do.....
Pay the $150 to incorporate in some nice European country (or the Bahamas), and then "outsource" the programming work to *yourself* in the US.
This'll just mean that the millions of independant programmers in the US will simply have to become CEOs of very very tiny Bahamanian corporations =), and then continue on with bussiness as usual.
The fact that yopu won't be able to SELL your programs within the US will have little to no affect, because all corporate programming will have been outsourced to India by then, so you can just sell the programs to the Indian subsidiaries.
Now, individuals living in the US might have a problem getting your programs... but who cares, all the people who live in the US will all be working for $4 an hour at Wallmart by that time, so they couldn't afford to buy what you make anyway.
~Anonymous Coward
CEO of Bahamanian Bussiness Machines, Ltd.
There is no single MP3-patent, it's covered by a lot of patents. The basic one covers iterating *any* mathematical function over a sound sample until you can represent it in a desired number of bits. That's it. You can find the claim (in German) at the EPO, here's the English translation:
And that is the basic problem with software patents: there is no way you can put in the law that they can't be as abstract as this one. Even if you have some innovation in abstract reasoning that is such an achievement one could think about granting its discoverer a temporary monopoly, the resulting monopoly is way too large compared what was discovered.
You are asking the wrong question. The correct one is "Will granting patents on new compression algorithms make sure that more and better compression algorithms will be developed?". All empirical studies carried out until now answer that question with either a "We don't know" or "NO!" (Bessen&Hunt, FTC study, European Commission Directorate General on Research study, ...).
It's not just a problem with the review system, but with the patent system as a whole being unfit for monopolising advances in abstract reasoning. See this discussion between a programmer and the Deputy director of the UK patent office. The latter concludes with:
Patents were never intended to sort out brilliant inventions from stupid ones. The "non-obvious" condition is simply not fit for that purpose.
I don't know about the rest of slashdot, but in case of software patents, the opponents are actually great proponents of copyright. The problem is that software patents completely undermine copyright. What good does it do that you have the right to sell you self-written program if even its publication is prohibited because someone own a software patent it infringes on?
Donate free food here
Back in the 1850's the plantation masters said that they had no incentive to grow cotton without slaves on the plantation. Now people say that they have no incentive to create pharmacuticals unless they can lock out 10 million africans dying of AIDS from getting generics. You tell me which is morally better. I wander, how many people are going to die this time?
Back then they would say things like "don't you believe in free markets, we paid for those slaves dammit. We went thru the troubble of importing them. Look at the prosperous plantation system - it's proof that we're right and that slavery is good for America. If you don't like salvery you're free not to own slaves"
Today they say "don't you believe in free markets, we paid to create those patents dammit. We went thru the troubble of inventing them. Look at the prosperous technology industry - it's proof that we're right and that patents are good for America. If you don't like patents you're free to create your own inventions and not patent them"
Of course, back then, it totally ignored the fact that slavery was based off of controll over peoples free will rather than natural limits in supply and demand. How ironic, patent information has no natural limits in supply and demand either, only artifical controll over the way people use them.....
I don't know, I disagree. I know one local Canadian Alliance MP who was willing to buck the party line simply because of:
a) The views he held
b) His constituents responses
(Specifically, he stated he would vote for Bill C-250 which added "sexual orientation" to the protected classes of hate crime legistlation...)
``if (and it is a big if) we can ultimately get the directive passed in the form approved by the parliament, that will effectively put an end to the possibility of software patents in Europe for the foreseeable future.''
I believe that is incorrect. AFAIK, current legislation does not allow for software to be patented. However, some software patents had been granted, and the directive is an attempt to legalize that. This means that, if the directive is accepted, we can expect more patents to be granted, BUT there is a good chance they will be in accordance with the directive, which used to have various provisions to protect rights like reverse-esgineering to achieve interoperability.
What's happening now is an attempt to get those protections scrapped, which means that software patents would completely restrict the rights of third parties. Whether this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing is debatable.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
This "clean room" is the key issue I think. If the guy saw your mousetrap, and then expanded upon the same basic idea, or even just plain copied it, then yes, thats a violation.
But if he set out to make a better mousetrap without ever seeing yours, then there can be no taint of copying involved even if the basic design is similar since he's looked at mousetraps in the stores for 40 years already. Kind of like calling a copy machine a Xerox or vice versa. But he, knowing there were production shortcuts in most such devices, decided to put ball bearings in the pan and bail pivots? I don't think thats a violation because he clearly did think it out and attempt to make that "better mousetrap".
To software:
Because the actual code to add 2 numbers together is, at the machine level:
LDA register 1, number 1's location in memory
LDA register 2, number 2's location in memory
ADD register 1,2 (assuming the result goes back into register 1 here, often the case)
STA register 1, result location in memory
To allow the patenting of that sequence is totally assinine because its already been used historically speaking, since back in the 50's when all that was actually done with relays and/or 12AU7's and the output went to punched tape, which in turn went to the printer. The basic algorythm hasn't changed in 50+ years, and if some patent office dweeb thought that was patentable, there are at least 50 billion lines of code demonstrating prior art written since then.
Under those conditions, the only one making a paycheck will be the attorney who finally convinces said dweeb to withdraw the patent. But in lots of cases the time elapsed to clear the thing measures in years, instead of the two weeks that make the difference between a good time to market and sales success, and 2 weeks later somebody else has his foot in that same markets door.
I'm reminded of a situation in my field, broadcasting, where the FCC and other agencies got together and mandated a new public notification method whereby the pair of tones that used to tell you an alert or test was being broadcast, and which is now those rather raucous digital streams you hear. That noise contains the whole message!
Some jerk overheard a conversation about it in a restaurant, copied it all down on a napkin, and went running to the patent office with it, and got it! There was enough prior art in that to sink the staten island ferry if it was all put on paper and loaded into the hold. We, as broadcasters, ignored the legal firms letters while screaming bloody murder to the various agencies and our senators and reps. Our attitude was, and rightly so IMO, that we were damned if we were gonna pay anybody any patent royalties on equipment and methods that were mandated to us by the feds. If anybody paid, it should be the feds for not investigating it fully and makeing sure it was un-emcumbered. Just the equipment and training to make the new system work cost each and every one of us in excess of $5,000, and is an ongoing nominal expense for paper and other supplies. The hoorah has now gone away just like the company that was trying to sue us, but I've no idea if in their infinite wisdom, the patent was actually withdrawn by the USTPO.
First, we kill all the lawyers. (William Shakespear)
Then maybe we'ed have some common sense in this world, something thats damned uncommon now it seems.
Cheers, Gene
All empirical studies carried out until now answer that question with either a "We don't know" or "NO!" (Bessen&Hunt, FTC study, European Commission Directorate General on Research study, ...).
Actually, a more recent (and more rigourous) empirical study concluded just the opposite:
The myth of the software patent thicket
Enjoy.
One of the best (worst) aspects of software patents (depending on your viewpoint) is that one may infringe them accidentally too easily. As has been noted many times before, software patents, for various reasons, tend to be overly abstract and generic. This means that the probability that you genuinely invent a solution to a problem, and that the said solution then infringes a third-party owned patent, is notable.
This is the reason why Big Corporations push software patents heavily. If you have a big collection of patents, any randomly chosen software company with a high propability infringes at least some of them. This opens an avenue for ligitation. Therefore, patents turn into abstract warfare, and it is then the number and extent of patents which counts.
Because a Big Corporation can acquire a larger number of patents than a small enterprise, Big Corporations win the arms race. Therefore, it is logical for Big Corporations to be proponents of software patents; and for individual software engineers and small enterprises to be against them.
In the same way as medieval kings and modern countries must have armies, so must software companies nowadays and in the future have patents. The king with bigger army wins. The corporation with larger patent portfolio wins. So, software patents bring [not-any-more-so-much] a change in the rules of the game, and it depends on your position, whether the change is for good or for bad.
Election to the European Parlament is held in June.
There ought to be information somewhere to what party supports/does not support software patents.
I didnt plan to vote, but if any party is clearly against software patents it might be worth the effort.
Donate free food here