EU Moves Toward Software Patents

edooper writes "Apparently the patent discussion in Europe has taken a turn for the worse. According to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure: 'This Wednesday, the Irish Presidency managed to secure a qualified majority for a counter-proposal to the software patents directive, with only a few countries - including Belgium and Germany - showing resistance. This proposal discards all limiting amendments from the European Parliament and reinstates the laxist provisions from the Commission, adding direct patentability of data structures and process descriptions as icing on the cake. In a remarkable sign of unity in times of imminent elections, members of the European Parliament from all political groups are condemning this blatant disrespect for democracy in Europe.' Read more: swpat.ffii.org."

Comments

How would this work?

[sH4RD]

How can any company possibly function, let alone open source when almost everything will be patented after this? The EU does not seem to know much about the decisions it makes...

Re:How would this work?

[chachob]

ever heard of innovation?

Re:How would this work?

[Dogbert2006]

If the data structure/algorithm is sufficiently complex, and no-one would have thought of it in the first place, then it may be worthy of a patent [of decent amount of time, non-renewable]. (as mentionned in prev. slashdot posts on similar topics). However, if the patents are for simple structures, or things like 'int i' [an exageration, but you get the point], then we're doomed...

Re:How would this work?

[INeededALogin]

Don't be Braindead and assume that this is bad.

The EU has to make a decision on this. It just allowed in 10 more countries, and is defining the new standards of Economics and protection for all of Europe. The EU has to do this, or else the possibilities of Free Trade between Europe will be in Jeopardy.

Also, keep in mind that the countires let in on May 1st, are a lot of old Iron curtain countries in. All these countries are multi party Democracy now, but I am sure free Enterprise, Technology, and Patents may be very different in these countries.

Re:How would this work?

[sH4RD]

Exactly, the real question is how far they will go, I am afraid they will go too far.

Re:How would this work?

[Orgazmus]

They allways do, dont they?

Re:How would this work?

[Roydd McWilson]

What's with the Arbitrary capitalization and "Free Trade between Europe" -- shouldn't that Be "free trade within Europe?"

Re:How would this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they don't. It takes a specialized knowledge to understand how braindead the patent structure the EU wants is. Not everybody has that.

The really important point to carry away from all of this is how people inside the EU who know just how bad this is and have told everybody so are being ignored. It's a sign of things to come. People in the EU don't have rights anymore. When it comes to little piddly shit, maybe the serfs will be allowed to have their way, but for the major decisions, the people of the EU are nothing more than servants of the EU aristocracy.

Re:How would this work?

[computational super]

Better be, 'cause competition won't be an option anymore.

Re:How would this work?

[pluvia]

"sufficiently complex" and "decent amount of time" are so subjective as to be almost meaningless.

Are we going to have leaders in each field analyze patent applications so that they can best judge whether an idea is so unique that it deserves a monopoly? Probably not, so who's going to judge?

Are we going to make the "decent amount of time" relative to the uniqueness of the idea? Probably not, so how long should it be?

Are we going to impose our patents on the rest of the world?

The logistics of this subjective patenting process calls into question its very purpose. I like the idea behind patents (no secrets), but unless they are held to enormously high standards, they will deteriorate into what they often are in the US: an ugly hindrance to progress.
--
Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.

Re:How would this work?

[BillyBlaze]

Even incredibly complex data structures shouldn't be patentable. If they were, for example, Microsoft could patent Office formats and nobody else could write compatible software. The market would get even less competitive, and with no real advantage.

The theoretical benefit of patents is that companies would publish their formats. But in practice, patents aren't very helpful to someone else implementing the format, especially if the patents were never intended to be licensed. Data format patents would be used primarily to expand monopolies - any company with over 50% market share could benefit from limiting interoperability with competing products. This would be bad enough to offset the potential gains, and much worse than the status quo. At least now, though reverse engineering is difficult, you are allowed to use what you learn.

Re:How would this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft could patent Office formats"

It has.

Re:How would this work?

[AigariusDebian]

Don't be Braindead and assume that this is bad.
Don't be braindead and assume it's good.

I am form a new European Country, from Latvia. I have studiet the effect the software patents will make on our IT industry and let me tel you - it ain't pretty.
All European small and medium IT related companies would instantly go to the state of limbo: any large company from Europe or USA or Japan could just sue them with one of 30 000 overbroad software patents (progress bar, tabbet paletes, hyperlinks, selling on web, selling on web with credit card, GIF, JPEG, any-other-trivial-idea-expressed-in-layerspeak-in- 150-a4-pages) and the small company would go bancrupt due to layer fees even before the court proves their innocence. And if the small, but smart company would try to enforce a software patent on a large company, the large would countersue and take the patent in bancupcy procedure for peanuts.

As you see, software patents in Europe are only good for large non-European enterprises.
Why should we allow them in Europe then?

BAN THE SOFTWARE PATENTS IN YOU COUNTRY TOO!

Re:How would this work?

[16K Ram Pack]

Wouldn't the patent have to be revealed, though?

Sure, you'd then have to pay Microsoft a fee, but that would probably be quite small, considering other patent fees.

AFAIK, Patent offices don't allow people to say "patent x will cost $100,000,000 per copy".

Microsoft wouldn't go for it because it would allow greater competitor interoperability. Folks would start writing 100% compatible Open Office converters, and huge numbers of us would switch.

Re:How would this work?

[AigariusDebian]

Wouldn't the patent have to be revealed, though?
No
Sure, you'd then have to pay Microsoft a fee, but that would probably be quite small, considering other patent fees.

AFAIK, Patent offices don't allow people to say "patent x will cost $100,000,000 per copy".

No, they do allow that.

Microsoft wouldn't go for it because it would allow greater competitor interoperability. Folks would start writing 100% compatible Open Office converters, and huge numbers of us would switch.
True that would be if you assumptions would be right. Unfortunately M$ has already filed patents on MS Office 2003 file format (Browse /. for a story on that). And there is one another minor point: M$ can also say: this patent is 1000$ per user, and I hope we all understand what that means for free software compartibility.

Re:How would this work?

[pjt33]

No: patents were designed for physical industry, and they should stay that way. That was also the view of the EuroParl:

2d. "industry" in the sense of patent law means "automated production of material goods"

Re:How would this work?

[Flyboy Connor]

Even incredibly complex data structures shouldn't be patentable. If they were, for example, Microsoft could patent Office formats and nobody else could write compatible software.

Not that I am a supporter of software patents, but the new proposal has a safeguard against this:

The provisions of this Directive are without prejudice to the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, in particular where a dominant supplier refuses to allow the use of a patented technique which is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or networks so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them.

Re:How would this work?

[Volmarias]

I'm going to move to Europe and patent the Linked List (patent pending) if this goes through! I'll be rich! RICH!

And what's more, I can sue any poor sap with a null pointer >:D

Re:How would this work?

[Halo1]

The provisions of this Directive are without prejudice to the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, in particular where a dominant supplier refuses to allow the use of a patented technique which is needed for the sole purpose of ensuring conversion of the conventions used in two different computer systems or networks so as to allow communication and exchange of data content between them.

That's only in a recital, not in an article. Further, what they are saying is simply that you cannot use patents to violate the anti-trust rules. If you are an SME and are hampered by a software patent, you've gone bankrupt ten times before the anti-trust proceedings have finally finished. It took more than 5 years to the get Microsoft case to finish, and will take several more years if they appeal.

Re:How would this work?

[Deusy]

If the data structure/algorithm is sufficiently complex, and no-one would have thought of it in the first place, then it may be worthy of a patent [of decent amount of time, non-renewable].

Software in incomparable to physical inventions.

To start with, software can be immediately distributed globally within a matter of days. There is not the same large R&D expenditure, the same manufacturing, distribution, and logistical problems, the mass co-operation needed to find a point of sale, and the other many issues that go into making a profit from selling a physical invention.

Even if some software is complex enough to be considered an invention, the author can get it to market almost instantly. Why should they get 14 years to hold onto the right to do that before anybody else?

And how can a datastructure or an algorithm be considered an invention, it's just a logical set of instructrions that almost anybody striving for that same particular goal will conclude.

No, if it's sufficiently complex, you have the trademark and you keep the code. Then if somebody else wants to implement competition, they have to work out how to do it themselves, and since it's "complex" it'll take a while. By which time, if the idea is so great, you'll have monopolised the market as there is no limitation on how quickly you can distribute it other than the price you slap on your software.

Re:How would this work?

[jsebrech]

The "no secrets" reasoning is mistaken. There is empirical evidence that software developers don't go searching for a patented solution to their problem. After all, why would they? It will take them as long to find it as to invent it themselves, and it will only result in a legal obligation to pay someone else for the program you're developing.

I'd like to know of a single software developer who, when stumped with a problem, says "I'lll think I'll go look in the patent database for a solution."

Re:How would this work?

[BillyBlaze]

It doesn't cost much to view a patent, but there is no limit on the cost to implement that patent. Patent holders aren't obligated to license the patents, and if they do, they can charge whatever they want. (Granted Microsoft would have antitrust limits, but that doesn't help small companies or projects.)

Currently you often must reverse engineer formats, but once you do, you're free to distribute your compatible software. With patents, you could get the specs for a nominal fee. But they might be obfuscated (patent offices aren't well-funded enough to prevent this), and licenses, if they're even being sold, might be incredibly expensive. And even if you only reverse engineered the format, instead of checking the patent, you'd still be infringing it.

Re:How would this work?

[JPMH]

what they are saying is simply that you cannot use patents to violate the anti-trust rules.

There's also a further problem with Articles 81 and 82.

Property law is assigned to member states, and the European courts have decided that by analogy this applies to Intellectual property too.

But articles 81 and 82 are European law.

There are big restrictions on how European-level procedures can affect areas still reserved for Member States' law.

This means the EU antitrust authorities have to take a lot of care in what they do concerning intellectual property, unless they can show direct impacts in another area where they are allowed to take action.

This was the reason the EU's antitrust remedies were blocked in the IMS "bricks" case, and now why the EU's competition directorate is being *very* careful in the Microsoft case.

Re:How would this work?

[pluvia]

I mostly agree with your reasoning, as it illustrates that many of the patents that have been granted haven't been that unique or special to warrant a patent (particularly as it applies to software). Of course, programmers do often look to papers or references for algorithms which, theoretically, may be patented.

Regarding "no secrets", in addition to the etymological derivation of "patent" (Latin for open) and its secondary definition (obvious; plain), I believe the original purpose of patents was to promote progress by discouraging secrets and thus encouraging the sharing of ideas.

I'm certainly not arguing that its current implementation is successful, simply that I agree with its original purpose.
--
Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.

Re:How would this work?

[JohnFluxx]

The situation is much worse than that.
You get can get fined a _lot_ more (tripple I think) if it can be shown that you infringe on a patent knowingly.
This includes if your developers are shown to have looked through the patent database and read the patent (and then perhaps decided it didn't apply, or didn't read it right, etc).

Re:How would this work?

[Halo1]

Regarding "no secrets", in addition to the etymological derivation of "patent" (Latin for open) and its secondary definition (obvious; plain), I believe the original purpose of patents was to promote progress by discouraging secrets and thus encouraging the sharing of ideas.

The sharing of how inventions work, not of mere ideas. Have a look at this presentation, especially slides 4 till 6.

However, your basic idea is indeed correct: they're supposed to promote the sharing of information, in return for a monopoly on the concrete application of this information (i.e., on building inventions based on whatever is described). The problem with software patents, is that the application of this information still is information (a computer program). So you are getting a monopoly on the information itself, not on some concrete and physical thing/process.

It's as if a patented engine would result in a prohibition for anyone else to write and sell technical manuals on how to construct such an engine, because if the reader follows those instructions, he would be violating the patent. So the patent is not promoting the spreading of information, but inhibiting it.

Traditionally, the physical invention is on the monopoly side and information on the disclosure side, but with software patents both are pure information. As such, you indeed end up with patents on ideas (information) instead of on inventions. The result is that you get much more broad monopolies, where the advantage of disclosure no longer weighs up to the disadvantages of the granted monopolies.

It really isn't a problem of the patent offices, it's simply the patent principle and patent law which aren't fit to protect advances in logical reasonings. Especially read the discussion between the programmer and the UK Patent Office Deputy on that page (first point).

Re:How would this work?

[Hognoxious]

I am form a new European Country, from Latvia. [...] software patents in Europe are only good for large non-European enterprises. Why should we allow them in Europe then?

Because the decision will be made by the same bunch of fat Belgian fucktards who banned curved cucumbers and decided that carrots are a fruit.
Trust me, Baltic buddy, give it a few years and you'll be getting nostalgic about the Soviet Union. Or maybe it will get nostalic about YOU!!!!

Re:How would this work?

[JuggleGeek]

Don't be Braindead and assume that this is bad.

Software patents *are* bad. Braindead idiots like you may like them, but that doesn't change the facts.

Re:How would this work?

[dBUG]

As a EU citizem (Azores-Portugal), what can I do for preventing the adoption of patents, how can I help?

Well that about does it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that about does it for freedom in europe - The EU isn't even a proper representation of the people, and yet it seems that europeans have sold their rights away to it without looking at the consequences. This is one of the reasons why the world is going down hill, people sell their rights away to leader without even thinking. (Bush, EU, UN, Etc)

Re:Well that about does it....

[SmackCrackandPot]

The Irish government know exactly what they are doing. In the last few years, they have had a major investment program in all forms of technological R&D. A while back they got reprimanded from the European for having low interest rates/high level of government debt in order to achieve this goal. Their attitude would seem now to be "So? What are you going to do about it?".

Re:Well that about does it....

[Mind Booster Noori]

Well, if you had read the news you would see that europeans didn't sold anything, even the members of the European Parlement are against this measure from EU Council of not listening to Europeans and thus attack democracy in many ways.

Re:Well that about does it....

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like the EU is keeping up with the US. Both systems obviously value the needs of a few large corporations over that of the populace.

It is interesting to hear the claim that this will help business when there are so many examples of monopolies benefitting only the owners of monolopolies (and that for only a short time). Make no mistake the purpose of a patent is to make a monopoly (albeit a limited one).

Rejecting software patents (and not recognizing foreign ones) should allow the local software business to easily outpace their biggest competitor (the US).

Re:Well that about does it....

[Anonymous Coward]

A while back they got reprimanded from the European for having low interest rates/high level of government debt [...]. Their attitude would seem now to be "So? What are you going to do about it?".

The same as the French and Germans, then.

Why?

[timealterer]

I may be just dim-witted, but it seems like governments are having too difficult a time understanding just how counter-productive this could/would be. I mean, sure, it sounds like it would improve your economy at first glance to discourage free software, but if Europe is running on free software and America's pockets are being drained by commercial software, whose economy benefits in the long run?

Re:Why?

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

It seems to me the problem is that descisions are being made by people who may not fully understand the issue. It could be compared to Congress settling a debate as to whose astrophysics theory should be considered correct.

Re:Why?

[timealterer]

Exactly. What's the solution to this though? The more advanced technology becomes, the more it becomes an intrinsic part of our daily lives. The more this happens, the less 65 year old politicians will understand about daily life.

Re:Why?

[iminplaya]

The more this happens, the less 65 year old politicians will understand about daily life.

Don't vote them then. Good luck convincing your neighbors though. Until the average voter understands these issues, nobody's going to look for tech savvy piliticos to nominate and elect into office. There's a lot of work ahead.

Re:Why?

[Moridineas]

You assume that all Europe uses free software and all america uses commercial software, and that free software ALWAYS provides a cost advantage over commercial software.

I would be interested to see a comparative study of private and public sector IT spending, and adoption of OSS vs commercial software in NA and in Europe.

Re:Why?

[caseydk]

How many people voted for their EU representatives?

How many people voted for their UN representatives?

These are *NOT* democratic organizations. As noted above...

Why do we want to put them in charge of things?

Re:Why?

[LeftOfCentre]

Newsflash #1: every European citizen can vote for representatives in the European Parliament every five years -- next month will be an opportunity to do so.

Newsflash #2: It is the Council of Ministers that is pushing this decision through. Guess what that is? The EU member governments elected by the people on national level.

Look, I don't mean to come down too hard and I agree we have a problem here, but I just wish people who posted had some knowledge of the area instead of just guessing wildly.

Maybe it can be argued that the EU is not democratic. But that is more of a reflection on "representative democracy" as a concept, than the EU in particular.

Re:Why?

[110010001000]

I don't know where you are getting your ideas, but the majority of free software is produced and consumed in the United States.

Re:Why?

[caseydk]

Thanks for helping in my point.

So here you have one organization (EU) where its members *ARE* elected by the people and are therefore held accountable... and they don't seem to want to be representative and/or democratic.

Therefore, what makes anyone think that another organization (UN) where its members *ARE NOT* elected (aka accountable) by the people will be democratic?

Therefore, neither the EU or the UN should be in charge of anything where we actually want things to be representative of the people.

I hope the software patent issue dies in the EU, just as I hope the UN fails in its grab for control over ICANN.

Re:Why?

[dickiedoodles]

Every European citizen can vote for representatives in the European Parliament every five years -- next month will be an opportunity to do so

Indeed June 10th in the UK and probably other countries, not to start a nasty political debate but the UKIP(independence party, not intellectual property) might be worth voting for if you're Brithish and that way inclined(anti-run by Europe).

Re:Why?

[pluvia]

Thanks for the details. My current concern is a bit broader than patents. I'm worried that the EU will go down a similar path of federalization as the US and I'm not sure it can be stopped. As I'm sure you know, the US was intended to be a loose alliance among states... a relatively independent group of united states, if you will. It only took about 150 years for that to change.

USians will tell you that it turns out that pretty much everything can fall under interstate commerce or common defense or federal government funding if you squint at it the right way.

If this cannot be prevented, then the UN or some world government may very well be inevitable, and if you think you have trouble being represented by the behemoth that is your state's or country's government, just wait til your country has to legally abide by and compromise with the democratic whims of dictators.

So I look upon the EU with hope for the world's future, much as the world has at times looked upon the US.

Boy, I'm feeling kinda rambunctious.

Re:Why?

[10Ghz]

I don't know where you are getting your ideas, but the majority of free software is produced and consumed in the United States.

How do you know that?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given Novell (Novell, Ximian, Suse) and IBM's strong backing for free and open source software it isn't clear that the pockets of the USA are being drained by commercial software any more than Europe's.

It looks to me like the EU Commission is seeking to harmonise EU law with USPTO practice. A united front on software patents in the west would make it easier to avoid any EU-USA difficulty in the WIPO and WTO, and also enable similar laws to be imposed on emerging software development areas such as India and China. This would be as an attempt to stop these areas using European-developed IPR indiscriminately. The worry may be that with much outsourcing to India etc., its own software industry will be kickstarted into a competitor with lax IPR laws.

The downside is that I think the patent laws are too generous and may lead to the patenting of trivial things, much as we see on slashdot from the USA (e.g. patenting holding down a mouse button, despite prior art) and that this could stifle development, especially of open source unless the open source efforts are backed by corporations with their own patent portfolios (e.g. IBM, Novell) that could discourage law suits.

Software patents will raise the bar for entry into the software industry for small firms as they will need to hire a patent clerk to ensure that they aren't infringing. This would not be good if trivial software patents are granted. It could also kill free, open source software. However if the patents granted are for complex, non-trivial systems only, then there isn't much of a threat. Software patents aren't necessarily an unmitigated evil.

Personally I think the USPTO needs to review a lot of the patents granted for things such as tabbed browsing, shopping carts, etc., etc. as these are too trivial and should fall foul of the "non obvious" clause. If these regulations are applied properly in the USA and EU then software patents do not necessarily spell the end of the world!

Re:Why?

[pjt33]

I follow the activities of the House of Commons (thank you, BBC, for BBC Parliament). Thus, for example, I heard Blunkett talk about a consultation on identity cards and printed a copy which I'm working through in order to provide feedback. I have never once heard a minister say anything about what he or she is doing in the Council of Ministers, whether to invite consultation or even to be held accountable to the House. Maybe they do, but they certainly keep it low-profile.

Re:Why?

[Cyclops]

You can't choose who's on Council.

You can't read the working documents or know who is in the working groups because "the citizin does not have the legitimate right to know" -- this was in a reply to a letter a short time ago.

Very democratic indid.

Re:Why?

[tempfile]

This is probably going to change in a few years. The lack of democracy and legitimization in the EU's institutions, especially the Commission, has raised some discussion about the legislative process of the EU. During the past years, more and more subjects that the EU makes laws about have fallen into the process of codecision, which means that the Parliament has to agree to every law the Commission or the Council proposes. And in fact, if I'm not mistaken, there is only one field left -- agricultural politics, the ugliest part of the Union -- where the Parliament has nothing to say. It has gained more and more control in the past decade, and it will gain more.

Re:Why?

[Cyclops]

It won't happen by itself. The EU is approving a Constitution that codifies this undemocratic situation. You have to fight it or it will happen, instead of disappearing in my lifetime.

Re:Why?

[Halo1]

One problem is that Irish Presidency is simply pushing its own interests. In Ireland, there's a 0% tax on patent revenues. So the more patents a company has, the more interesting it is for that company to have its official base in Ireland.

Re:Why?

[LeftOfCentre]

Given that the member governments favour software patents when they are collaborating in the Council of Ministers, it's likely they would favour software patents even if the EU did not exist at all. I agree that representative democracy is not always as "democratic" as some people make it out to be... I just don't see this particular issue as an EU problem (not that the EU doesn't have problems).

Re:Why?

[MSZ]

Elected - yes. Accountable - you must be joking.

There is no recall and no punishment for doing wrong, so these "representatives" do whatever they think is good for them. Not for me.

But that's irrelevant anyway, as most of the ruling is done by the unelected and uncontrolled bunch of bureaucrats. They will like powerpoint presentations of extreme damage caused by the lack of patents on software, processes, science discoveries, etc. And as you see, presentations and presents were delivered and results were obtained. And bonuses for caring for the advancement of something or other will be paid.

Remember, these are the people that declared carrot to be fruit.

Re:Why?

[Halo1]

Newsflash #2: It is the Council of Ministers that is pushing this decision through. Guess what that is? The EU member governments elected by the people on national level.

The main problem is that the position of the Council has been written by the Council working group on intellectual property (patents). The Council itself barely understands the issues. Now who's in that working group? The patent administrators of the national and European patent office(s)! It's very convenient for those people to be able to rewrite a directive which was drafted in response to their lawlessness...

So in total, the current Council's effect is completely undemocratic: the Parliament is being overruled by a bunch of patent administrators who don't like being criticised.

Re:Why?

[Halo1]

During the past years, more and more subjects that the EU makes laws about have fallen into the process of codecision, which means that the Parliament has to agree to every law the Commission or the Council proposes

The software patents are also handled by codecision. The problem is that you first have a proposal from the Commission, which the Parliament then can only change by majority. Next you have the Council (as it is now in the swpat case), which does not have to take into account anything voted by the Parliament, because the amendements we fought for in the Parliament are merely "advice" to the Council. They can basically draw up anything they like to submit to the Parliament for second reading.

If the Council destroys the Parliament's amendements, the Parliament can only restore the amendements they approved in first reading (i.e., they can't add anything new) in second reading, but only with absolute majority this time... So it becomes much harder.

Re:Why?

[WoofLu]

Democracy in the EU is a tough subject, for instance: members of the European Parliament are _directly_ elected by the european citizens, and, as far as I know, MEPs stay in touch with their electorate and can be contacted.
Members of the European Council of Ministers are, as the name says, ministers, from the 25 member states. These ministers are _not_ elected on a EU scale. Furthermore, (i'll take FR as an example) in France, these ministers are not elected at all, they come as a package with the presidential candidate.
These ministers are therefore not accountable to the European People, but to their home government... Which is the mistake! They represent their state's interests, and do not act for Europe, nor for the citizen of europe.
When this kind of law comes in front of them, they will follow their government's directives (and, as we can see in France, the government has experienced the most terrible disapproval during the last election), and the only way to make them change their minds is to act on the elected body representing these ministers (i.e the president, in FR)... That's a few people down the road, before we reach the minister.
The EP is representative and democratic, and when enough horsepower is deployed, changes can occur, reaching the council of ministers is much harder...

I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[foidulus]

Software patents are not all bad. Now I know there is a LOT of abuse in the US right now, and the patent system needs to be reformed. However, I think that without patents, there would be much less of an incentive for commercial R&D.
Example: I am a coder for a steel mill that has figured out an algorithm that reduces the amount of energy used in the reduction of steel(which takes more energy than melting the steel). Now, after the steel company spends money on R&D to implement this, I defect to a rival steel company and implement the algorithm for them. Now the first steel company not only has lost it's competitive advantage, but they are actually further behind because they spent the money on R&D that the other mill did not.
Software patents can prevent this from happening. But like I stated at the start of the post, the current system in the US is broken, patents are too vague and there is not enough emphasis on prior art. It would be a shame if this were to happen in Europe. Hopefully, the EU and the US can learn from past mistakes and create a system that rewards innovation while not stifiling competetion.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Anonymous Coward]

old news guy. this was the point in inventing patents at all but it has nothing to do with software patents. so stfu

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Yohahn]

This is why trade secret legislation exists.

Patents should only be given when I can drop the product on my foot.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what software patents are intended for, however this is in general not what they are used for. Most patents in software are either defensive or offensive. Meaning basically that everyone is getting screwed over but a few offensive patent users and the patent office. As for more R&D well, more like the opposite sadly, reality can suck like that.

Quickshot

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[curious.corn]

"La strada per l'inferno è lastricata di buone intenzioni" - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. "Il demonio si nasconde nei dettagli" - The devil takes hide in the details. caveat emptor...

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[sugar and acid]

No this is not a software patent, you have improved the process of making steel but the process in the way you have implemented it requires the use of a computer to control it. The physical process of making steel is different and patent that. I mean by this is not a software issue, the patent for this should cover the same process being implemented for everything from something like a analogue electromechanical system to someone doing this level of control manually.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Donny Smith]

>Patents should only be given when I can drop the product on my foot.

The reason being ....?
In any case, that's a ridiculous assumption.

Firstly, division based on whether the object is tangible or not is arbitrary. (How about allowing patents only if they're invented by married people?).

Secondly, many innovations can be implemented in either software or hardware (is ASIC chip hardware or software?). Just think of a NAS appliances - you can patent a NAS appliance, or you can patent a line of code that does opportunistic locking. Ban on software patents would just create more environmentally damaging waste and increase energy/oil consumption.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[ZuperDee]

I would summarize what you said this way: The patent system DOES have some use. Yes, there is massive abuse of it today, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I happen to think you raise a very good point here. After all, patents are in essence a tool, just as hammers are. We all know it would be a stupid idea to outlaw hammers simply because they can be misused for the purpose of breaking and entering people's homes by smashing windows. After all, hammers have MANY other uses.

However, the crucial question boils down to this: do the number of beneficial uses outweigh the number of abuses possible? In the case of software patents, I'm not so sure the benefits outweigh the abuses.

I also think in the case of your steel mill example is one that might better be served by trade-secret than by a patent.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Lucius Septimius Sev]

The reason why there is not enough emphasis on prior art here in the states is because it is not done via the patent office. If prior art exists then the patent is invalid end of story. This is done via the court system not the patent office.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[LeftOfCentre]

"Hopefully, the EU and the US can learn from past mistakes and create a system that rewards innovation while not stifiling competetion."

Don't count on it.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater? In patent matters, the baby DROWNED years ago. THROW IT OUT already!

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Coryoth]

No, that's not about patents at all. The things stopping you from running straight to the competitor and selling them all your ideas are contracts and trade secret laws, not patents.

Patents are not there to give the inventor a monopoly on what they invent. If that were the case, patents wouldn't bother with expiry dates. The original principle of patents was to give small inventors an opportunity to sell their invention - that is, if someone comes up with a brilliant new widget a large company could get his invention to market much quicker than the inventor can. The inventor can't hide their invention away - they have to go out and advertise it to venture capitalists and potential backers so that they can raise funds to bring it to market. A patent was there to let the inventor publish their invention and have a monopoly on it long enough to get to market and become established.

That's certainly not the way patents work these days - especially with the various extensions, and other cunning techniques (constantly revising a patent to keep it in the works for as long as possible) used to extend the length of patents. Furthermore, with business method and software patents you can now patent general broad ideas and algorithms of how to do things. Once things get that broad there are problems.

In the current world of patents R&D is discouraged, not encouraged. Why should a smaller steel mill put in any research into anything? Odds are the larger steel mill with the larger amount of cash to throw into R&D and patents will manage to patent (through broad patents) pretty much anything you might happen to invent. All they have to do is keep a vague eye on your R&D department then crash research and patent anything you're workign on. To spend 4 years on research only to find the larger mill has just patented something sufficently close to your idea to block it - well, that's a waste of money. You're better off not bothering and just licensing whatever new stuff the bigger mill comes up with.

The real question you should be asking is "Why should a steel mill invest in R&D?". The answer is, because they can make better products more efficiently if they do. That should be reason and incentive enough.

Jedidiah.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Yohahn]

Physical inventions require physical resources, thus practical costs.

Discovering an formula, which is what all algorithms boil down to, requires mental resources. How do you put a price on thought?

Thought has never been as overvalued as it is right now. If people don't come back to understanding real costs, things will get paid worse.

A programmer shuold not be paid more than a paramedic. Saving a life should be worth more. This is just one example where the system is askew. I maintain it is because of an overvaluing of thought and an undervaluing of action/physical.

Being smart is not everything. Acting, doing is.

The ultimate manifestation of this is the lawsuit company, what Baystar wants SCO to become. No practical output, just patents based on some kind of mental labour that has been overvalued.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Yohahn]

Addendum:

Imagine if after being treated by medical personel, you would have to pay them a portion of any money you made. If they hadn't saved you, there would be no means for your later productivity. Shouldn't you pay them royaltees? If not, why should this be done for "intellectual" property?

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[thogard]

The reason is I can stamp "Pat no 123123123123" on it or at least "pat pending". I can't do that with software patents. To be given a good patent, the examiner must be able to search for prior art and you can not do that in software.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[pipingguy]

improved the process of making steel but the process in the way you have implemented it requires the use of a computer to control it. The physical process of making steel is different and patent that.

The following is a troll, and is sent as an example only.

Beleive it or not, the R&D people in "real industries" do not always count on computers to do their work. In fact, they tend to stay away from stuff that might influence their work. Most real work is carefully done at a low level proving theories, one step at a time.

This must be almost impossible to fathom for those that are used to seeing marketing hype about new processors or TVs.

If the internet ceased to function tomorrow, there'd be hundreds of thousands of engineers ready to pick up the slack.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[TheHonestTruth]

You are so far off base, you're at the warning track.

Patent are intended to give an inventor a monopoly, intentionally for a limited amount of time. What a patent is is a way for the government to to say "hey mr. inventor, in exchange for you publicly diclosing your invention, we will allow you to prevent anyone from practicing the invention for a limited time"

the current problem is that software moves much much faster than traditional manufacturing. Using the steel mill example, if he did run to another competitor, how long would it take them to set up shop like the first mill? My guess is months if not a year. Software on the other hand can be broken down and modified in a couple weeks if it is sufficiently complex. This significantly impacts the way people can turn around and use a competitor's technology, or on the flip side, share information and make a better world.

And why would a little guy invest in R&D? The same reason they all do: to look good for the deeper pockets. How many small companies want to develop a great product and get tons of money from an IBM or a Sun for their tech? Most.

As for "the way they work these days," the PTO decides when to examine a patent application and when it issues or goes abandoned. Yes there are tricks a lawyer or patent agent can do to lengthen examination, but that does not extend the monopoly. You have 17 years from the filing date. Period. While it it still pending there is the option to file continuations, which have their own expiration date (these are the submarine patenting procedures), but the claims for the continuation must be supported in the original specification. And not necessarily broadly. The specification must enable someone of reasonable skill in the art to practice your invention without undue experiemtation. In others words, if you don't teach it the first time around, you lost any ability to extend the monopoly

Which comes to the point that every /.'er seems to misunderstand: A patent is a business tool. It is supposed to keep your competitors from doing what you do. This may not be moral, but it is great business.

As for software patents, well, that is a harder pill to swallow given, like I said, the speed at which software develops. A 17 year monopoly in software is a lot different than a 17 year monopoly in manufacturing. However, its a dog eat dog world out there and patents are just a weapon in a business' arsenal.

-truth

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Union bus drivers got paid more than doctors. The reasoning was that the bus driver was responsible for more lives than the doctor. There's incentive for you to study! (To be a bus driver.)

A bit off topic.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent are intended to give an inventor a monopoly, intentionally for a limited amount of time. What a patent is is a way for the government to to say "hey mr. inventor, in exchange for you publicly diclosing your invention, we will allow you to prevent anyone from practicing the invention for a limited time"

No, by offering it for sale, it's being publicly disclosed.

Why now are we only seeing some approximate pretenders to Nike's Air Sole technologies? The patents Nike had were not necessarily on the idea (because you could always fake the air pocket by layering 3 layers of sole material together, with one of the layers having the air cavities in it, like what you would find if you ripped apart a Doc Marten shoe), but on the various techniques for filling the air bladder, the gas used, the techniques for molding the various midsole materials around it, etc. Too bad they didn't patent the idea of using alternative materials (like viscous fluids...), or maybe they were just being nice.

Because had they not patented it, someone would have spent the time to figure out how to do it. Not that people didn't reverse engineer them, because they probably did, and, along with the patents, tried to figure out ways to do similar things w/o invoking Nike's IP laywers.

There are probably other things involved with these shoes that still are trade secrets...

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[PingPongBoy]

To a small mill uses its research within the company if the small mill invented something that duplicates what the large mill invented how would the large mill know what the small mill did?

Inventions for products sold to the public benefit the most from patents. If software sold to the public and contains innovative ideas patents would make sense

Right now the software industry is struggling to find the next killer app

What do you know Dragon NaturallySpeaking actually understood that statement sheesh

The preceding was okay with Dragon NaturallySpeaking too

The logic is: no killer app means no real new patents

I don't know if anyone can claim to have invented really basic algorithms like quicksort. I have no trouble with new patents for complex inventions.

If people are inventing really nice new algorithms that would be a good thing not a bad thing. Patents are good omens

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[juhaz]

Patenting things like that (software that is a part of a bigger whole) would've been possible in the version that the European Parliament approved.

However, the newly bastardized version by Irish traitors ripped all that out and the current proposal allows patenting of basically everything, including "pure" software.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Hast]

Of course the patent system has use today, and it's quite good at it as well. What you hav to ask yourself is

1) What is it we want to accomplish with it?
2) Is it actually accomplishing that today?

The first question is typically that you want to aid /the little guy/ in all this. It should be possible for a small company or an individual to gain protection from the big boys when they invent something. So if I invent something and start selling it then Some Big Company can't just copy what I have done and use their much larger market presence and resources to take me off the market.

Furthermore it should make it a good idea for me to share ideas with other people since I don't have to worry about them taking the idea and ripping me in the process.

Is the current patent system doing this? No, not really. It's far to expensive to apply for patents and protecting them for an individual or small company to do so successfully. Since there are so many incorrectly issued patents (which you still have to challenge in court at great cost if used against you) you are almost guaranteed to be breaking a few patents yourself amd thus under threat of litigation. (Which you can't fight since you don't have the economic capacity for it, even if you are right.)

So what we have in the current patent system is pretty much something which does the opposite of what it originally intended. At least as far as the "little guy" is concerned.

And patents are NOT tools. At least not in any useable way I see it. If you could use patents to make new things that would be true. As it is today it's more or less just "insurance" aginst future threats.

I agree with you that the benefits outweighing the problems is doubtful in the case of software patents. In fact, unless you happen to be a very larg corporation I doubt there are any benefits at all. (At least in Europe all small-medium developers have been extremely negative in the issue. Large corps are basically the only ones in favour.)

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[sir_cello]

What if I invent a new and technically useful process for effecting interprocess memory transfer? That's not a mathematical process. It is a software process. I should be able to obtain a patent to protect it.

It's that simple.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[JPMH]

What if I invent a new and technically useful process for effecting interprocess memory transfer? That's not a mathematical process. It is a software process. I should be able to obtain a patent to protect it.

The question is, why is it in the public interest to grant you 20-year monopoly rights on this process ?

For a new pharmaceutical, development cost maybe $400m, development time maybe 15 years, quite probably it might be.

But will the public gain by letting you erect a tollbooth around your software process, orders of magnitude cheaper and quicker to develop ?

The observable fact is that inventions tend to be "of their time". So given the prevailing conditions, especially in software, it is quite likely that other people may quite independently also come up with the same idea, in the same time-frame.

Secondly, do you *need* a software patent to develop your invention?

Because of the opaqueness of the law around software patents (which this directive would do nothing to clarify, only enshrine), and the extreme difficulty in doing due diligence (prior art, obviousness etc), patent insurers (at least in Europe) refuse to insure patents on software, nor against patent violation -- the premiums would just be too uneconomic, I have been told. So four your software patent to have any meaningfulness, you would need credibly to be able to spend about $2m without flinching to push it in court. And because of the uncertainty factors above, if you are up against a good legal team from one of the big players, even if you can spend the money you are likely to have a very hard fight to win, no matter how good your patent.

A much better decision could be to trust in the innate difficulty in reverse-engineering software products, and to go the trade secret route instead (like eg one-time stock market darling Autonomy).

So, why should society mess up the lives of independent developers everywhere by adding another mine to their patent minefield ? What's the benefit ?

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Anonymous Coward]

In his example he would patent a process for creating steel, computers and software don't enter into it. So you agree, there is no need for patents on SOFTWARE?

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[VanillaCoke420]

And having people writing software and coming up with algorithms doesn't take resources...?

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[TheHonestTruth]

Yes, an offer-for-sale is a public disclosure. I mispoke. What I meant was that in exchange for giving an enabling disclosure, you have a limited monopoly. The idea being that you push innovation as a whole forward by teching someone how to practice your invention. In exhcange for this public how-to, you get to protect your rights to it for a limited time.

And I guarantee people tried design-arounds. That in and of itself drives innovation forward.

-truth

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Handpaper]

I wouldn't mod down such an informative post, but I will reply.
What have just described is an improvement in an industrial process. Whether or not it is computer-controlled it still involves doing something physical (intensely so in this case) to something that has physical existence. Something like Mushet's improvement to the Bessemer process.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Halo1]

Secondly, many innovations can be implemented in either software or hardware (is ASIC chip hardware or software?)

Chips are not patentable either, they're covered by a special "sui generis" right (in Europe at least), because chip design is not considered to be creative enough to fall under copyright law and not inventive enough to warrant granting patents.

Anyway, you're right on one count: the way an invention is implemented is irrelevant. Let me give two examples to illustrate this.

• You have a fully automated weaving machine, software/computer controlled. You then invent a way to turn the knives while cutting so that they can cut the threads much more easily. The only thing you have to do to implement this, is adjust some parameters in your software.

  This is perfectly patentable under the directive that the parliament voted, because the invention is not the fact or how you changed those parameters in your program, but how and when you have to rotate those knives. In this case, you also get a patent on the turning of those knives, not the way you implemented it in software. As such, even if someone would do that using pure mechanical means, they'd still violate your patent.

• You have this same weaving machine, and decide it would be useful to see all sorts of parameters of the inner workings of this machine at all times. You stick it full of off-the-shelf sensors, connect them to the cpu, add a new display, write software and presto: great graphics. This would not be patentable, even though your implementation requires a lot of hardware (physical stuff).

  The reason is that an invention must be new and non-obvious (and industrially applicable) to be patentable. Those sensors, the display and the connections are not new (nor non-obvious, probably). The only new thing is your software and the presentation of information it does. As such, there is no (physical/material/technical/...) invention present, and you cannot get a patent.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[JuggleGeek]

Example: I am a coder for a steel mill that has figured out an algorithm that reduces the amount of energy used in the reduction of steel(which takes more energy than melting the steel). Now, after the steel company spends money on R&D to implement this, I defect to a rival steel company and implement the algorithm for them. Now the first steel company not only has lost it's competitive advantage, but they are actually further behind because they spent the money on R&D that the other mill did not.

It could happen that way. It could also happen that as you are coming up with your idea, doing your development, etc, that some other company is working on the same problem, for the same reason - and whoever files the patent first wins, the other one gets sued for doing what they were already doing.

Or it could be that you get everything going, and some other company then sues your company saying that your new algorithm infringes on some obscure patent they own. Regardless of whether they have a valid claim, you then have to defend.

The lawywers make money on patents. Large companies can sue small companies out of existence. But everyone else loses.

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[JuggleGeek]

What if I invent a new and technically useful process for effecting interprocess memory transfer? That's not a mathematical process. It is a software process. I should be able to obtain a patent to protect it.

What if, as soon as you try to market it, several large companies file lawsuits claiming you violated some stupid patent that they have been granted?

Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but...

[Yohahn]

being paid for developement is different from receiving royaltees on patents.

another USA

[Coneasfast]

software patents in EU is going to turn into a disaster. this is going to turn into another USPTO, where they are backed up by more than you can imagine, and they accept any old crap that gets submitted!

Re:another USA

[Anonymous Coward]

On the plus side, the Europeans on Slashdot won't be able to brag about not having software patents anymore.

Re:another USA

[Flower]

The good news is it will be American companies who will hold the majority of the patents. A situation currently in place with currently filed but atm unenforceable patents. So a good protion of those licensing fees will come back to the States. It must feel good knowing the EU has sold out to American Big Business.

Ok then...

[claudiac]

My ancestors invented letters, and the point! God must have some patents too ;)

Re:Ok then...

[Anonymous Coward]

They should make patents retroactive, and grant patents to all the inventors from antiquity, like Leonardo Da Vinci.

Perhaps, grant a patent to the inventor of the paper money too.

Re:Ok then...

[Anonymous Coward]

God must have some patents too ;)

Yeah, but you can't enforce patents without lawyers...

I don't mind software patents

[cybrthng]

I just hate it when they're approved for dual purpose. A software patent shouldn't cover basic ideas of commerce or advancements in technology as a whole.

Like google slipping in contextual advertising patents - by a "software" patent - thus working towards being the defacto monopoly because the software patent basically patents the idea of the advertising method thus stemming competition and not protecting any specific technology or research or ideas.

Re:I don't mind software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Google sucks. And their ads suck. People say Google's ads are good because they're plain text. Well I say that's the worst damn kind. flash and img ads are easy to block (hello Mozilla!) but plain text is harder, cause it's just text on the page. Stupid Google.

Re:I don't mind software patents

[Vaste]

The difficulty in software is not coming up with the idea (15min) but implementing it (6 months). Ever wondered why software is protected by copyright?

A software patent that doesn't cover "basic ideas of commerce or advancements in technology as a whole" is considered a bad (useless) patent. Patents are used as a weapon of legal war. Sticks won't do.

Believing they protect research is naive.

Data structures

[Anonymous Coward]

If data structures are patentable does this make it possible to prevent interoperability?

Apparently Microsoft has realized that copyright is not nearly as powerful as patents for clobbering open source. This sounds disasterous.

Re:Data structures

[sir_cello]

> If data structures are patentable does this make it possible to prevent interoperability?

No! The courts have continually prevented patent owners from enforcing their rights in circumstances that would restrict competition: and interoperability is one of them.

In the UK, the famous British Leyland case found this. It is codified in UK copyright and designs law.

Re:Data structures

[JPMH]

> If data structures are patentable does this make it possible to prevent interoperability?

No! The courts have continually prevented patent owners from enforcing their rights in circumstances that would restrict competition: and interoperability is one of them.

In the UK, the famous British Leyland case found this. It is codified in UK copyright and designs law.

The British Leyland case (British Leyland vs Armstrong, 1986) was where the House of Lords ruled that with the sale of a car by a manufacturer, the owner acquired an implied licence to repair it; even more strongly, that the owner *must* be allowed to repair it; and that other manufacturers must be free to sell cloned spare parts (exhaust pipes in this case) to allow this.

This decision was subsequently slammed as constituationally unacceptable lawmaking from the bench, and has been almost entirely reversed (eg Lord Hoffmann, for the Privy Council, denouncing and rejecting it for the judges having on their own account created a new head of public policy in order to modify express statutory rights of property, Canon vs Green Cartridge, 1997; see also Creative Technology vs Aztech Systems, 1997; Mars UK vs Teknowledge, 2000).

In contrast, consider the very strong support of an IP holder's ability to defend their monopoly in the IMS "brick" case recently in the European court again in Luxembourg, especially in the interim judgments, despite strong evidence (and an EU Competition ruling) that this was making competition impossible in a wider market. This Court is where the Microsoft antitrust decision is next headed, and MS seem confident that they will be able to tie the process down in legal knots for years.

There is a procedure in UK patent law for seeking a compulsory licence. But it has to be applied for separately for each single patent; has several stages which take years (and cannot even be begun until 3 years after the grant of the patent); only grants UK rights to use the patent, to serve the UK market; requires extensive lawyering; and is therefore very expensive and almost never used.

We now know the Danish delegation wanted a provision to require Member States to be able to impose RAND licenses on patents needed for the sole purpose of interoperability, and to institute fast-track procedures for making such decisions. But this was rejected.

The only provision in the new text to protect interoperability is a new recital 17 that the draft text should be "without prejudice" to the workings of the competition law Articles 81 and 82 of the EU Treaty. But any attempt to use these would require the full machinery of an EU Competition investigation, followed by the prospect of years more legal battling in the Court in Luxembourg.

Occasionally somebody the size of Microsoft or Oracle might get taken on by the EU Commission, over mass-availability products. But nobody is going to go down this route to unlock patented data lock-in monopolies in smaller niche markets.

Patents on Software...uhoh

[linguae]

This doesn't look good for OSS software. If just about everything were patented, there would be no way that future developers of software could implement certain features. Imagine if Microsoft patents the toolbar. Or if Adobe patents the photo editing tool. If this whole software patenting initiative is implemented and spread in other places, I think that it might be a major obstacle in Open Source Software that be very hard to get past. This would also impede innovation (not of the Microsoft kind) and would possibly force us into using proprietary standards forever.

Re:Patents on Software...uhoh

[mumblestheclown]

Umm, by its very definition, a patent is TEMPORARY.

After something's patent period expires, it IS in the public domain, period. The unisys corporation's LZW algorithm is now its gift to the world.

Re:Patents on Software...uhoh

[Dogbert2006]

A good thing no-one can patent the alphabet, the wheel, or other simplisitic structures. That is because there is a lot of previous art. Your concern is valid, however since there is already some software that wasn't patented, patents will most likely lock open source out of newer technologies -- and open source developers will be able to do the same [given they can afford the patents]. So we'll be stuck with older technologies, and whatever we invent -- could be worse. (not to say it couldn't be better)

Re:Patents on Software...uhoh

[Dogbert2006]

Yes, temporary is what they should be.

Permanent is what they shall be if certain entities with lots of money can influence certain law-making entities.

Re:Patents on Software...uhoh

[servoled]

Why doesn't some OSS foundation start patenting some of the things that are created during the writing of it's software then? Then they would be able to more easily defend themselves if anyone ever tried something fishy.

Re:Patents on Software...uhoh

[Drantin]

but what if someone wants to patent a virtual wheel?

Re:Patents on Software...uhoh

[Crayon Kid]

Or if Adobe patents the photo editing tool.

You silly rabbit. "Photo editing tool?" Adobe already patented cookies and tabbed windows. No need to imagine the worst, it's already here, breathing heavily around the corner. And just about everything IS patented.

Re:Patents on Software...uhoh

[JuggleGeek]

Umm, by its very definition, a patent is TEMPORARY.

20 years, which is *forever* in the software development world.

Re:Patents on Software...uhoh

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a patent is only worth something at all if you have big money to defend it in court.

BTW, it would also be something like a double standard. you can't outlaw murder and have a death penalty at the same time.

We are better than you silly Yanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

My European friends all seem to have this attitude that they are all better than me because I am an American. They are not arrogant but just have this slight attitude of superiority. However, I tell them this is one time that I wish they would take the high road and truly be better than me.

Europe, here is a message. Don't go down this slippery road! It is nothing but trouble. Look at how us Yanks have screwed this one up.

Re:We are better than you silly Yanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! God forbid you have a successful, world-class software industry like here in the horrible US. Stick to programming your Atari ST Demos!

Re:We are better than you silly Yanks!

[johannesg]

Don't you think we _know_? Just read the links: apparently 94% of respondents were opposed to software patents in a consultation by the council of ministers. They then happily went ahead and claimed the other 6% represented the "economic majority". This gross lack of democracy is apparently not a problem to them.

It is to me, though. And I'm not alone in this.

The EU is not fundamentally a bad thing. The close cooperation between european states has allowed me, at least, to grow up in a Europe where war is unthinkable for the first time in - well, forever, basically. All these processes you hear about, like that single coin, bring our countries closer together and join them more and more in a unified whole. And that is good. But occasionally we get excesses, such as in this case, and that's something we must fight.

Re:We are better than you silly Yanks!

[Xymbaline]

And just how are *YOU* fighting this battle?

Have you lobbied anyone, have you written letters, have you protested?

Or are you sitting on your ass, fat and content because you are now united with your neighbors?

Re:We are better than you silly Yanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly, the EU IS fundamentally a bad thing (for many reasons too complex to explain here) .... fortunately the great UKian govt have finally given us a chance to reject it - once that happens it's ineveitable that the UK will (hopefully soon) secede from the EU and then you can fuck yourselves with your software patents.

Re:We are better than you silly Yanks!

[Halo1]

Well, actually one of the biggest proponents of software patents is the UK -- both in the European Parliament and on national level. Even in the courts, (much) more software patents have been upheld in the UK than in the rest of Europe.

Re:We are better than you silly Yanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

You twit. War is unthinkable nowadays in Europe ay?

Unfortunately, the people don't get decide whether to go to war, the elites do. It has always been that way and unfortunately, always will. If you think Europe is somehow "above" such behavior, you might note that England, Spain, Poland, and Italy all happily joined the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq against the wishes of the vast majority of their citizens (usually greater than %90). In fact, Turkey was one of the few countries whose ruling class actually listened and acted in accordance with what the vast majority of it's people wanted, amazingly enough.

Re:We are better than you silly Yanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

War between EU members isn't unthinkable because of some lofty ideals, it's unthinkable because the economies of EU members are so intertwined that to sever all those ties would take years at the minimum, and have a heavy price to the economy of whoever's cutting themselves off. This way, the elites who consider their own self-interest won't start wars. Of course, much of this applies, to a lesser extent, to other first-world countries like USA, Japan and Taiwan, but third-world dictatorships are at the mercy of the elites' good intentions. The third-world dictatorship of China is an interesting case, though...

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[mumblestheclown]

have you done a milisecond of research before blathering on in your "activist" glory to see what happened in times past when activists got the upper hand and abolished IPR?

basically, from revolutionary france on up, IPR was reinstated within months as it became obvious that IPR was and is necessary. Sure, it's not perfect, especially often in implementation, but not having any IPR is pretty much as dumb as saying that there shouldnt be any municipal water supplies.

Actually, I'm quite happy to see that you were (correcty) modded down as a troll. There's always a danger on slashdot of your kind of claptrap being modded as insightful.

It saved Apple!

[timealterer]

Thanks to software patents, Apple's ideas were saved from being blatantly ripped off - this is how they were able to retain market dominance. Oh, wait. Well, even though their patents were broken, at least their rights were defended in court, and the offender learned never to do it again. Oh, wait.

Re:It saved Apple!

[servoled]

I was unaware that Apple even patented any of the stuff that was stolen from them. I'd like to see these patents if you wouldn't mind providing the numbers. Thanks in advance.

Re:It saved Apple!

[timealterer]

Ha, actually you're right, it was copyright law the sued under. Mind you, in either case, the suit took so long I don't think it would have made a difference. The industry moves so fast that by the time one of those lawsuits completes, the point is often somewhat moot.

Re:It saved Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean the stuff that Jobs stole from Xerox PARC. Yeah, I thought so.

Re:It saved Apple!

[91degrees]

Xerox PARC did not have a complete system. You couldn't even draw into an obscured window. They had some concepts of basic GUI stuff but Apple took the concepts, and actually made them into a workable GUI.

Apples designs were based on a quick look at what Xerox had. Microsoft copied the whole thing - look and feel, data structures, everything!

is this software, or a patentable invention?

[publiusREX]

An interesting example, but I think most such inovations should be inventions, not patents. You have built a better machine; patent it.

Breaking news

[Realistic_Dragon]

Politicans fuck over the electorate. Film at 11.

Web Protests

[RoadkillBunny]

I seen many websites go on strike in the past (ex: Gnome, AMSN...). But these sites are only visited by the few linux users there are (few compared to windows users). These protests would make a bigger impact if they were done by sites that many people use, like google.

Re:Web Protests

[penguinoid]

The day Google "goes down in protest" is the day tech support gets 1000+ calls per minute about the internet being down.

Re:Web Protests

[Anonymous Coward]

And google hold patents, they are not agains them.

...it's OK....we can still blame MS

[j3ll0]

According to the background information:

"The Irish Presidency explains on its website that it is sponsored by Microsoft. Ireland is "the largest software-exporting country in Europe", thanks to a fiscal policy which makes it a tax haven for large US companies: it has a tax rate on patent revenues of 0%."

So it would appear that US corporations are subverting international processes for their own benefit. This is exactly the same as the Australia-US situation, where compliance with draconian US IP laws HAVE BEEN MADE A CONDITION of the US entering into a Free Trade Agreement.

I'm struggling to cope with this though: the Irish stuff up IP laws in EU - but they make Guinness...Don't make me choose!!!!!....

Re:...it's OK....we can still blame MS

[mandolin]

The Irish Presidency explains on its website that it is sponsored by Microsoft

It's my understanding that Microsoft used to not take an interest (relatively speaking) in governmental affairs. They had a fairly low number of lobbyists in Washington etc.

... oh here we go, an actual link.

They sure learned fast, didn't they.

Re:...it's OK....we can still blame MS

[Anonymous Coward]

It is simply too late for MS to rely on patents to save itself. There is already ample prior art and unpatentable material right now that can be used to do it in. In two years, Open Office will be well on its way to eating huge chunks of MS Office's market share. Linux/BSD is already hurting Windows seriously in the server market. There is such a vast amount of well established intellectual property to work from right now in the open source world --- such a wealth of fertile ground from which to build an almost unlimited variety of new and innovative applications and technologies --- that it really doesn't matter if MS patents "the use of multiple scripting languages in an XML document". So what? Is that really going to bring your application to a halt? Is that really going to prevent you from completing it?

Software patents, though stupid, are a last ditch effort of the old order trying desperately to cling to the unchallenged market dominance it once had. Too little, too late.

And let's not forget, friends of Open Source, that not all of these commericial entities are bad. IBM, with its monstrous patent portfolio has done wonders for Linux, donating powerful technologies such as RCU and NUMA.

Open Source has fought and won bigger battles than this. It has emerged from obscurity against all odds, amazing even those who have been central to its development. Whole operating systems, relational database manangement systems, web and application servers, office suites, desktop managers, clustering technologies, programming languages, advanced firewall and routing technologies, cross platform widget libraries, XML parsers, TCP/IP implementations, accounting and ERP systems --- the list goes on --- have risen from humble beginnings, from good people who have had the good nature, intelligence, and courage to create them. They have overcome the ridicule of trade journals and imbecilic IT pundits, emerged victorous from opressive corporate lawsuites (AT&T, SCO), and have not only made a name for themselves in the mainstream, but in many cases have also shown themselves to be vastly superior to their commercial counterparts.

Kirk McKusick, in his History of Unix at Berkeley recalled when the members of the CSRG first talked about actually trying to free BSD UNIX from AT&T and make it available to the public. Kirk and Mike Karrels, who thought this idea was pipe dreams at best, told Sam Leffler or Steve Bostic (I can't remember which) that they would address the kernel only after free versions of all system programs and utilities had been rewritten. They figured this was a nice way of saying it's never going to happen. Well Sam/Steve went to work getting the word out. At first, there were a few simple utilities that came in, like cat and ls, and more. But after some months, larger things started to roll it, and more and more utilities were falling into place, until one day someone (I believe it was James Clark) announced that he had completely rewritten nroff to the tune of 75,000 lines of code. At that point, Kirk looked at Mike and said something like "Oh Shit, they're really serious about this." A couple years later, BSD UNIX --- the good UNIX --- was free to the world, but only after a fierce and in some cases very personal assault from AT&T.

Despite the best efforts of ridiculous software patents and corrupt politicians brought to you by Microsoft, the hardest part of the battle has been won. This is at best just the Battle of the Bulge in the world war of Gates and Co. It may be painful and difficult, but the heroes of open source have already prevailed. They have shown themselves impervious to the FUD. They have shown themselves powerful enough to develop every kind of software, and capable enough to make it better than many commercial equivalents.

It is because of what they have created, along with us the open source community who have put it to use in our products, businesses,

Re:...it's OK....we can still blame MS

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont like guinness and I dont like ip patents the Irish should simply go fsck themselves

Re:...it's OK....we can still blame MS

[JPMH]

So it would appear that US corporations are subverting international processes for their own benefit. This is exactly the same as the Australia-US situation, where compliance with draconian US IP laws HAVE BEEN MADE A CONDITION of the US entering into a Free Trade Agreement.

Though it's good that the Australian Computer Society (ACS) seem at last to have woken up to the dangers.
(Report , 4 May).

Re:...it's OK....we can still blame MS

[Dwonis]

Software patents won't stop free software from existing; it will just stop free software from being innovative.

Re:...it's OK....we can still blame MS

[samhalliday]

the Irish stuff up IP laws in EU - but they make Guinness

no, the Irish government stuff up IP laws... they don't make the Guinness. its fair to say this is something where only a very small minority of ireland actually knows about it.

north and south of the border, we are not exactly famous for having good politicians (*cough* terrorists *cough*)

What oo Software Patents Have to Do...

[reallocate]

...with democracy?

Democracy means you get to vote for your leaders. Don't like these guys? Vote for someone else. If you lose, don't rant about the failure of democracy. Rant about the failure of your powers of persuasion.

Re:What oo Software Patents Have to Do...

[leonscape]

This was already voted down for the people we elected. This is unelected people saying it doesn't matter, what the elected said where changing it back.

The Irish Polticians have a cozy setup with MS.

Re:What oo Software Patents Have to Do...

[Anonymous Coward]

For your information - the "disrespect for democracy" comment refers to the fact that the European Parliament voted against this legislation, but it is being brought in anyway. It's not saying that software patents are inherently anti-democratic.

Re:What oo Software Patents Have to Do...

[reallocate]

Is the European Parliament sovereign in these matters?

From an American point of view, the European Parliament always sounds like another version of the Articles of Confederation, 200 hundred years later. The Articles didn't work because they were written by people who thought it was more important to be, say, a Virginian than an American. The European Parliament always sounds to me as if it was constructed by people who wanted to be called European, but didn't want to give up being French, or German, or whatever.

Re:What oo Software Patents Have to Do...

[LeftOfCentre]

In some policy areas, the European Parliament has full veto power over legislation. In other areas (such as the EU's foreign policy) it is utterly powerless. But its role has increased over the years -- originally its members were not elected by the people, and its powers were significantly more limited than today.

Despite flaws, the EU system works fairly well in practice. The European Parliament is only one part of the entire machinery.

No but really

[Anonymous Coward]

If I have an app that has "tabs", and I coded it, so I have the copyright for it, and software patents are legalised, and "tabs" get patented, they cannot do anything with me because I was first, nope?

Re:No but really

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you prove you were first? You need a way of documenting that. Timestamps on your CD-ROM won't count. You need to do something like make a deposit of the source-code listings signed and stamped for by someone like your bank manager, lawyer, notary, or to submit a research paper (or file a patent).

The people in power are morons

[Anonymous Coward]

I think one thing is universal, the people who persue power are usually either simply evil, stupid, or corrupted.

These E.U. big-wigs are the same people who are imposing draconian laws that effectively ban accessability to vitamins, minerals and other dietary supplements. Want to take a 1000mb viamin C tablet when you're sick? Illegal! Want to take boron to help with your low-calcium diet? Illegal! And so on. Wouldn't want to stop the drug companies from making money would you.

This is the same same sorry age old mix of stupidity and corruption in the face of big lobby groups. In computing it is the corporate faces we know, in other areas they have their own equals. Once you become an expert in a field, you realise how corrupt it is. What few people realise is that almost every field of human economics and politics is just as corrupt. And this is why we're destroying ourselves.

Look who sponsors the irish precidency

[Anonymous Coward]

Very recently two new sponsors for the irish precidency appeared, as can be see on their sponsors web page. These are Microsoft and Dell. Is this just a coincidence?

Re:Look who sponsors the irish precidency

[danila]

What the FUCK? Sponsor a presidency? How the hell is THAT possible? What next? Arthur Anderson sponsoring the judicial system?

Anyway, in mid-nighties Russian president and the prime minister were sitting in the Kremlin. The prime minister said: "Mr. President, I've got a letter from Coca-Cola here. They suggest that if we change our flag back to the Soviet one and add "Coca-Cola" in the corner, they will solve all our budget problems for the next decade." "Hmmm" said the president, "could you check when our deal with Pepsi ends."

Re:Look who sponsors the irish precidency

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be a coincidence. Microsoft is a respectable company. They would never bribe a government, or break the law. Their only focus is writing good software.

EU

[arfuni]

Keep in mind that when the EU's largest economy and most populated country objects to something they're bound to get their opinions out. The opposition countries (Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Slovak) have over a hundred million citizens. I'm sure there's a couple of loud geeks and lawyers in there somewhere.

structures 'ay?

[A_GREER]

I will take the patent for the loop, the srray, the linked list. those are taken? OK, I will take anything that M$ HASN'T claimed yet.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[iminplaya]

You are aware that when IP was implemented that the publishing industry went nuts at the thought of the authors retaining any rights at all to their work. I can't find any explaination as to what REALLY happened when there were no IP laws. All I saw was wild generalizations about "chaos" and "mayhem". For who? Was there rioting in the streets? Did all the farmers go on strike and cause widespread starvation? All you damn IP people want to keep the gravy train running, and I say, Get paid for your performance. I told another guy that if you want IP, then I want royalties for every mile you drive your car after I fix it. Then I can sit back and "collect the rent" just like you. If you wany IP treated like real property, then you should pay property tax like you do on real property.

DO NOT FOLLOW LINK!

[spaceman harris]

Worse than goatse.cx

Re: Ethics of (IP)? knowledge advancement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically IPR is a very bad term for this. it makes it sound like you could really own a idea. As if it were something you could lose. Which is nonsense ofcourse, just because a piece of knowledge spreads doesn't mean someone else has lost this part of knowledge.

Basically copyrights and patents are only there to try and improve development speed, and obviously as it's now starting to show in software with patents, if it slows it down. It really has no buisness being there.

So once we drop the idea of property off the sentance and think about it logically, Is it smart to not try and encourage the advancement of knowledge? Well indeed obviously not, but it's not some natural right, it's just to help things move along, and certaintly must never be overused.

Quickshot

Ridiculous.

[Featureless]

I'm supposed to write software in a world where software can be patented?

Then every piece of code anyone writes is a ticking patent time-bomb.

So lets pretend we can have a patent office thoroughly staffed with geniuses gifted with eidetic memories and a sublime sense of of what is original and patent-worthy.

I'm supposed to read the entire patent database (hundreds of thousands of records)? And then once I finish that I only have to keep current with new grants (let alone new applications) - that's probably only dozens or hundreds a day...

Yeah, right. But then if someone comes along and wants a ransom for their patent on dereferencing pointers on Tuesdays or whatever seemed original and innovative 18 months ago, I'll either have to pay up or spend a few million to take on the fight in civil court...

I'm sorry - software patents are ridiculous. Your steel mill will invest in R&D to lower its energy costs, or it won't. But software patents don't create an incentive to do anything other than run for the hills. It's legitimizing barratry - the only winners are the lawyers, for the steel mill, the companies the steel mill sues, and for the other companies that will sue the steel mill for violating their patents, and so on and so forth, forever and ever...

Software patents are thought of by their proponents as a weapon against free software, and a cudgel against less wealthy competitors. And if they accrue enough legitimacy, within our lifetimes the software engineering discipline will be so clogged with them that practically no one can write software except in secret, no matter well you think the patent office can run. It's sadly ironic, really, that you think they spur any kind of innovation, when all they do is insure that no two good ideas are ever likely to be used together without a legal negotiation first...

Re:Ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm supposed to read the entire patent database (hundreds of thousands of records)? And then once I finish that I only have to keep current with new grants (let alone new applications) - that's probably only dozens or hundreds a day..."

And the same goes if you are working in the steel industry on creating new steel production processes - you would have to keep up with the state of the art to ensure that you don't infringe a patent. I don't see how software is any different and why, based on this argument, it should be a special case. The problem is frivolous patents of trivial processes or patenting things with prior art. Patents on steel processing is not necessarily a problem for you, it seems, but I think we'd both agree that allowing someone to patent heating it to 1 degree more than you do in the process now should not be patentable.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Halo1]

And the same goes if you are working in the steel industry on creating new steel production processes - you would have to keep up with the state of the art to ensure that you don't infringe a patent. I don't see how software is any different and why

Software is different because you don't have to build a steel new mill to use some new technique, or even to begin producing. All you need is a computer and a programmer. By introducing software patents, you introduce an extra entry barrier. Of course, some big established companies would love that: it allows them to better control who can enter the market.

It's also different because a programmer does tens of small "inventive steps" per day while programming. Just like the author of a story makes tens of small "inventive steps" per day. It's the normal course of action when doing something based on creativity and will be realised much more as opposed to when you are constrained by physical properties of materials. You're hampered more or less only by your imagination and creativity, instead of by the physical world.

This means that the "inventive step" condition of patent law is totally unfit for creations in the realm of abstraction, as it's passed by too many things. The newness and inventive step (or usefulness, in the US) conditions are merely filters to try to make sure that most granted patents are of good quality. They fail to achieve this in the software world, as they were devised for the physical world. It's a completely outdated concept when applied to today's information society, which is much better served by copyright (encourage as many separate works of the same ideas as possible to increase competition, but inhibit plagiarising or plain copying of other people's work).

In the physical world, laws of nature are not patentable. In software patents, there are no equivalents of laws of nature. The patented technique doesn't have to be able to run on a computer of today, it just has to be representable in the mathematical Turing model, that's all. That's one reason why so many software patents seem so basic: there is nothing basic that is unpatentable.

Finally, patent law is an economical law (devised in the 15th century, no less). You introduce patents in a field because you have good indications it will improve innovation and competition in that field. So before introducing it in software, you should first research whether they will have the same effect. Thanks to the US, we have already several economical studies, including the one by the FTC, that indicate they don't have positive effects, and even hamper progress.

Question...

[chris_eineke]

If I use a method/algorithm, that a company patented, in a programming project at school will I infringe on their patent?

Re:Question...

[johannesg]

Of course! Why would you think otherwise?

Re:Question...

[pjt33]

Yes. You'll also be fairly good evidence that it shouldn't be patentable regardless of the validity of software patents, unless you already happen to be an expert in the field and it took you some effort.

Re:Question...

[Flyboy Connor]

Yes, only you need not worry about it. They won't sue you. THAT will only happen if you become a business and start being successful.

not happy? Then SIGN THE PETITION!

[acidvoid]

Read how you can help here...

http://swpat.ffii.org/group/todo/index.en.html

Sign a petition here...

http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html?LANG=en

When I signed the number of signatures was 322888, A MILLION ARE NEEDED!!!!

Best Regards,

#322889

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[Log from Blammo]

If handled correctly, copyrights and patents foster creativity and innovation in the market. If handled incorrectly, they have the opposite effect. Government patent offices do not, in my opinion, handle I.P. correctly.

BTW, there shouldn't be any municipal water supplies. Drinking water companies need not be run by the city, when a for-profit company could do the job. Likewise, patents need not be exclusively administered by one corruptable government office.

What will be patented?

[hattig]

Will all the old patents from the past 50 years in the US suddenly be patented?

Will us European programmers suddenly need a license to implement quicksort and all of those other software patents that expired so long ago?

If so, the European software industry is fucked. Truly and royally fucked. It will kill it totally. There won't be one. Implementing software patents allowing this would be 100% counter-productive.

Now if the law is only for new applications, not for ones already existing ... then just maybe. If the patent is truly deserving.

Why don't I believe that this will be the case. It'll just be a whole load of obvious patents for software and methods that have been done a thousand times before, albeit in a slightly different context - which somehow makes the new patent valid!

This is just another law to get a load of lawyers a load of money for submitting patents, whilst fucking over everybody else.

Fucking sickening.

Re:What will be patented?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://webshop.ffii.org/

Data Structures? I patent the vector!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hereby declare myself the originator of the data structure known as the vector, x bar. x can represent any quantity that has direction. It is composed of two or more numbers, real, integer or imaginary, arranged in an array. The members of the array represent the strength of the quantity in a prearranged direction.

A typical example of a vector quantity is three dimensional velocity,

V = vi + vj + vk

Where vi,j,k represent change in position with respect to time in the i,j and k directions. It can be represented by a matrix of three real numbers of any number of bits as a representation.

All numerical simulations will benefit from my new invention, the vector. How else could anyone resolve and balance forces, areas, the flow of heat, particles and fluids without vectors? I am the new king of numerical calculation and all owe me tribute.

NOT. I hope anyone reading this understands that a patent on a data structure is absurd. Data structures are neither inventions or unique. They are necessary constructs, dictated by the nature of the problem being solved. They are all implicit in the construct of data types themselves. To claim that a data structure is an invention worthy of patent makes about as much sense as claiming two bricks stacked together is an invention.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[iminplaya]

BTW, there shouldn't be any municipal water supplies. Drinking water companies need not be run by the city, when a for-profit company could do the job.

At what cost? We've seen what happens when electric utilities got privatized. Our good friend Dennis Kucinich can inform you what happened (in ohio at least). There's nothing wrong with people using their collective power (through gov't if necessay) to operate and control these things. If they stay on the ball, they can assure that everything will run smoothly. If they privatize, they lose that control. Cable TV is a good example. The corruptability of a gov't office soley depends on how far the voters let it go. So far, they have been asleep at the wheel on this one.

Good or bad

[javatips]

Trully innovative software patent (innovative algorithm) are not necessarly bad. The problem with the situation in the US is that obvious stuff is being patented (and not just software).
The worst thing about software patent right now is that they are granted for way to long. With growth and rate of evolution in software techniques, 3-5 years until patent expiration would be a lot better that 17 years. If a company is not able to cash in in that time frame, then that means that it's innovation is not really innovative.

Re:Good or bad

[pjt33]

Trully innovative software patent (innovative algorithm) are not necessarly bad.

In themselves, no. However, since it's unlikely the owner will licence it in a way compatible with GPL, it will allow Microsoft another way to lock people in to Windows. Thus given the current environment, they're disastrous.

Re:Good or bad

[Halo1]

Trully innovative software patent (innovative algorithm) are not necessarly bad. The problem with the situation in the US is that obvious stuff is being patented (and not just software).

Without backup, that's like saying patents on truly innovative story lines are not necessarily bad. And what is your definition of a "truly innovative algorithm"?

Further, please also read this page, especially the first section (A problem of law, not of patent examination). The "newness" and "inventive step" conditions of patent law are completely unfit for software. Using patents for software is like using jet engines to power your bike. Sure, you may be able to get it to work, but it's a very dangerous and destructive combination, and there are much better solutions available.

Re:Good or bad

[Alsee]

software patent (innovative algorithm) are not necessarly bad

I am a programmer. Yes they are.

Essentially every patent office on earth has (or *HAD*) rules stating that you cannont "invent" or patent math and algorithms.

Algorithms are pure math. All software is literally nothing more than a mathematical equation. Partenting software is absurd as patenting addition or calculous.

Computers cannot implement inventions. A copmputer cannot manufacture a car or even make sound. The only thing a computer can do is math calculations. You can invent and patent a car-making robot and connect it to a computer, but it is absurd to suggest patenting the math going on in the computer. You can invent and patent a speaker and connect it to a computer, but it is absurd to patent the math involved in MP3 calculations. You can invent a harddrive, but it is absurd to patent math calculations for compressing the numbers sent to that harddrive.

You can connect inventions to computers, but computers themselves can only do math. Software is nothing but math.

-

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[Moridineas]

It's quite simple--publishers made less money, authors/writers made less money, pirates made more money. And before anyone goes off on a rant about how pirates is a misleading term, this is a very established etymology, that is not at all recent.

If you're interested in the matter, the modern era of copyrights basically was entered around the 1880's. Specifically, the first work was Gilbert and Sullivan's _The Pirates of Penzance_. Before that point the US and England had no copyright agreement, so G&S operettas (and others) would appear on the NY streets within days of opening in London, by people who merely copied Gilbert's dialogues and Sullivan's composing.

But I guess in your world view that's not a problem--"collecting rent" and what not doesn't sound good? I just hope, for your sake, that you never get a world without IP--and then ever feel like creating anything.

Bolkestein left Brussels today...

[stock]

Interesting enough today the old dutch politician Bolkestein returned back to dutch national politics. He has spent several years in brussels and suddenly has aborted his job there. Now why would he return so swiftly all of a sudden? maybe this eludes what happened :

http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0507/
"A leaked document from Bolkestein's DG Internal Market suggests that DG Information Society no longer objects to program claims. This concession by Liikanen is needed in order to rush the Council working group proposal through the ministers' session as an "A item", i.e. a consensus point which does not need any discussion by the ministers."

Robert

Cut the xenophobic crap...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Yeah, well before you start you xenophobic EU-bashing, remember that if it wasn't for the USPTO's stance of letting people patent everything and the kitchen sink then the EU legislators wouldn't have taken such a step.

In the real world, where companies and countries have to compete against one another in business, not recognising software patents in the EU whilst they are being handed out like hot cakes in the US is the quickest way to destroy software development within the EU. I don't like it - in fact, I hate it - but those are the reasons behind it.

So, before you start EU-bashing, on software patents and rights in general (perhaps you should check out the EU Human Rights Act as well) perhaps you should learn to appreciate that it's only following the rather poor precedent set by the US.

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Executive Summary: EU is America's Bitch. WAAH!!

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[Deraj DeZine]

I'm from the Christmas Islands, moron.

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[pluvia]

Is the EU bound to obey the USPTO by some treaty? If so, you're right, that does sound kinda stupid.

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[roard]

In the real world, where companies and countries have to compete against one another in business, not recognising software patents in the EU whilst they are being handed out like hot cakes in the US is the quickest way to destroy software development within the EU. I don't like it - in fact, I hate it - but those are the reasons behind it.

Excuse me, sir, but... what are you smoking ?

The Patent System is grossly abused in general, and particularly in the software area. It's widely acknowledged (check the economical studies available on the ffii site for example) that Software Patents doesn't increase inovation (and it's not particularly a difficult thing to understand). I won't be long here, suffice to say that programming is inherently an incremental work, based on top of others ideas, and moreover, it's one of the most complex creation that could be done (hell, it's so complex that we can't manage to produce 100% sure non-bugged software for any complex procedure). Pushing Software Patents is so deeply wrong that it would be funny if not real. How could you think a second that the patent system, with submarine patents, looooong submission delay, innovation-challenged patents, and incredibly inaccurate verification, could work in a field that would use dozens of theses "patents" without even realizing it, all that in a period not even sufficient to apply a patent ?

Why do the EU want theses ? it's totally insane. Not having patents is actually the BEST thing that could happens to the EU (and to all others countries). Plus, Software Patents aren't bringing added value at all, only $$$ for lawyers. Not one engineer read software patents (and for good reason -- not only because of the judicial risk).

The only reason I could imagine, sadly, is that some EU bureaucrats get big dollars by US companies. The fact that theses bureaucrats just choose to overrulle the European Commission is so incredible that my hope is it will create an enormous indignation (because, face it, the average EU citizen doesn't care about patents, but perhaps the beahvior shown by the bureaucrat (total irrespect to the elected representants) will trigger something).

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the real world, where companies and countries have to compete against one another in business, not recognising software patents in the EU whilst they are being handed out like hot cakes in the US is the quickest way to destroy software development within the EU.

Interesting claim. Do you have some references or what do you base this on? (no, really, i'm not trying to be a prick. if you have them or, heck, even just some schoolboy logic to back that up, I'd love to read it)

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[AigariusDebian]

He is wrong. It acctually is much more interesting.
Both USPTO and the new directive violate the TRIPS and the Berne convention which both USA and EU signed.
TRIPS article 12. says that software is to be considered a literary work.
Berne convention clearly states that literary works are not patentable.

The problem is that the European Council and the Irish Presidency claim that their proposition doesn't allow software patents, but that is such a pile of bullshit.

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[WIAKywbfatw]

That's one way of looking at it. In fact, as I said in my original post, I hate the fact that the EU is following the US's lead in this area, so my own position isn't far different from yours.

However, of the two of us, I seem to be the one who's far more aware of the real world pressures put on politicians and lawmakers: these people didn't suddenly wake up one day and say "Hey, software patents are a good thing!" of their own accord, someone led them to believe that, and that someone (clearly) were businesses and their lobbyists.

The fact that software patents (such as Amazon's one-click shopping patent) stifle competition is "obvious" to you and me, but it clearly isn't "obvious" to everyone. The difference between us and the businesses that support software patents (and, clearly, there are some) is that they can afford to throw a lot of money wooing others to hear their side of the story.

It's not a perfect world, but it's the world that we live in.

So, in the future please, I'd be greatful if you didn't make a knee-jerk reaction and bite my head off just because I try to explain why something has happened - especially when I've made it abundantly clear that I disagree with what's happened in my original post. Or, in your terms, I'm not smoking anything, but perhaps you should stop toking whatever's in your pipe and actually read my post before venting your spleen in my direction next time.

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[Wastl]

The only reason I could imagine, sadly, is that some EU bureaucrats get big dollars by US companies. The fact that theses bureaucrats just choose to overrulle the European Commission is so incredible that my hope is it will create an enormous indignation (because, face it, the average EU citizen doesn't care about patents, but perhaps the beahvior shown by the bureaucrat (total irrespect to the elected representants) will trigger something).

Actually, it was the Irish presidency that overruled the Parliament, which I (as EU citizen) consider even worse (the directive has, however, still to be passed by the council of ministers, but that is usually only a formal thing). Unfortunately, the EU Parliament in the current form of the EU does not have much to say, which is very, very sad, if we are to become a political entity. I hope that at least the comparably new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe will help to change this.

I tried to alert the (mainstream) media about this some time ago, but they simply don't appear to care, most probably because the average citizen is not interested in software patents.

Sebastian

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[Halo1]

Well, it's article 10 (search for "10.1"), but apart from that you're completely right:

Article 10.1 provides that computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971). This provision confirms that computer programs must be protected under copyright and that those provisions of the Berne Convention that apply to literary works shall be applied also to them. It confirms further, that the form in which a program is, whether in source or object code, does not affect the protection. The obligation to protect computer programs as literary works means e.g. that only those limitations that are applicable to literary works may be applied to computer programs. It also confirms that the general term of protection of 50 years applies to computer programs. Possible shorter terms applicable to photographic works and works of applied art may not be applied.

And before the ip lawyers come wining that a computer program executed by a computer is supposedly a technical process instead of a literary work: it isn't. The EU Software Copyright directive of 1991 states clearly that a computer program protected as a literary work includes (article 4):

... the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole. Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage...

Anyway, that distinction is also silly from a logical point of view. Otherwise, you'd also have to start arguing that when an author writes a play, his copyright only extends to what he wrote down and that he does not have any rights to remuneration when his play is performed (because then it's supposedly no longer a play as such)

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[LeftOfCentre]

The only reason I could imagine, sadly, is that some EU bureaucrats get big dollars by US companies. The fact that theses bureaucrats just choose to overrulle the European Commission is so incredible that my hope is it will create an enormous indignation (because, face it, the average EU citizen doesn't care about patents, but perhaps the beahvior shown by the bureaucrat (total irrespect to the elected representants) will trigger something).

You have it entirely backwards. The council, which comprises the (elected) EU member governments, is pushing through this legislation despite opposition from the parliament. It was originally proposed by the European Commision, whose proposal the member countries are really anxious to push through.

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[njdj]

not recognising software patents in the EU whilst they are being handed out like hot cakes in the US is the quickest way to destroy software development within the EU

Rubbish. European companies can (and do) get patents in the US, just as US companies get patents in Europe. The international environment is the same for every company.

What probably would happen, is that the market for software in a patent-free Europe would be more competitive than in a patent-encumbered USA, because software could be sold in Europe which could not be sold in the USA. Both US and European companies would probably participate in the more competitive European market. The people who'd benefit most would be European software consumers, i.e. all companies except software developers. More competition in the European region would lower their software costs.

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[pluvia]

Wow. Thanks for the good info, guys.

So has TRIPS or the Berne Convention been tested in court? At the very least, this clearly indicates that the EU is not currently bound by software patents (from US or otherwise).

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[roard]

However, of the two of us, I seem to be the one who's far more aware of the real world pressures put on politicians and lawmakers: these people didn't suddenly wake up one day and say "Hey, software patents are a good thing!" of their own accord, someone led them to believe that, and that someone (clearly) were businesses and their lobbyists.

I'm entirely aware of the lobbyist pressures. And in my opinion, the most pressures comes from US companies, not EU companies (95% of the EU companies were actually *against* the SP, but according to the EU commission, that poll was dismissed because thoses 95% weren't "economically signifiant" (which is a bit stupid -- a startup won't be economically signifiant, but that's where the innovation comes from. And most of the EU software companies are small companies...).
Anyway, sorry if my reaction was a bit harsh, but what made me jump isn't the fact that you claim there's lobby (it should be obvious for anybody), but the fact that you stated : "In the real world, where companies and countries have to compete against one another in business, not recognising software patents in the EU whilst they are being handed out like hot cakes in the US is the quickest way to destroy software development within the EU. I don't like it - in fact, I hate it - but those are the reasons behind it."

So, I understand that you don't like the Software Patents et all, but saying what you say is just wrong. "not recognising software patents in the EU whilst they are being handed out like hot cakes in the US" IS NOT the quickest way to destroy software development within the EU, to the contrary !

If you wanted to say that, the FACT that the US allowed the SP leads today to a push of SP in the EU, yes, that's true. But what should also consider is that most of the push is the result of US companies. And frankly, if that what you wanted to express, it was badly worded. To me, I just read it like "if SP exists in US, EU needs to have it too" -- the exact argument of the SP lobbyist in EU. And that argument is deep wrong, as I explained it in my post (nothing prevents a EU company to get a US patent if that's so necessary, but two wrong won't made a good, and allowing EU SP won't balance US SP, I even believe that it will just have the nice result of turning lawyers firms amok).

Re:Cut the xenophobic crap...

[Halo1]

If you'd invoke them, it would probably on a state level: after all, you are challenging the validity of other laws. For example regarding TRIPs, only a state can file complaints regarding breaches, and that must be done that the WTO. So we'd have to find a nation willing to do that. And I'm not sure which state would be willing to do that, as it would result in a head-on collision with the US.

Then again, recently a country (forgot which one) successfully won such a complaint against the US regarding online gambling, so it's definitely not impossible. I don't know who and where one can complain about infringements to the Berne convention.

The whole "TRIPs requires software patents" fallacy is covered in great detail by FFII.

Patent reform progress in US?

[Micah]

Just wondering if those familiar with patent reform lobbying in the US could give a summary of what is happening. I'm not necessarily talking about the elimination of software patents, though that would be nice, but at least of reforming the system to only allow truly deserving patents through, and then for less time than is currently given.

• Are there any organizations specifically dedicated to this fight? (EFF?)
  
• Are any Congressmen known to be sympathetic?
  
• ...etc...?
  

Thanks

patently bad?

[moviepig.com]

Software patents are not all bad.

They're no worse than patents in general...

...with the continued proviso that you can't patent anything that's "obvious to one skilled in the art", which is supposed to obviate the most common scare-examples.

But, remember that main role of patents isn't "just deserts" for the inventor. Rather, they're society's incentive lure to galvanize its potential inventors. And in software, where the cost of experimentation and development is relatively low, the incentive needn't be as large as for other fields. Accordingly, cutting software patents from 20 years to say, 8, ought to be a huge win.

Re:patently bad?

[juhaz]

They're no worse than patents in general...

Yes they are, since they have same expiration times as other patents, yet software area moves a lot quicker.

By the time a regular patent expires, the idea(s) in it may still be perfectly usable for others to use, but by the time software patent expires, the technique has probably long since been obsolote, granting a monopoly on it for it's whole lifetime. An absolute maximum of five years from filing date might be a reasonable time for software patent, decades? Insane.

Re:Same morons had their phones tapped.

[stock]

Well i fear that there is some truth in the above statement. My confidence in the Brussels politics has lowered to below -273.15 oC.

IMHO the total insanity in Brussels started, when it was reported that U.S. Secret Intelligence have been routinely tapping phone lines on the complete telecommunication network which is part of the EU building infrastructure in Brussels.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-03-19-eu-p hone-taps_x.htm

Robert

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope, for your sake, that you never get a world without IP--and then ever feel like creating anything.

Your creations are worthless. Most people's creations are worthless. The few worthwhile creations are so beneficial if they are shared that it makes no sense to restrict their distribution. Can you honestly say that just because you found a way to put notes together that other people like, you deserve something? THEY are the ones who process the notes they hear and enjoy them. You don't own their likes or dislikes. Can you prevent them from humming the music to themselves later? Remove it from their head when they are unworthy of your creation because they haven't paid you enough? Why prevent them from sharing it digitally? Discovering something does not make it your own, either. There are mathematical and natural truths (or reasonable facsimilies thereof), and they can only be discovered, not "invented" or "innovated". You don't want to invent things just because you can't get rich off of them? Fine with us, there are hundreds and thousands of people more intellegent and creative than you, who do release their discoveries freely. Now, how should you make a living then? Just like anyone else, do something physical and practically relevent to the world. I sure wouldn't pay you to think, I can think fine for myself.

Get your paperwork ready

[cheeseguy]

adding direct patentability of data structures and process descriptions as icing on the cake

Well then I better hurry up and get my paper work together for

struct tree
{
int value;
tree * Lchild;
tree * Rchild;
};
typedef tree * TreePtr;

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[iminplaya]

Maybe because authors didn't have their own press like they do now. The whole issue never came up before Gutenburg. And after that, it became an issue of who had the right to print to protect gov't and the publishing industry (more like the writer's guild at the time) The U.S. didn't care much about enforcing IP until it had acquired a significant amount of its own. The pirates and "criminals" of yesterday's societies are what gave us today's freedoms. And today's pirates will do the same for future societies. It appears that if you want freedom, you need the "criminals" to make the law unenforcable. When I create something, I get paid then and there, as it should be. Then I forget about it and move on. By the way, the first copyright law came about in 1710. It's not all that diiferent from today's law (except for the time scales involved). Right now, copyright is being used to protect the publishing middle man more than anyone else. This is necessary to insure that creators will be dependant on them (requiring that they sign over their rights, etc,) forever if possible.

It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux

[gnuman99]

It is clear the many propriatery software companies cannot compete with open source software (not on a mass market scale), so the only way for them to maintain any hope of lead is to patent their applications.

They will not *sue* end users, they will go after developers. Patents ensure that Windows will remain the defecto OS for at least out lifetimes. In computer terms, an eternity.

Personally, I would at least hope they would allow math patents. Afterall, most software patents are just ideas stolen from the math world. Too bad "law" makers are too stupid to realize this.

Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You want math patents? You think an absolute fundamental of all existence should be patentable?

Quick someone tell the president to patent E=mc2, then we can rule the world!!!!!!!!!!

Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux

[servoled]

I've asked this numerous times and usually don't get a good answer, but why not setup a foundation for patenting things invented during the course of development in open source software? There is nothing saying that only Microsoft can patent things, so why not beat them at their own game if you think Microsoft will try to follow such a road to put an end to Linux?

Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux

[gnuman99]

Because to file a patent, it costs in excess of $5000. This is *per* patent. Secondly, to actually enforce the patent, you can spend 10-100x that amount minimum.

Now, companies like Microsoft, can submit 10 patents a day. Just see slashdot a day or two ago. They can afford to spend $50,000 per day, no problem!

Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux

[gnuman99]

Why not? They can patent my genes, so why the hell do I can about some theorem :)

Anyway, I said math patents, not physics patents. There is a *huge* difference. Math is just theoretical (ie. not real) - just like software, it is a figment of our imagination (ie. an intellectal tool)

Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux

[servoled]

Ah yes, the old "patents are too expensive to file" argument, complete hogwash. According to the FY 2004 fee schedule it would cost a small entity (which a non-profit agency would most likely be) exactly $385.00, so I'm curious where you pulled $5000 per patent from. As far as lawyers are concerned there is no reason why you need a lawyer to file a patent. I'm sure there would be someone in the open source community smart enough to write the patent and respond to the actions sent out by the examiners, and who would be willing to do a little volunteer work, so lawyer fees wouldn't be an issue. I'm pretty sure the FSF or someone along those lines can come up with $385.00.

As far as enforcement, they wouldn't have to actively enforce their patents, they could use them strictly as defensive patents.

So I ask again, what is stopping the OSS community from filing patents based on their work?

Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux

[Halo1]

Ah yes, the old "patents are too expensive to file" argument, complete hogwash.

The average cost of a granted European Patent (valid in 8 countries) is EUR 30 000 (yes, 30 000, not 3000).

As far as enforcement, they wouldn't have to actively enforce their patents, they could use them strictly as defensive patents.

What's so great about a system that requires people to invest money with as sole purpose to protect themselves from that system? Especially if it's extremely hard to find any macro-economical advantages (and many hints at disadvantages) of this system (cf. FTC study).

Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux

[servoled]

The average cost of a granted European Patent (valid in 8 countries) is EUR 30 000 (yes, 30 000, not 3000).

Let's look at those costs and see how many of them are actually required and how many could be done by the applicants/OSS community:

EPO Fees: 4300 - Required by the EPO
Professional Representation: 5500 - Optional, the cases could be filed pro se for free
Translation: 11500 - Optional, could easily be done by bilungual volunteers
National Renewel Fees: 8500 - Required by the EPO

So, in the end with a little work the cost of a patent for a 10 year term becomes EUR 12800 or EUR 1600 per country. I really don't think this is excessively high for anyone serious about OSS projects, epecially since it could be raised by funding drives.

What's so great about a system that requires people to invest money with as sole purpose to protect themselves from that system? Especially if it's extremely hard to find any macro-economical advantages (and many hints at disadvantages) of this system (cf. FTC study).

Since you didn't bother to link to whatever FTC study it is you are talking about, I can't really respond to it. Although just on the basis of what you said I'd question if they were studying the national effects of patents on the economy or the individual effects on a company/inventor.

Patents are intended to award the inventor for his/her work, the side effect of full disclosure of the invention is just a perk. Granted its not a perfect system, and if we would all work together towards a single goal I'm sure it would be beneficial to the society as a whole, but guess what, humans aren't that good hearted by nature. There are lots of ideals that work in theory but fall on their face when put into practice.

Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux

[Halo1]

Let's look at those costs and see how many of them are actually required and how many could be done by the applicants/OSS community:

EPO Fees: 4300 - Required by the EPO
Professional Representation: 5500 - Optional, the cases could be filed pro se for free

This is extremely discouraged. Even someone from the European Commission whom I talked to (the person who is handling the software patents directive in the Commission) admitted you have very little chance to get your application approved if you don't have any experience with patent law.

These people are programmers, not lawyers!

Translation: 11500 - Optional, could easily be done by bilungual volunteers

Not optional, it must be translated into all official languages of the countries where you want your patent to be valid. And you don't have to be just a "bilingual volunteer", you have to be a "bilingual volunteer with lots of time and who knows the patent jargon in both languages".

National Renewel Fees: 8500 - Required by the EPO

So, in the end with a little work the cost of a patent for a 10 year term becomes EUR 12800 or EUR 1600 per country. I really don't think this is excessively high for anyone serious about OSS projects, epecially since it could be raised by funding drives.

A "little work"? EUR 12800 not excessively high? And why on Earth should only "serious" OSS projects be allowed to be viable? It's like saying that only people who write for a living should be allowed to publish; the rest only does it as a hobby and thus should put up or shut up.

FWIW, I personally work on an open source project, which exists already for about 13 years (see url in my info). We have over 10GiB of downloads per day on our main ftp site alone (I don't have statistics on the mirrors). It's used by several companies and universities all over the world.

We do not have EUR 12800 or even EUR 1000. Why should we and other people start to have to pay and spend time on learning patent jargon and translating it so that we can continue our hobby project (which happens to be useful for other people)? What does society as a whole gain from this extra burden?

And what can you do with a single patent when a company like IBM or even Microsoft attacks you? Make paper planes to throw at them in a the court room, in a lawsuit that costs another EUR 50,000 ($1 500 000 if you're unlucky and sued in the US), and which requires time which you would normally spend doing your day job earning money that allows you to spend time on your hobbies?

Besides, there's much more than open source projects. If you take an SME, then there are even no imaginary volunteers which are ready to do whatever you ask. They have to pay all those things by themselves. It's them who will be hit the worst. They most certainly do not have EUR 12800 to spare, much less EUR 30000 (or EUR 50000 according to the European Commission -- google cache because original site seems to be down).

Since you didn't bother to link to whatever FTC study it is you are talking about, I can't really respond to it. Although just on the basis of what you said I'd question if they were studying the national effects of patents on the economy or the individual effects on a company/inventor.

That's indeed what they were studying. The original study and an extract of all software patents related stuff (it's on a page of FFII UK, but page numbers are given and if you compare it to the original, you'll see it's uncommented and really does contain all software

why do developers have to get screwed on this too?

[js3]

I see nothing wrong with software patents. it is up to the patent office to make sure people don't file trivial patents, but that applies to hardware and inventions too. The problem isn't that there are software patents, it is that stupid software patents are being given out by the patent office.

Developers need a way to protect their ideas and inventions too. As if writing free software wasn't bad enough

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[Moridineas]

Maybe because authors didn't have their own press like they do now. The whole issue never came up before Gutenburg.

I think you're looking at this issue wrong--you're right in what you say here, but the REASON the problem didn't exist is because copying/producing copies was expensive as hell PERIOD.

U.S. didn't care much about enforcing IP until it had acquired a significant amount of its own. The pirates and "criminals" of yesterday's societies are what gave us today's freedoms.

don't get what your point is at all--last I checked, the constitution and the basis for the entire american system of govt began in the 1770's and 80's. If you have any evidence that the constitution was originally intended to deny the possibility of IP, please enlighten me.

By the way, the first copyright law came about in 1710.

That's not really true--If we're talking British legal system (and ergo, the highly derivative american system) the law of 1710 you cite was the first parliamentary act, however common law had been dealing with these issues for at least 200 years. Common law doesn't mean illegitimate.

Right now, copyright is being used to protect the publishing middle man more than anyone else. This is necessary to insure that creators will be dependant on them (requiring that they sign over their rights, etc,) forever if possible.

this is of course your interpretation, and not one that I agree with, having worked in the publishing industry. I will say that I don't like the current copyright laws, where rights can be extended 76 or whatever numbers of years past death. personally I think 30 years is probably a pretty good number.

Also let it be said that IP goes MUCH farther than just copyrights, so it's rather limiting to only discuss copyright.

EU.BS

[Mulletproof]

Yes, lets move towards software patents while forcing MS to reveal their source code to the world at large...

So much for the slashdot effect....

[acidvoid]

322924 signatures? Has every Slashdotter signed already or is the slashdot effect a myth? ;)

Re:So much for the slashdot effect....

[dave1212]

323701. Need to post the link elsewhere as well.

What's the problem?

[n3m3sis]

If there are patents in the USA or Europe just move to a place where there are no patents, are continue developing! I might be off the point. But I think that patents are not Internationally Universal!

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. Run. And keep running. Until there's nowhere left to run. And then...then what?

Better to stop it now.

How "democracy was subverted"

[darkonc]

If you lose, don't rant about the failure of democracy. Rant about the failure of your powers of persuasion.

My understanding of what happend is something like:

• The patent office comes out with a wishlist.
• The EU Parliment votes it down and puts some strict limits on software patents.
• The Parliment vote is passed to some bureaucrats to clean up and make into 'proper' laws (it's now out of the Parliament's hands).
• The bureaucrats rip out all of the changes made by parliament, and add a few options that weren't even in there to begin with.
• The president -- currently held by Ireland -- (and literally sponsored by Microsoft) manages to get his EU Council of Ministers to accept this bureaucrat-mangled edit.

Voila! democracy subverted!

Re:How "democracy was subverted"

[sir_cello]

> My understanding of what happend is something like:

You are full of shit. I bet you just made that up so you get modded up and present an entirely false argument to readers.

What happened was:
* the concept of excluding "computer programs as such" has been refined over time: software patents are allowed _only_ if they should a concrete "technical effect" (in the US, it is different: they only need to be "useful and produce a tangible result") by case law and appeal board hearings;
* the EPC (european patent convention) is _entirely separate_ from the EU (european union), and thus the case law is developed on a national basis;
* over time, the national courts have adopted subtly different principles;
* this is becoming a problem because it impedes the common market when different national states apply different approaches: since the goal of the EU is to provide market harmonisation;
* to resolve this, the EU directive is proposed that enforces a common approach across the EU (and, upon any members of the EU that are part of the EPC).

Let me re-iterate:
* if this EU directive does not go through, then _software will still be patentable_ -- do not labour under the false impression that this directive is able enabling software patentability: software is _already patentable_, this directive _does not change that_ (in fact, it actually restricts it slightly).
* thus, software will remain patentable, but not in a consistent way: this is even worse because some member states may actually take a very relaxed approach and allow patentablity of software.

Thus, by stopping this directive, the situation gets worse.

The EU has done this before on patentability of biotechnology: it in fact restricted what could be patentable, it expressly prohibited patentably of gene sequences, germ like modification, human cloning, etc.

In the same way, the EU does not want "open the floodgates" to unlimited patentability, it actually wants to restrict it and to control it to ensure proper harmonisation.

I bet the majority of people reading this have no idea about these issues, and simply respond to the spectre of "patentable software".

Re:How "democracy was subverted"

[reallocate]

So, presumably, the Council of Minister are not elected positions? I understand that the Presidency is not, but simply rotates among members.

What's wrong is that the EU is not sufficiently democratic. Apparently, the decisions of the EU Parliament can be overturned by the unelected members of the Presidency or Council.

From an American perspective, it seems this state of affairs will continue until the European countries abandon their notions of individual sovereignty, accept roles equating to those of American states, and permit the creation of a single European federal parliament, court, and executive.

Re:How "democracy was subverted"

[Wastl]

Thus, by stopping this directive, the situation gets worse.

Noone means to stop a directive that regulates software patents. The issue is just, that the council of ministers, under Irish presidency, plainly ignored the vote of the European Parliament which voted for a very restrictive directive about software patents. So, please, before you say someone is "full of shit", please get your facts straight!

Sebastian

Re:How "democracy was subverted"

[sir_cello]

> So, please, before you say someone is "full of shit", please get your facts straight!

I have my facts straighter than the poster: it's one thing to get it wrong on a few minor points, it's another to misrepresent the entire situation.

Re:How "democracy was subverted"

[Halo1]

You are full of shit.

You're an IP lawyer. So what?

I bet you just made that up so you get modded up and present an entirely false argument to readers.

He's quite correct actually.

What happened was: * the concept of excluding "computer programs as such" has been refined over time:

... by the patent administrators of the European Patent Office, in contradiction with several treaties and laws (TRIPS article 10, EU Software Copyright article 4, Berne Convention, ...) and against most economical studies that software patents are bad for the economy. Hence, his comment that it's a wishlist by the patent offices is correct.

software patents are allowed _only_ if they should a concrete "technical effect" (in the US, it is different: they only need to be "useful and produce a tangible result") by case law and appeal board hearings;

Too bad that technical in patent jargon is completely undefined and as such means squat, and has over time been interpreted by the EPO to mean basically anything useful. Read this page by a colleague of yours, especially under the heading "When is something technical", and especially the second and third point.

Making a program run faster or use less memory is interpreted as a technical effect on the way the computer works. And using a computer to run a business method is technical, because it "provides surprising speed or economy of scale benefits"

* over time, the national courts have adopted subtly different principles;

A few national courts actually, and mostly the UK one at that

. * to resolve this, the EU directive is proposed that enforces a common approach across the EU (and, upon any members of the EU that are part of the EPC).

The Commission and the Council promote the approach of the European Patent Office, which has no safeguards against software patents or business software patents. The Council's version was even written by people from the patent offices. You know, the people that have to abide by it, but haven't until now, got a chance to rewrite their own laws. Quite convenient, no?

Let me re-iterate: * if this EU directive does not go through, then _software will still be patentable_ -- do not labour under the false impression that this directive is able enabling software patentability: software is _already patentable_, this directive _does not change that_ (in fact, it actually restricts it slightly).

Software patents are only enforceable in a few countries currently, and not even that always pans out evenly. The originally proposed directive by the Commission and the new proposal by the Council want to put it black on white that software patents are enforceable. That is a change. It's less of a change to render them unenforceable, as until now they've been unenforceable in more cases than where they were when considering the EU as a whole.

* thus, software will remain patentable, but not in a consistent way: this is even worse because some member states may actually take a very relaxed approach and allow patentablity of software.

Please stop your lies. The Irish proposal literally states:

A claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a carrier, shall not be allowed unless that program would, when loaded and executed in a computer, programmed computer network or other programmable apparatus, put into force a product or process claimed in the same patent application in accordance with paragraph 1.

When removing the double negation, we get:

A claim to a computer program is allowed when running that program on a computer does something t

Re:How "democracy was subverted"

[LeftOfCentre]

Wrong! The real list goes like this.

• The European Commision comes out wish a wishlist.
• The EU Parliment votes it down and puts some strict limits on software patents.
• The Parliment vote is passed to the Council of Ministers, which directly represents (and contains) the elected governments of the member countries.
• The member governments, through the Council, rip out all of the changes made by parliament, and add a few options that weren't even in there to begin with.
• The president -- currently held by Ireland -- (and literally sponsored by Microsoft [eu2004.ie]) proceeds, with the rest of the Council, on a path to destroy the European software industry.

Re:How "democracy was subverted"

[darkonc]

* to resolve this, the EU directive is proposed that enforces a common approach across the EU (and, upon any members of the EU that are part of the EPC).
Thus, by stopping this directive, the situation gets worse.

You misrepresent the situation (I'm guessing willfully so). The European parliament did not veto the idea of a consistent patent directive across Europe.. What they did do is apply strict (and IMHO sane) rules on what could be patented and why. Had the parlimentary directive gone thru, much of the EU's software industry would have been quite content (or at least mollified).

Instead, what's being pushed thru is something that's likely to be more disruptive than the demonstrably broken system in the US.

patents favor closed source

[acomj]

Because of open source software nature, people can look at how (algorithms). Closed source, no idea how they implimented it. I wonder when linux is going to get hit with a patent lawsuit that makes the SCO look a nice sunny day.

Most software is made up of very small components put together to create functionality. (loops/ branches| arrays, queues, trees) Its very hard to define something as patentable because by its nature everything in software can be broken down into something that isn't new.

I would have thought little companies would have iritated the big boys (microsoft / apple) to force the governments hand to stop this mess (since companies tend to have the ear of our fine electorate). It really stiffles inovation.

ABOVE LINK IS TO GIRL WITH SHIT ON HER FACE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod down!! Oh god it's disgusting

Backwards

[Mark_MF-WN]

Are you sure you aren't a little bit backwards there? The USPTO was only killing American business. All the EU is doing is making sure that America wont be alone in the technological dark ages when the rest of the world has surpassed them technically.

study would be good

[acomj]

Except these studies never seem to take into effect the downtime comercial software has due to viruses/ spyware etc. They're never accurate.

Re:study would be good

[Moridineas]

Please don't forget that commercial != microsoft. Solaris, etc are still players.

Patenting Data Structures?......

[james_in_denver]

How can you patent a Data Structure???, I mean seriously, Since I started programming in the 80's there was a Customer table, with a title prefix, first name, middle initial, last name, three address lines, city code, region code, country code, and postal code. Can I patent that simple idea?...get real!

This is almost about "patenting" logic or problem solving skills. Anyone but a complete moron would come up with a similar solution for describing a customer.

When will this madness end?

This is already patentable under the EPC

[kanweg]

Hi,

This is already patentatble in Europe, and there is little problem with that. The effect of the program on the process of making steel ensures this. IAPA (I am a patent attorney).

To flourish, we need free use of standards, so everyone can build a better Word. Software patents would be bad for the economy. Plus, it may take a page to write down an algorithm, but to get a somewhat bug-free program, it will take almost as long as the original developers. So, the patent wouldn't give that much help. If there are software patents, the source code should be included. That will be somewhat of a counter force.

Yours,

Bert

Europeans - write to your representants!

[linuxhansl]

A list of representatives can be found here.

I did. I even got some replies!

The worst aspect of all of this is that the European Parliament voted for significant amendments last fall (effectively banning software patents). Following the vote the proposal was simply retracted and the *original* version is now presented to the European Council, thereby mucking the entire democratic process.

I also wrote to magazines and newspapers, trying to bring their attention to that issue.

I'm also contemplating filing an official complaint with the EU (not because of software patents, but because of the undemocratic way the directive was handled in this inctance). The EU has the *legal* obligation to investigate official complaints.

Although there may be frustration, it's not time to give up, yet.

Re:Europeans - write to your representants!

[Wastl]

I'm also contemplating filing an official complaint with the EU (not because of software patents, but because of the undemocratic way the directive was handled in this inctance). The EU has the *legal* obligation to investigate official complaints.

If you are willing to do this, I'll support you as much as I can.

Sebastian

I ain't sold SHIT, I was robbed!

[Anonymous Coward]

America DID NOT ELECT BUSH.
Bush stole the election.
I ain't sold SHIT, I was robbed!

Doesn't Microsoft Employ A lot of Ireland?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems fishy that Ireland just scrapped an Open Source initiative in government and now this.

Mere coincidence?

Problem with ireland

[Anonymous Coward]

Ireland, until some 15 years ago basically was an european third world country. (Much thanks to British doing I suppose). After major taxreductions for corporations establishing there, the economy now is very good (compare to Delaware in the USA).

The problem being that Ireland, with no own major industries whatsoever, is heavily dependent of the major corporations and doing what they want. I guess these patent things are a consequense of Ireland being "good dog" in the leaches of Big Corporations.

Re:Problem with ireland

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is the richest country in the World. (Much thanks to British doing I suppose).

Re:Problem with ireland

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, don't forget the Irish have been ruling southern Ireland for a while now, and the only reason their so well off now is EU grants (thanks to the British I suppose) and Low taxes, thanks to those EU grants...

The battle is not yet won and not yet lost

[AigariusDebian]

It is long not over, people.

On 17-18th of May, there will be a real vote by the Council of Ministers. If they vote against software patents - we win.
If Council of Ministers votes for software patents then the bill will return to european Parlament for a re-discussion, which will be postproned to September due to elections.
There we will have the chance to discuss this again, this time with a new European Parlament.

Note: the previose EPclearly stated AGAINST software patents.

Re:The battle is not yet won and not yet lost

[imbaczek]

If Council of Ministers votes for software patents then the bill will return to european Parlament for a re-discussion, which will be postproned to September due to elections.

Coming from Poland, I tell you we should do our best to not let this happen. New MEPs won't have a clue about software patents and IMHO will be easly lobbied by the Council and huge companies.

Re:The battle is not yet won and not yet lost

[TyrranzzX]

"On 17-18th of May, there will be a real vote by the Council of Ministers. If they vote against software patents - we win."

Until, of course, it comes up again next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, until finally some group of people who are stupid/corrupt/bribed vote to pass it. That's how these intrests work; they continuously try to get laws passed year after year after year hoping one time it'll work, and when it does people suffer. Makes me sick, and angry, really.

All they'll accomplish without the ability to enforce this law is a bunch of prisons filled with innocent people, a bunch of megacorps with monopolies like Microsoft, and finally, they'll make things like linux illegal, and therefore the people who use them. If your "ministers" is anything like our "republicans", they'll push for harder and harder punishments, like the american drug war.

Re:The battle is not yet won and not yet lost

[Halo1]

Until, of course, it comes up again next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, until finally some group of people who are stupid/corrupt/bribed vote to pass it.

It takes a lot more than a year to prepare a directive. If they fail now, you can bet they will take a while before attempting again. They'll probably not even try the directive-way anymore, but try to directly re-negotiate the European Patent Convention (which happens immediately between states, without that pesky European Parliament that can interfere). However, it would be a significant victory in the sense that a lot more people will start the debate better informed (the problem really is mainly ignorance and not necessarily malevolence).

Re:The battle is not yet won and not yet lost

[pchown]

It's not quite as simple as this; you can read the relevant section of the Maastricht Treaty here. (Search the page for Article 189b.)

It's very complicated, but as far as I can understand it, there is parity between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. If they can't agree, there is complete deadlock and the only option is to retain the current legal position (software patents being granted but which are potentially vulnerable to a legal challenge).

The danger in this decision by the Council is that Parliament will be persuaded to give in at some point. It only takes one lost vote and the directive will be adopted, in basically the original form proposed by the Commission. Also the beneficial amendments will be lost unless the Council can somehow be persuaded to agree to them.

The upside of the decision is that it has annoyed a lot of people who don't care about software patents. MEPs who care about the separation of powers in the EU are annoyed by the Council's actions, even though patent law may be a closed book to them.

Re:why do developers have to get screwed on this t

[AigariusDebian]

Software is math. Math is not patentable.
OR
Software is literature. Literature is not patentable.

To protect your ideas, a simple copyright is enough. You do not need patents in software field.

What he is smoking is...

[Animaether]

US Company : Let's patent this in the U.S., so that nobody else operating here can use it without licensing.
EU Company : Let's patent this in the E.U. ... oh, drat, we can't.

US Company : Let's expand to the E.U.
US Company : Oh hot diggity-dang! Will you look at that! Nobody here patented it, 'cos they can't, we won't have any trouble competing on a 'level' playing field! :D

EU Company ; Let's expand to the U.S.
EU Company : Aww shite. Wtf? We have to license this if we want to operate in the U.S. ?

EU Company : Eh.. wtf ? Some US Company just started business here, and is using our ideas that we couldn't patent!
US Company : Haha. Silly Europeans - either they pony up for a license, or they just don't get to enter the U.S. market. Win/win for us! :D

So yeah, that's basically what he's smoking.
There's finer nuances to this, but that's the gist of it.

Re:What he is smoking is...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the obvious counter attack,

EU company: Get a patent in the US, sue the US company to death.
US company: What the heck....

Patents kill more surely then real competition.

Quickshot

Re:What he is smoking is...

[Anonymous Coward]

US Company : Haha. Silly Europeans - either they pony up for a license, or they just don't get to enter the U.S. market. Win/win for us! :D

EU : US trade embargo due to TRIPS violations!

Re:What he is smoking is...

[Halo1]

US Company : Let's expand to the E.U. US Company : Oh hot diggity-dang! Will you look at that! Nobody here patented it, 'cos they can't, we won't have any trouble competing on a 'level' playing field! :D

And this a problem how exactly? That precisely how the free market is supposed to operate!

EU Company ; Let's expand to the U.S. EU Company : Aww shite. Wtf? We have to license this if we want to operate in the U.S. ?

Or: we don't want to operate in the US and it's not yet patented there: let's just patent it in the US and sue all US companies to death! They can't do anything to us, as we don't sell anything there. Watch out for the European Eolas coming after you.

EU Company : Eh.. wtf ? Some US Company just started business here, and is using our ideas that we couldn't patent! US Company : Haha. Silly Europeans - either they pony up for a license, or they just don't get to enter the U.S. market. Win/win for us! :D

I don't understand this one. If an EU company can't get software patents in Europe, a US company can't either. So the European company doesn't have to pay for any license. Whether it also wants to operate in the US, is completely independent from this. European software patents are software patents in Europe, not software patents for European companies. There's a very big difference.

Re:What he is smoking is...

[Anonymous Coward]

So? There's nothing to stop a European company from patenting something in the US and using that as a basis to cross-license with a US company.

Your situation is not a valid justification for exporting the very large, and very real problems of software patents to the EU.

Do you really want it to be illegal for European companies to create products that interoperate with MS file formats? You think that is somehow going to level the playing field for EU companies?

Re:What he is smoking is...

[Animaether]

Hey, don't look at me man - I'm just wording out what grandparent is smoking :)

But taking another toke from it myself before coughing and hurling, as I'm opposed to broad/silly/etc. (software) patents myself :

The first problem is that although there's a level playing field in the EU, there isn't in the US which means there isn't a level playing field for large multinationals situating in both areas.

The second issue of EU companies patenting stuff in the US is valid and something grandparent probably didn't keep in mind. Paranoia may strike and cause concern that US companies may be favored by the USPTO, however.

On the third issue, the simple thinking is this :
EU > EU ; no patenting
US > EU ; no patenting
EU > US ; patenting, but there's a good chance the patent's already held
US > US ; patenting up the wazoo
I.e. there's a disadvantage to the 'EU' company, and it's this disadvantage that *some* legislators want to iron out. Unfortunately they're using a steamroller instead of a velvet iron :)

Re:What he is smoking is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and with patents in EU the following will happen:

US Company (like most big Softwarecompanies already operating in both continents since years): "Let's patent this in E.U."

EU Company: "We have to pay for using double-clicks???"

Re:What he is smoking is...

[Halo1]

But taking another toke from it myself before coughing and hurling, as I'm opposed to broad/silly/etc. (software) patents myself :

You can't have patents without broad/silly/... ones. And software patents by their very nature are bound to have a much higher percentage of broad/trivial ones. See e.g. this post of mine and this page by FFII.

The first problem is that although there's a level playing field in the EU, there isn't in the US which means there isn't a level playing field for large multinationals situating in both areas.

It's indeed annoying for multinationals that the law isn't the same everywhere. That doesn't mean you should import a bad law to somewhere else however, but kill the bad law.

The second issue of EU companies patenting stuff in the US is valid and something grandparent probably didn't keep in mind. Paranoia may strike and cause concern that US companies may be favored by the USPTO, however.

I don't think so. There have already been Eolas-like cases involving European companies before, e.g. AllVoice. It's nothing new.

On the third issue, the simple thinking is this :
EU > EU ; no patenting
US > EU ; no patenting
EU > US ; patenting, but there's a good chance the patent's already held
US > US ; patenting up the wazoo
I.e. there's a disadvantage to the 'EU' company, and it's this disadvantage that *some* legislators want to iron out. Unfortunately they're using a steamroller instead of a velvet iron :)

I still fail to see where the disadvantage is. Whether an EU or US company wants to patent something in the US, the chances that this thing is already patented there are equal, and the fact that others are "patenting up the wazoo" in the US is equal as well.

The only thing that's different, is that US companies already have this problem immediately in their home country, while a European company's home base is currently a safe haven. I honestly still fail to see how introducing software patents in Europe would help European companies.

Re:What he is smoking is...

[Wizord]

Things go that way IF you only consider one company at a time.

Think about this: when a US company gets a patent; every other US company is compelled to migrate overseas.

What you have at the end is a handful of software monopolies in the US and a healthy competition elsewhere. For me, this does not means a "disadvantage" for european companies, but for everyone outside of the patent lobby, and only for the already screwed US market.

By the way, there are several Japanese companies owning a handful of interesting software patents (Sony, for example).

And this is better?

[Anonymous Coward]

US Company : Let's patent this in the U.S., so that nobody else operating here can use it without licensing. Aww, heck, let's patent it in the EU as well. After all we're moving eventually there anyway and we've got plenty of money to burn.
EU Company : Let's patent this in the E.U. ... oh, drat, it's already patented. Who would have thought that we weren't first with this xor-cursor thingy.

EU Company : Eh.. wtf ? Some US Company hasn't even yet started business here but still cashes us for essentially nothing. Guess we have to move in Asia. Sigh.
US Company : Haha. Silly Europeans - either they pony up for a license, or they just don't get to sell their software on either side of the ocean. Win/win for us! :D

Misleading

[antientropic]

Interesting enough today the old dutch politician Bolkestein returned back to dutch national politics. He has spent several years in brussels and suddenly has aborted his job there. Now why would he return so swiftly all of a sudden?

Bolkestein didn't "abort" his job. He merely announced that he doesn't want a second term as European Commissioner. He will stay on until the end of the current term on November 1st. Hardly a "swift" return.

here we go again!

[sir_cello]

Firstly, the EU directive just _harmonises existing case law_ - without the directive, what's going to happen is that different EU states are going to take different approaches and thus it will be a nightmare.

Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability_, because currently after IBM, claims to "programs on a carrier" are allowed, but the directive removes the ability to claim this.

Thirdly, it's been stated over and over again that there are "multiple software business models" at work in Europe, and there's no specific reason to favour closed model approaches to open model approaches: they all work, and provide revenue and so on.

Fourthly, in terms of "software patents blocking open source", well there's a very small list at GNU, and in fact this is how it should work: it's to be expected that some patent owners have developed inventive appraoches that they are holding away from open source - fair enough, it's the perojative. It doesn't seem as though Linux, OpenOffice, mysql and numerous other open source products have been affected anything more than trivially.

Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of US into the EU.

Sixly, for the so called "30,000" illegal software patents issued over the last 30 or so years or whatever, I repeat that the GNU list suggests that less than 0.01% of these are impacting open source. That's amazing! And hardly a justification to pull the system apart.

Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy, you have a bunch of jokers with "terrorism is corporate suicide" and other fairly poor and non-objective slogans doing pantomines. Unless the arguments show facts and figures, and more substantive evidence, this is entirely dismissable.

Re:here we go again!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are describing how the system currently works.

We are concerned with how that will change should these laws be passed *against the wishes of the European Parliament*.

Re:here we go again!

[Flyboy Connor]

Firstly, the EU directive just _harmonises existing case law_ - without the directive, what's going to happen is that different EU states are going to take different approaches and thus it will be a nightmare.

Is it a nightmare now? No it isn't. Software is protected by copyrights. What more is needed?

Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability_, because currently after IBM, claims to "programs on a carrier" are allowed, but the directive removes the ability to claim this.

No, it doesn't. Despite the fact that the EPO has granted 30,000 software patents, they are actually forbidden by EU law and thus not legal. The new proposal attempts to legalise them.

Thirdly, it's been stated over and over again that there are "multiple software business models" at work in Europe, and there's no specific reason to favour closed model approaches to open model approaches: they all work, and provide revenue and so on.

But the question is, for whom do they produce revenue? A system where software patents are allowed, in practice kills off all small and medium-sized businesses.

Fourthly, in terms of "software patents blocking open source", well there's a very small list at GNU, and in fact this is how it should work: it's to be expected that some patent owners have developed inventive appraoches that they are holding away from open source - fair enough, it's the perojative. It doesn't seem as though Linux, OpenOffice, mysql and numerous other open source products have been affected anything more than trivially.

Ah, but that's where you're mistaken. I am dead certain that all open source software violates some of the granted software patents. If software uses an interface, almost certainly it will use tabs, or scroll bars, or progress bars, or what have you: all of which have been patented. When one of the big guys desires to kill some open source software package off, they just need to litigate. There is no one who has the money for defense, so they win by default.

Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of US into the EU.

Again, you are mistaken. True, at the moment business methods are not patentable. However, as soon as software patents are allowed, business methods will become patentable. Just write down the method and slap "with a computer" or "over the internet" on it, et voila, you have a viable patent.

Sixly, for the so called "30,000" illegal software patents issued over the last 30 or so years or whatever, I repeat that the GNU list suggests that less than 0.01% of these are impacting open source. That's amazing! And hardly a justification to pull the system apart.

That is what you claim. Where did you get that number from? Admit it, you just pulled it out of your %$@#*. Let me pull a number out of my %$@#* too: I think it is more like 99%.

Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy, you have a bunch of jokers with "terrorism is corporate suicide" and other fairly poor and non-objective slogans doing pantomines. Unless the arguments show facts and figures, and more substantive evidence, this is entirely dismissable.

You are absolutely right that the demonstrations were a laugh. That is too bad. But the way to the law-makers heart is not through demonstrations (unless you can raise half-a-million people or so), but through personal contacts (which is what the FFII attempts) or through their wallets (which is what the big coorporations do).

Demonstrations may be useful to get the attention of the man-in-the-street. But, true, the man-in-the-street won't be roused from 300 people walking with supposedly funny slogans.

Re:here we go again!

[sir_cello]

> Is it a nightmare now? No it isn't. Software is protected by copyrights. What more is needed?

You don't understand. The inventive elements within software are not. You can't protect a novel inventive way of reducing interprocess memory transfer by copyright. You can with patents.

> No, it doesn't. Despite the fact that the EPO has granted 30,000 software patents, they are actually forbidden by EU law and thus not legal. The new proposal attempts to legalise them.

Wrong. The law is made not just by the legislature, but through the courts and the boards of appeal. There is no "single source" of the law, it's a refinement process.

> A system where software patents are allowed, in practice kills off all small and medium-sized businesses.

So there are a not large numbers of SME's producing software in Europe? Your theory goes against current fact. It is true that patents are not as useful or relevant to SME's as they are to larger companies though.

> Ah, but that's where you're mistaken. I am dead certain that all open source software violates some of the granted software patents.

Perhaps some of the dodgy patents.

> When one of the big guys desires to kill some open source software package off, they just need to litigate.

It's not this simple: if the product exists for some period of time, the patent owner just can't come along "as they choose" and litigate: they will be barred unless they took action earlier.

> Again, you are mistaken. True, at the moment business methods are not patentable. However, as soon as software patents are allowed, business methods will become patentable. Just write down the method and slap "with a computer" or "over the internet" on it, et voila, you have a viable patent.

Wrong. You don't understand how the EPO works: it (a) always requires a technical effect, and (b) a joint USPTO/EPO/JPO meeting in 2002 agreed that business methods _should not be patentable_. This is their desire.

> That is what you claim. Where did you get that number from? Admit it, you just pulled it out of your %$@#*. Let me pull a number out of my %$@#* too: I think it is more like 99%.

Wrong. That is the fact. The FFI says "30,000" software patents, and the GNU list (did you actually check?) shows less than 30 problems. You should do your research. If there are more problems than this, they don't open source producers bring them to light: that would be a better way to justify the situation.

> But, true, the man-in-the-street won't be roused from 300 people walking with supposedly funny slogans.

We agree: I have no problems with the arguments by the open source movement: but I feel they do a bad job in presenting them in a professional and objective manner. Because of this, I think that decision makers start to dismiss their claims without giving them proper consideration.

Re:here we go again!

[Flyboy Connor]

You don't understand. The inventive elements within software are not. You can't protect a novel inventive way of reducing interprocess memory transfer by copyright. You can with patents.

Yes, but the point is: you don't need it to protect your software products.

Furthermore, how many inventive elements are there in software? Suppose there is one big inventive thing in it. Should that get a patent? Maybe.

But can small inventions exist in software? If they can, each piece of software is built upon thousands and thousands of small inventions. If they can all be patented, you will agree that it is impossible to write software without violating patents. So the only way that remains to write software is to ignore patents, and the only ones who can do that are the big companies who have cross-licensing pacts.

Wrong. The law is made not just by the legislature, but through the courts and the boards of appeal. There is no "single source" of the law, it's a refinement process.

Don't you know that more than 70% of the laws and legislations in European countries are determined by the EC? If that isn't a single source of law, I don't know what is.

So there are a not large numbers of SME's producing software in Europe? Your theory goes against current fact. It is true that patents are not as useful or relevant to SME's as they are to larger companies though.

Of course they exist NOW. But can they continue to exist after software patenting is legalised? Look at the US, where big companies have no qualms killing off SMEs as soon as they become successful.

Perhaps some of the dodgy patents.

Patents, nonetheless.

It's not this simple: if the product exists for some period of time, the patent owner just can't come along "as they choose" and litigate: they will be barred unless they took action earlier.

That is not true. You are confusing copyrights, trademarks and patents. You can let a patent lie for a decade before starting to litigate. That is actually the way some companies make money: they patent something and keep it quiet; then, when someone gets successful and is reaping big profits, they come out of the shadows and claim big bucks. It's sleazy, it's unethical, it's evil, but it is LEGAL.

Wrong. You don't understand how the EPO works: it (a) always requires a technical effect, and (b) a joint USPTO/EPO/JPO meeting in 2002 agreed that business methods _should not be patentable_. This is their desire.

The technical requirement was added by the Parliament. It was scrapped again by the Commission. The current proposal does not have the technical requirement. Furthermore, what the USPTO/EPO/JPO desire is not the question, the question is what becomes law. If they desire something, they should make sure the law is explicit about it. There is nothing in the proposal that prohibits patenting business methods.

Wrong. That is the fact. The FFI says "30,000" software patents, and the GNU list (did you actually check?) shows less than 30 problems. You should do your research. If there are more problems than this, they don't open source producers bring them to light: that would be a better way to justify the situation.

No, I did not check. Who the hell could check 30,000 patents? If 30 GNU projects claim they will have patenting problems, that does not mean the rest of them are problem-free. They just didn't check. I mean, if I am a software engineer, I am usually not interested in law and legislation, so why should I spend my valuable time checking up on 30,000 patents when I could spend it writing software?

We agree: I have no problems with the arguments by the open source movement: but I feel they do a bad job in presenting them in a professional and objective manner. Because of this, I think that decision makers start to dismiss their claims without giving them proper consideration.

Software designers are simply not a powerful pressure group, and they are not cool enough to be adored by the public. As such, they are easily dismissable pawns. Although I have personal experience with several MEPs, who showed me they understood the issue very well. So I still have hopes.

Re:here we go again!

[sir_cello]

> Yes, but the point is: you don't need it to protect your software products.

Yes you do, someone can just reverse-engineer the code to discover the mechanism and use it, unless it was patented. Equally, if your code is leaked (aka Microsoft) then someone can extract the inventive idea.

> Furthermore, how many inventive elements are there in software?

Lots! compression, encryption, memory management, interprocess communication ...

> by the EC? If that isn't a single source of law, I don't know what is.

And it is refined by the ECJ - the EC may set the law, but thec courts refine it.

> Of course they exist NOW. But can they continue to exist after software patenting is legalised?

Software patenting is already legalised. Didn't you see the FFI web page about 30,000 patents?

> You can let a patent lie for a decade before starting to litigate.

Not if it was reasonable that you had knowledge that the patent existed. In the case of closely related products, this likely.

> The technical requirement was added by the Parliament. It was scrapped again by the Commission. The current proposal does not have the technical requirement.

Then I agree that this is wrong.

> No, I did not check. Who the hell could check 30,000 patents? If 30 GNU projects claim they will have patenting problems, that does not mean the rest of them are problem-free. They just didn't check. I mean, if I am a software engineer, I am usually not interested in law and legislation, so why should I spend my valuable time checking up on 30,000 patents when I could spend it writing software?

If they are arguing over how software patents cause problems, there are two approaches (a) present the evidence, (b) present the FUD. Without performing the researhc, they are presenting FUD. Arguments should always be backed up with claims and evidence.

> Software designers are simply not a powerful pressure group, and they are not cool enough to be adored by the public.

Not in general, but arguably every so called "software patent" results from the work of a software designer. If there was really support for no software patents, these designers should take direct action and not support patenting.

Re:here we go again!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I've already seen this post before, you idiot.

Re:here we go again!

[NigelJohnstone]

"Firstly, the EU directive just _harmonises existing case law_ - without the directive, what's going to happen is that different EU states are going to take different approaches and thus it will be a nightmare."

No the European patent office started allowing software patents, this gives a legal basis for those patents.

"Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability"

The Parliaments suggestions were valid and carefully thought through.
I've read ffii's comment's and they are valid too, the Commissions wording is full of holes.

If Pariament & People's comments didn't have validity then why seek to prevent those comments being expressed? Why not just argue your case to EU Parliament?

"Thirdly, it's been stated over and over again that there are 'multiple software business models' at work in Europe, and there's no specific reason to favour closed model approaches to open model approaches: they all work, and provide revenue and so on."

So? What has that to do with anything, the risk is that a monopoly player will be able to lock out competitors, the Parliament proposed a solution to this, the Commission didn't.
Whether that competition comes from closed or open source is irrelevant.

"Fourthly, in terms of 'software patents blocking open source', ....It doesn't seem as though Linux, OpenOffice, mysql and numerous other open source products have been affected anything more than trivially."

Your comment pre-supposes that the directive represents the status quo and it certainly doesn't.
This *changes* the law, if it didn't there wouldn't be any point in having it! So whether patents *currently* affect MySql etc. or not is irrelevant.

"Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of US into the EU."

Good, but the wording proposed by the Commission is fluffy. For example FFII comments on the "technology" issue are correct.
The Commissions wording does allow patents whose technology part is simply that they execute on a computer. Parliament's wording is tighter meaning that the invention has to represent improved technology.
Since any business process can be run on a computer, it allows business process patents simply by virtue of sloppy wording.

Parliament did a good job.

"Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy"

It's not in the interests of the European economy to allow a few patent holders to lock themselves into the their markets. Even if that patent holder is Nokia.

Being pro-competition isn't the same as being anti-business.

Re:here we go again!

[NigelJohnstone]

(repeated from higher up)

"Firstly, the EU directive just _harmonises existing case law_ - without the directive, what's going to happen is that different EU states are going to take different approaches and thus it will be a nightmare."

No the European patent office started allowing software patents, this gives a legal basis for those patents.

"Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability"

The Parliaments suggestions were valid and carefully thought through.
I've read ffii's comment's and they are valid too, the Commissions wording is full of holes.

If Pariament & People's comments didn't have validity then why seek to prevent those comments being expressed? Why not just argue your case to EU Parliament?

"Thirdly, it's been stated over and over again that there are 'multiple software business models' at work in Europe, and there's no specific reason to favour closed model approaches to open model approaches: they all work, and provide revenue and so on."

So? What has that to do with anything, the risk is that a monopoly player will be able to lock out competitors, the Parliament proposed a solution to this, the Commission didn't.
Whether that competition comes from closed or open source is irrelevant.

"Fourthly, in terms of 'software patents blocking open source', ....It doesn't seem as though Linux, OpenOffice, mysql and numerous other open source products have been affected anything more than trivially."

Your comment pre-supposes that the directive represents the status quo and it certainly doesn't.
This *changes* the law, if it didn't there wouldn't be any point in having it! So whether patents *currently* affect MySql etc. or not is irrelevant.

"Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of US into the EU."

Good, but the wording proposed by the Commission is fluffy. For example FFII comments on the "technology" issue are correct.
The Commissions wording does allow patents whose technology part is simply that they execute on a computer. Parliament's wording is tighter meaning that the invention has to represent improved technology.
Since any business process can be run on a computer, it allows business process patents simply by virtue of sloppy wording.

Parliament did a good job.

"Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy"

It's not in the interests of the European economy to allow a few patent holders to lock themselves into the their markets. Even if that patent holder is Nokia.

Being pro-competition isn't the same as being anti-business.

Re:here we go again!

[JPMH]

Taking your points out of sequence:

Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability_, because currently after IBM, claims to "programs on a carrier" are allowed, but the directive removes the ability to claim this.

No, article 5.2 of the new Council draft overturns the parliament text, and explicitly permits program claims.

Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of US into the EU.

Patents directed at improving methods of doing business have previously been disallowed by UK case law. This will be overturned by the directive, which will bring the UK into line with EPO practice, allowing patents for improved business methods which contain a "technical contribution".

The EPO's standards of what constitutes a "technical contribution" can be judged from the Amazon gift-ordering patent, where a patent was granted on the process of:
1. X choosing a gift from Amazon to send to Y
2. Amazon asking Y where to send the gift to
3. Amazon sending the gift

This apparently is a "technical contribution" to the state of the art, and therefore patentable.

Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy, you have a bunch of jokers with "terrorism is corporate suicide" and other fairly poor and non-objective slogans doing pantomines. Unless the arguments show facts and figures, and more substantive evidence, this is entirely dismissable.

Actually, as a photo-opportunity it was quite successful. And as a chance to get people concerned about software patents together in a festive environment, it was very successful.

But you may be interested to know that it was followed by a four hour conference, attended by leading MEPs and addressed by leading economists, with representatives from the Commission and the EPO also on the panels.

If you're a subscriber to LWN, there's a report about the gathering by Tom Chance on the latest weekly front page. If you're not a subscriber, the page becomes freely available next Thursday.

(more points to follow)

Re:here we go again!

[JPMH]

The heart of points 1,3,4 and 6 seems to me that this directive merely confirms existing practice, and so amounts to "no change".

But that's actually a very UK-centric view. The UK patent establishment has been pro swpat for a very long time (the patent office even granted some in the late 1960s, before they were apparently forbidden by the European Patent Convention in 1973); and the UK was pretty much the first state to buy into the EPO's new definition of when a computer program isn't actually a computer program.

But elsewhere in Europe the position is a lot less clear, with many courts, including the Patent Court in Germany (BPatG) very skeptical about what software should and should not be patentable; other states where the doctrine hasn't been tested at all; and even some patent offices, eg Finland, were still refusing all patents where the innovation was entirely in software until as recently as last year.

Note, too, that even many patent lawyers in favour of software patentability believe that the Commission version of this directive is the wrong way to go about things -- entrenching a doublespeak where an algorithm as such is absolutely not patentable, but the operation of an algorithm may be patentable, as may any machine readable expression of the algorithm (program claim) which would put the algorithm into effect; furthermore, through these mists of doublespeak the Counci/Commission version does absolutely nothing to clarify the very confused (and even intentionally ambiguous) line between what is and what is not "technical".

But to get to the heart of your post, if we've had software patents in the UK for so long, and the sky hasn't fallen, what's the problem ?

Well, actually I think we've been incredibly lucky so far, but I think things are changing:

1. The number of software patents being applied for is exploding.

2. They are starting to be used much more pro-actively.

It may be almost 20 years since Vicom, but it's in the last few years that software patent applications have really started rocketing. We estimate that well over 70% of all swpat applications ever have been filed since 1998, and the numbers are still going up exponentially, with a doubling time of about 4 years. In fact, most of the patent applications are so recent that probably a third are still waiting to be decided.

One of the biggest drivers for this explosion is fear. There are now so many other swpt applications being filed, that companies feel they have to file their own "defensive" applications just to establish their right to breathe. (Small companies can't do this of course). And the net effect actually seems to be a reduction in innovation -- a transfer of resources away from R&D and into legal costs.

The second issue is that the patents are starting to be used much more aggressively.

There seems to be a real change in atmosphere. Management of patents is becoming much more active to generate more income from them. Companies hit by such demands in turn try to monetise their own patent assets. And so the whole climate gets much more aggressive.

The main thing that has limited trouble so far is that most commercial software companies have able to go happily along ignoring patents, because they were very seldom prosecuted.

But this is starting to change. And as a Microsoft rep recently told me, if it does, there's going to be a bloodbath.

So that's why I think we're living on borrowed time with the software patents already issued, and I only hope we can be successful in defusing this ticking minefield.

As for Open Source, what has changed is that I think it has now become important enough that a number of commercial companies are being made genuinely uncomfortable by the competition from it. And I think the SCO case has shown that you actually can find people to sue. Now it's very easy to see what algorithms an open-source program is using, and that's why I'd say the prospects of a major patent case against one of the leading projects in the near future is probably a dead cert.

(But maybe not while the EU Directive is still not finally decided ??)

Re:here we go again!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the parent informative, where does he link to research and factual information to support his assertions? He doesn't, the pro-patent lobby produces zero evidence and an endless stream of this dogmatic FUD.

multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy

These multimillion dollar businesses would be US based, our currency is the Euro. Regardless, patents are a hinderance to innovation in the software field, as prooven in economic reports (eg: by the FTC) and even employees from the businesses you refer to who have admitted this!

Re:here we go again!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Yes you do, someone can just reverse-engineer the code to discover the mechanism
>and use it, unless it was patented.

People can just reimpliment a plot-device from a novel, should a novel be protected by patents? The WTO recognises object code as a literary work, indeed if object code cannot be read it is useless.

>someone can extract the inventive idea.

So what you are proposing is the taxing of ideas, the thought police?

>compression, encryption, memory management, interprocess communication ..

These are not inventions. compression and encryption were understood years before the advent of modern computer science. Memory management is akin to re-arrangeing space, I rearrange my rooms when I buy new furniture and this is patentable? IPC is not really an invention either is it?

>Didn't you see the FFI web page about 30,000 patents

illegal patents!

>Arguments should always be backed up with claims and evidence.

This is exactly what the ffii has been doing, it is the national patent bodies that have difficulty presenting factual evidence. Mostly we just get FUD filled whining from patent lawyers angling for a little job security.

>If there was really support for no software patents, these designers should
>take direct action and not support patenting.

Earth calling Sir_jumped-ip_viola. http://swpat.ffii.org/

Re:here we go again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's one huge example of a very obtrusive patent: Apple's patent of "Spring Loaded Folders". This means when you drag a file and hold it over a folder, the folder opens after a small delay, allowing you to quickly manage files by dragging them around through shortcuts and folder hierarchies. It's hampering nautilus' ability to implement a spatial file browser ideally. And it doesn't expire for another 10 years or so.

Re:here we go again!

[Vaste]

"Harmonizing" EU law to allow softwarepatents is like harmonizing american law to allow death penalty. It isn't preserving the status quo, because there is no status quo.

The draft, now even broader, is based on the praxis of the European Patent Office. This differs from the praxis of other countries. (Or there'd be no need for a harmonization, would there?)

(The non-EPO praxis is based on the following quote actually meaning that programs for computers not shall be regarded as inventions. "The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions [...] programs for computers;")

The problem isn't that software industry will die, because it wont. The problem is that large companies get a "go to jail without passing GO"-card, for use against small innovative competitors.

It should be obvious, but that is not good for economy and society, and particularly bad for Europe when 70% of those 30,000 cards are non-european.

Re:here we go again!

[hairy_hippy]

Absolutely right. If anyone would care to read the text of the proposal, (and maybe then you'll stop paniccing about it) A link for the latest version available dated 17-03-2004 Software directive [register.consileum.eu] There is a working document dated last week but not available.

Re:Data Structures? I patent the vector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Data structures are neither inventions or unique. They are necessary constructs, dictated by the nature of the problem being solved. They are all implicit in the construct of data types themselves. To claim that a data structure is an invention worthy of patent makes about as much sense as claiming two bricks stacked together is an invention.

Let me play devil's advocate. Vectors are obvious, but what about hash tables? Binary trees are obvious, but what about AVL trees? Linked lists are obvious, but what about that trick with XORed pointers to save memory in a double-linked list - is that obvious? Nope, but it's still a data structure.

What you're saying is that because two bricks stacked together shouldn't be patentable, neither should any technique whatsoever used by builders or architects. Invented a new design for skyscraper foundations that's safer in earthquakes than the current state of the art? Sorry mate, you can't patent that, because it's only a complex variation on stacking two bricks together.

I'm not saying I disagree with you. Data structure patents are a scary thought for many reasons. But that which is scary is not necessarily absurd.

I think I will patent...

[erik_norgaard]

The bit! Ok, I'll only patent the '1', you may write any programs provided the code compiles to some sequence of 0's only....

Maybe it wasn't the babel tower conflict with God that resulted in so many languages but really that they discovered the first language had been patented and they all had to invent thier own.

The next question is, can you patent math? Algorithms really are just math.

Math is pure thought, can you patent pure thought? Patent an idea or a concept?

The idea of God is a product of pure thought (or so I believe). I think you would become imensely rich if you patented the idea of God... Ok, this god thing I think has lots of examples of previous art...

OK, now I'm getting silly, but that's the point, patenting software is silly.

Patnets aren't bad, but the Patent Offices....

[pcause]

The problem with software patents is *NOT* the concept of patents, but the inability of governments to effectively administer the systems. here are some of the issues:

Hard to do prior art: I see patents all the time for which I know prior art existed in the 70's. The problem is that it is difficult or impossible to find the prior art references. Unlike physical objects which last for decades, the systems with these technologies no longer exist. Further, there were many fewwer publications in the 70's and many of the magazines that had such content (remember Datamation) are not easily available. Worse, people didn't publish as much or thought publishing would reveal proprietary details of technology.

I also seem to remember that in the 1970's software was not patentable, or thought to be patentable.

What can be patented: We've had the US Patent office grant a huge number of stupid "business process patents" and patents on all kinds of silly and obvious stuff. it is clear that they don't have any sense and even less software knowledge or expertise.

When something stupid happens, it is too hard to fix: When a stupid patent is granted, we have to wait for the courts to sort it out. This is awful, becuase it gives a holder with large resources an unfair advantage over a competitor with small resources, even when the patent is widely known to be bogus. We need an alternative, low cost and fast challenge system that happens before a court case can be brought.

Re:Patnets aren't bad, but the Patent Offices....

[Halo1]

The problem with software patents is *NOT* the concept of patents, but the inability of governments to effectively administer the systems. here are some of the issues:

Please read this page, especially the discussion between the Deputy Director of the UK Patent Office and a programmer to see why that assumption is incorrect. There are however also some practical programs, as you point out:

Hard to do prior art: I see patents all the time for which I know prior art existed in the 70's. The problem is that it is difficult or impossible to find the prior art references.

This is one of the reasons the patent system is unfit for software. It starts from assumptions which are untrue in that field.

What can be patented: We've had the US Patent office grant a huge number of stupid "business process patents" and patents on all kinds of silly and obvious stuff. it is clear that they don't have any sense and even less software knowledge or expertise.

This is addressed on the earlier referenced page. It is very hard to prove that even the most trivial algorithm does not contain anything new or a (very small) inventive step. Patent law does not contain any way to distinguish between a "small" and a "big" inventive step. Novelty and inventive step are simply filters intended to take out most "bad" patents. They know they can't catch them all, but with those rules they have determined they can catch enough to make the patent system have a positive effect on the whole (whether or not this is the case, is another discussion; I don't know).

Anyway, those filters don't work nearly as well for advances in the abstract (maths, business methods, rules for organisation and presentation of information, ... and their notation in a form that computers can understand: computer programs) as they do for inventions related to applied natural science. The reason is that they were never intended to work for those things, which is exactly why the European Patent Convention excludes all those things from patentability.

To sum it up: patents are an archaic tool totally unfit to protect abstract knowledge, and were never intended to do that in the first place. If we think copyright is not enough protection, then we will have to devise a new "sui generis" ("one of its own kind") protection for software which is specifically adapted to it (just like there is one for chip design, which are not protected by copyright -deemed not creative enough- nor by patents -not inventive enough).

Yeah rite

[trezor]

• If they vote against software patents - we win.

If they vote against software patents, the Big Business(TM) will lobby for another directive, and another directive and another directive. Basicly as many as it takes.

These greedy filthpigs won't stop until they have gotten what they want. And then they'll want more. What that is, we'll just have to wait and see.

Re:Yeah rite

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll want a longer term before a patent expires, that's obvious.

What might work

[trezor]

As we can trust a politician never to know anything about what the consequences of their actions are (a broad overstatement, yes, but you get the idea), we can almost certainly count on that if this directive get's implemented, there will be no reasonable bounderies for what is patentable.

So what might work, is that the patentability is so ridiculesly absolute, that even the clueless guy down on the street takes notice and realises it's stupidity.

For instance, when his favorite netshop gauges prices 150% to pay patentfees.

For this to get banned, which is really what is needed (as big business will keep on pushing until they get it), things need to get really ugly first.

Lets just hope it doesn't stay ugly.

Re:What might work

[Crayon Kid]

Read the past materials and news provided by FFII. Some of the politicians (ie. EU Parliament) were clueless this time last year, but the public reactions have forced them to get up to date. As for those EU politicians that have an interest in this whole software patents (ie. the Council of Ministers), trust me, they already know very well what they're doing.

Think it's just a concidence that this vote happens at a time Ireland holds the EU Presidency? As the article on FFII says, Ireland is one of the biggest software exporters in Europe, it's a software haven to US software companies due to a pantent revenue tax of 0%, and its Presidency is sponsored by Microsoft.

At this point no European can invoke cluelessness on this matter unless they've been in a coma for the last year or so. It's come down to a show of force from the part of those with lots of money and influence. This is not about the sheer stupidity of the fact anymore. The big dogs have found a juicy way to rake in the dough and they're gonna make it happen. Short of having much larger numbers than what we've seen in the previous calls for action get out into the street now, they're gonna get their way.

Amazing

[NoMercy]

How blind politicans can be when big business says yes we want this, give this to us, don't mind the fact that the parliament says it's insane, and there are people protesting in the streets, it's all perfectly fine and good.

No small company can even hope to pattent every single data structure, software method and anything else they think of, the cost would excede there yearly cash flow, and big business, well why not, everything that comes along pattent it, and when some fool comes along with a for() loop with mutiple if() statments, you can use your pattent on that design to hit them hard, likely there going to fold anyway since they can't afford to fight it in court, they might even be forced to sell to big business.

Re:why do developers have to get screwed on this t

[sebm]

This is part of an email i got from IP Australia, after sending my concerns about microsoft patenting it new XML format for word, and my belief that software is just a maths function/algorithm. In Australia, to be patentable an invention must be a "manner of manufacture", novel (new), inventive, and useful. What constitutes a manner of manufacture has evolved over time to encompass new technologies. The general rule according to current Australian law is that a manner of manufacture is an artificially created state of affairs of economic utility. By themselves, discoveries, scientific principles and mathematical algorithms are not patentable because they have no practical use. However, the practical application of a discovery, principle or algorithm is patentable. This means that computer software is patentable as long as it is implemented in a practical and economically useful way. A guide to the patentability of computer-related inventions is available on the IP Australia website at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patents/specifi c/computer.pdf. More detailed information is available in Part 8.2.7 of the Australian Patent Office Manual of Practice and Procedure - Volume 2, at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patents/manual/ Part208.PDF.

Wise words

[Anonymous Coward]

"Windows will remain the defecto OS"

defecto: It's shit, but everyone uses it.

here we go again!

[sir_cello]

Firstly, the EU directive just _harmonises existing case law_ - without the directive, what's going to happen is that different EU states are going to take different approaches and thus it will be a nightmare.

Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability_, because currently after IBM, claims to "programs on a carrier" are allowed, but the directive removes the ability to claim this. This is a good thing.

Thirdly, it's been stated over and over again that there are "multiple software business models" at work in Europe, and there's no specific reason to favour closed model approaches to open model approaches: they all work, and provide revenue and so on.

Fourthly, in terms of "software patents blocking open source", well there's a very small list at GNU when Stallman asked which projects were being affected by patents, and in fact this is how it should work: it's to be expected that some patent owners have developed inventive appraoches that they are holding away from open source - fair enough, it's the perojative. It doesn't seem as though Linux, OpenOffice, mysql and numerous other open source products have been affected anything more than trivially. There's only FUD being suggested that "it might be a problem" in the future.

Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of USPTO into the EU.

Sixly, for the so called "30,000" illegal software patents issued over the last 30 or so years or whatever, I repeat that the GNU list suggests that less than 0.01% of these are impacting open source. That's amazing! And hardly a justification to pull the system apart.

Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy, you have a bunch of jokers with "terrorism is corporate suicide" and other fairly poor and non-objective slogans doing pantomines. Unless the arguments show facts and figures, and more substantive evidence, this is entirely dismissable.

China did well without IPR since ca. 5000 BC.

[Qbertino]

In the chinese empire a good copy of a masters painting was considered just as worthy as the original. Of course there were guilds and things considered secrets or uniqieness-by-law for certain documents (mostly the emporers treasure bills that were a reciept for gold, the first modern money), but basically there was no IPR.
I don't know about you, but I have the impression the chinese empire managed quite well without IPR. In fact, they way the chinese handled IP I personally consider more sane than that crazy western concept of patents, which is basically not much different from the spiritual monopoly of the catholic church in medieval times. A somewhat primitive concept if you ask me.
And a wrong one too.
There is no such thing as IP. Only a guaranteed (spelling?) monopoly by law for imaterial goods. You may have a so-called 'thought-patent' on a software algorithim, but you don't own the thought or intelectual concept behind it. No matter what a legal system may tell you about IP and such bullshit.

Re:China did well without IPR since ca. 5000 BC.

[mumblestheclown]

Your english may be better than my german, but your logic is still crap.

There was basically no IPR in most of the ancient world because the cost of copying was too high. Books had to be copied by hand, for example. And even so, you shoot down your own argument with your example of a good copy of a masters painting being considered just as worthy as an original - if this is true, why would anybody take the time and effort to become a master?

Your "spiritual monopoly" (whatever the hell that is) argument is bullshit. A strong patent system has proven time and again to drive innovation over the long run. Consider some of the most "hated" of patents -drug patents. Did you know that in an average of 20 years, when patents expire, the drugs effectively become public domain ? This has led to innumerable drugs being developed on a for-profit basis that otherwise would not have been developed (or otherwise would have taken much longer to be developed) that have since lengthened and improved the lives of billions of people.

Copyright (and all IPR) is not a 'natural law.' (if there is such a thing)--it is a social construct. but it is a GOOD social construct; you can take your bullshit chinese example and stick it up your ass.. it is irrelevant.

Monopoly conviction

[tepples]

M$ can also say: this patent is 1000$ per user

Anybody except Microsoft Corporation could say that. However, Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist and must play by different rules even with respect to its patents.

Re:Monopoly conviction

[Rakarra]

Anybody except Microsoft Corporation could say that. However, Microsoft is a convicted predatory monopolist and must play by different rules even with respect to its patents.

The Justice Department has already shown that it will only apply light slaps on the wrist. Monopolist or not, Microsoft knows it doesn't have many real limitations in the US. Europe may be another matter, but who knows what MS could do there with the stronger patent laws?

It is Patents vs. Indigenous Software companies

[con]

This issue is not at all as narrow as Patents vers Linux! What about Mozilla, OpenOffice.org, MySQL, Compiere, Python, KDE, and any multiplatform project on SourceForge or Freshmeat !

Then consider how many small companies out there (who actually employ more people than the larger companies) will either be able to afford to file for patents or will be affected by the larger companies patent portfolio.

As far as I understand at the moment in the US, if you search a patent database to see if your implementation uses a patent, the award made against you afterwards can be doubled or tripled whether you found the relevant patent or not!

Educating your legislators may help!

[abuch]

Denmark was one of the countries that showed some resistance to the
Irish proposal. Now, three weeks ago, most people in the Danish
government and ministries seemed unaware of the negative impacts of
software patents on interoperability. However, an effort by many to
educate the legislators seems to have helped.

That said, as a leaked(?) document
with the current proposed patent directive shows, Denmark
unfortunately has proposed RAND licensing for interoperability-related
patents (see the footnotes on page 10.)

We Danes will need to work on fixing that mistake. Hopefully other
Europeans will try to get their government to change their vote.
According to FFII, only ONE country needs to change its mind to shift
the balance of power in the EU council!

That does it, I'm now against the EU (again)

[Celvin]

Yep. This does it. Norway (my beloved country...) is not a full member of the EU, and I used to be quite pro membership, But not anymore. We cannot allow this foolish lack of democracy to happen! Laws and the legal-system is there to protect ALL the people and THE WHOLE society, not just those with a lot of money and to much greed for their own good!

Those of you who are EU-members: Do something! Show these people that you don't accept that your democratic rights gets flushed down the toilet!

puh...

Obviousness and tying

[tepples]

However, how can you show that your process is not obvious? This is where most granted software patents fall down. And with respect to antitrust law, how can you show that your process will not be used to tie products to other products?

respectable company...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heheheh, that's a good one!! ;)

Not Exactly Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

No, my understanding is that the directive would be at the phase of a "second reading" when it returns to the EU Parliament this time. For a second reading, the Parliament's options are much more restricted -- they can only do specific kinds of amendments that don't change the nature of the Directive, or they must vote by a large majority or something, to reject the Directive entirely. The EU rules of proceeding are this way -- they're designed to facilitate more expeditious decisionmaking for the "executive" components (the EU Council and
Commission) as they pursue their broad agenda of "harmonizing" rules across the EU. This is at least an important part of the outrage that those MEPs who are turned on to this issue, are expressing. If we all wanted to, we could transform this issue into a basic democratic representation and participation issue.

Re:why do developers have to get screwed on this t

[Anonymous Coward]

the practical application of a discovery, principle or algorithm is patentable. This means that computer software is patentable as long as it is implemented in a practical and economically useful way.

So mathmatics and literature are patentable if "implemented in a practical and economically useful way", eg: a book? What utter bullshit!

Microsoft Sponsors the Irish Presidency

[frankie_guasch]

Sponsors of the Irish Presidency
The Irish Presidency has buckled under the interests of American Companies. Those big American Companies will profit from software patents, but it is a very bad deal for innovation in European SMEs. Additionally, this way of working is a violation of the Parliament. As such, we must make sure that after the elections there will again be a majority in the European Parliament that is willing to show its teeth.
In addition, the patent taxes in Ireland is 0%, that means that a lot of American Companies have their European Site there, and has became on of the main software exporters in Europe. ( software developed elsewhere in the world ). Even could be displaced to Ireland profits from other european countries to avoid paying taxes.

No, it is correct

[Halo1]

No, my understanding is that the directive would be at the phase of a "second reading" when it returns to the EU Parliament this time. For a second reading, the Parliament's options are much more restricted

No, the original poster is right. The decision Wednesday was in the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER). It's a group of civil servants cf. ambassadors representing all members states doing the bulk of the negotiations. Nothing decided there is really official however, that only happens after the ministers confirm it (which would be on 17/18 May in this case).

If they confirm it, only then we are in the situation you describe.

The evidence

[the_womble]

confirms that software patents do not increase innovation:

The only academic evidence I know off confirms this. Details of the paper here but I can not find aplace to download it from anymore. There is other literature sugesting that patents are pretty useless in other fields as well. Less academic view here

MOD PARENT UP

[AndreyF]

Are you actually suggesting that "instead of juvenile rants" /. produces some "intelligent proposals" with a straight face? mod parent up: +5, Funny

Well said

[Featureless]

I can add very little to this, except to add that the original argument is backwards.

I have demonstrated how software patents are ridiculous. It was very easy, because they are very ridiculous. So has someone really arrived to say, OK, I see your point, but since "real-world patents" work the same way, how can there be a problem?

I just can't stop laughing. If it's anything at all, it's a sign that real patents have problems too, not the other way around!

I mean, I've just explained trivially why software patents are impossible. Is the coward really saying "so, sure, it's impossible, so what? We endured it in the real world..."

And the ultimate answer is, real patents _do_ have issues - only, for a variety of reasons, they are not as serious for engineering constrained by presence in the physical world as they are for software.

"Software" seems to give people common sense blinders in so many cases. Maybe we should try talking about software patents with a metaphor, like "Math patents" or "English patents..."

The finer nuance?

[Vaste]

US: Companies invest in patent lawyers to stop competition.
EU: Companies must compete to stop competition.

US: software sector declines, patent lawyer sector blooms
EU: software sector blooms

So how, again, does Europe gain from legalizing 30.000 patents, 70% of which are not owned by Europeans?

Re:why do developers have to get screwed on this t

[JuggleGeek]

I see nothing wrong with software patents. it is up to the patent office to make sure people don't file trivial patents, but that applies to hardware and inventions too. The problem isn't that there are software patents, it is that stupid software patents are being given out by the patent office. If the US had software patents, the Visicalc would still own the spreadsheet market - nobody else would be allowed to compete. Lord knows what we would have as a word processor. Just because someone (individual, or company) writes a piece of software and happens to be the first one to write that particular kind of software is no reason to stop everyone else from doing any development in that market. And that is what software patents do.

Software patents have screwed up software development in the US. If Europe implements them, they are just asking to end up with the same problems.

Parent has link to text of directive

[hairy_hippy]

Just so's you know..

And the long term effects...

[dirt_puppy]

Pakistan Company: Look, I've written a program similar to one that costs $500 in the US and 1000 Euro in the EU. Lets give it away for free and charge for maintanance and installation which are the main points of income anyway.

EU Citizen: ----, they want to charge me 1000 for a broken program thats free in Pakistan? Let's hope they get service to europe quickly... Oh damn, there's these ------ patent laws.

EU Citizen has now the choice of a) voting someone who abandons software patents [probably impossible in the case they get real] b) living somewhere where the government is not as much of a bunch of stupid jerks [impossible]

100 Years later. Braindrain and Emigration have taken place.

PK Company: Look, I've written that program... It's so hot that Microsoft - you remember, these guys from the USA [laughter] - asked for a beta version. They're fighting with another company over who gets to patent the innovations for NAFTA and EU [laughter again].

EU Company: How do you spell cow manure?

Re:why do developers have to get screwed on this t

[iMacGuy]

Since when did we not have software patents? Look at mpegla.com sometime.

'Dark Ages' is no cliched pun anymore.

[zeropointentity]

You know.. I recall a time in history when it was illegal to write, to read, to draw, to paint, to create a bloody thing. Some places, not at all in the past, it's illegal to have a child without proper permission. What I refuse to accept, is the claims that the individuals responsible for such laws are "stupid". Let alone those struck dumb by the laws. The individuals responsible for eliminating their competition, to drive the creatively inspired back into their secluded dens, operating by candle light, secret code and dagger are not at all un-insightful people. What I refuse to accept is the preposterous position that such an outcome of software patents is a doomsday scenario. Said heresy in the past was overcome. Is currently being overcome, and so foolishly will be it's own downfall. All it takes is one King. I would like to have every member of slashdot, and more for that matter, remember that life has a wonderful way of working out. That such heresy from a league of nations once (though previously factioned) responsible for previous indignations against the people it houses will go unchallenged is the biggest load of bullcrap I've ever heard. For once... just once, look at this as a bright thing. ALL people who are not "lawyers" or "politicians" or "big money corporations" are... ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE who need to survive, who need to live, and in fact outnumber every patent worker, politician, big wig and other such cronie combined. What in the bloody hell are you going to do? Plant your own bloody crops and take it up the ass? Give up what you love because you don't have a fancy looking piece of a dead tree? There are ways.

Re:why do developers have to get screwed on this t

[JuggleGeek]

Prior to 1981, software patents in the US were essentially unknown.

If software patents as used today were in existence when Visicalc came out, then Visicalc would be the only spreadsheet we could use - or every other software manufacturer would have to pay Visicalc for patent rights.

See http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html for some history.

See http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm for info on Visicalc and patents.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[iminplaya]

...but the REASON the problem didn't exist is because copying/producing copies was expensive as hell PERIOD.

Now that copying IS so cheap proves that the copies are worthless. Only the original perforance of work is worth anything, through commissioning or work for hire, etc.

...last I checked, the constitution and the basis for the entire american system of govt began in the 1770's and 80's. If you have any evidence that the constitution was originally intended to deny the possibility of IP...

I'm not sure how you came up with that conclusion out of the statement that simply said that the Americans didn't respect the IP from other countries, particularly Britain.

...the law of 1710 you cite was the first parliamentary act, however common law had been dealing with these issues for at least 200 years.

Uh, 200 years ago? Or 200 years before 1710?

...having worked in the publishing industry.

Well, there you go. Trying to protect an obsolete industry. To bring up the tired old analogy, You're making buggy whips. We no longer need buggy whips. Well, maybe the sex shops can sell 'em, but that's another thread.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[Rakarra]

Now that copying IS so cheap proves that the copies are worthless. Only the original perforance of work is worth anything, through commissioning or work for hire, etc.

If you want it, apparently it's worth something.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[Moridineas]

Now that copying IS so cheap proves that the copies are worthless.

If they're worthless, than why are you or others interested in acquiring them? Basic economics, common sense--exceptional to ask for these on slashdot I know, but still..

...the law of 1710 you cite was the first parliamentary act, however common law had been dealing with these issues for at least 200 years.

Uh, 200 years ago? Or 200 years before 1710?

My statement which you quoted explains it quite well--200 years before 1710. You might want to read about some of the early preses, and the English great, Caxton. Interesting stuff, and would probably help clear up some of your misconceptions.

Well, there you go. Trying to protect an obsolete industry. To bring up the tired old analogy, You're making buggy whips. We no longer need buggy whips. Well, maybe the sex shops can sell 'em, but that's another thread.

That's easy for you to say, and if you think that me, as someone who interned doing Quark Xpress one summer now has a vested interest in protecting the publishing industry, you're quite frankly more daft than your senseless comments lead me to believe. Publishers do many things you probably have never thought about, and many of the people who work in the industries are creative artists in their own right. I'd highly recommend you try working for a publishing company for a short period, I think you'd be amazed by what you would find.

And incidentally--the best thing about publishing--no one is forcing anyone to do anything. You don't like one publishing company, find another--there are plenty! you don't like any of them? do it yourself!

Publishing is by no means a "buggy whip," and is still in high demand--if publishers were really as evil and useless as you seem to think (vote nader! yay!) no one would use them, that simple.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[iminplaya]

When people relize how easy it is make copies, they will drop the publishing middle men like a hot potato(e). They're only in high demand now due to copyright restrictions. Why buy copies when you make your own? The creators can get paid on consignment for their performance.(concerts, exhibits, etc.) I'll re-state for you: If someone wants to create something and then sit back and collect the rent with sales of copies(knockoffs), then, when I fix a car, I want to sit back and collect royalties for every mile they drive afterword.

You don't like one publishing company, find another--there are plenty!

You might not realize you've been robbed before you signed the exclusive contract. I shouldn't have to pay a lawyer to check if the publisher is a crook or not. That's just another industry I don't want to feed. A creator should just go out, do his/her work, get paid, and move on, just like everyone else. They should not get special privileges.

All IP is about control. Who can posess...who can distribute...It robs the public at large to protect the profits of a select few.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[Moridineas]

You might not realize you've been robbed before you signed the exclusive contract. I shouldn't have to pay a lawyer to check if the publisher is a crook or not. That's just another industry I don't want to feed. A creator should just go out, do his/her work, get paid, and move on, just like everyone else. They should not get special privileges.

Like I said--nothing is stopping ANYBODY from not using a publisher right now. You can easily hire an editor, typesetters, designers, get your own printing contract, marketing firm etc--surely you don't think that ALL these companies are worthless? Because these are all things that publishing companies do. You really don't seem to understand what exactly a publishing company is, or what it does, and your ignorance makes you make these ridiculous arguments. Your analogy is so flawed as to be completely irrelevant.

All IP is about control. Who can posess...who can distribute...It robs the public at large to protect the profits of a select few.

Let me put it another way for you:

All propertyu is about control. Who can posess...who can distribute...It robs the public at large to protect the profits of a select few.

Surely you're not advocating the complete abolition of private property--because I have to tell you--the worldwide track record for such lunacy is not looking good.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[iminplaya]

Publishing companies can still serve a niche market. The thing that will stop people from not using an established (authorized) publisher is their attempts to cripple our tech (Re: DAT and minidisk and the "evil" bit). Oh, you can buy "professional" equipment to get around these problems, but only if you're willing to pay hundreds, possibly thousands dollars more for things that would be in regular "consumer" equipment were it not for the law bought and paid for by the industry. It inhibits professional self publishing. Try multi-track recording with a consumer DAT machine. Try recording to and from your minidisk to your computer. I just found out that copy "protection" doesn't allow that. These people have no right to dictate how I use my equipment. Evidently they don't believe in my property rights.

Let me put it another way for you:

All propertyu is about control. Who can posess...who can distribute...It robs the public at large to protect the profits of a select few.

That's not what I said and not what I meant. I can still accept that there is a difference between real and "intellectual"(more like imaginary) property. So your "analogy" is nonsense.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[Moridineas]

That's not what I said and not what I meant. I can still accept that there is a difference between real and "intellectual"(more like imaginary) property. So your "analogy" is nonsense.

It's not an analogy--it was you making a statement, and from that statement making a conclusion. I merely removed "intellectual" property from your statement (statement is still true--property IS about control), and kept the same conclusion.

And I think you're getting off-topic again...are you talking about the music industry? I'm not--I'm talking about publishing companies...last I heard, books aren't released on DAT, and there's no reason for them to be.

Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property

[iminplaya]

I merely removed "intellectual" property from your statement (statement is still true--property IS about control), and kept the same conclusion.

At this point, real property and intellectual property are two different things. I still recognize the legitimacy of real property. (as in stay outta my house, or off my land if I'm working it) Intellectual property is like the square root of -1. It doesn't exist. It's irrational.(or illogical, can't remember) To draw the same conclusion in your example is a mistake. It's like saying (1+2)+3=6 and (2)+3=6. The 2 is still the same, but without the 1 (hold the matrix jokes, please :-)) you can't come to the same conclusion. (Heh, if I could remember any of my calc stuff, this would be real fun) And speaking of property, the gov't owns all property. Just try to hold on to it if you miss some tax payments. That may be a silly statement, but can anybody prove it to be false?

I lump the publishing and music and movie industries into one because the subject is the same. It's about IP. and IP is robbing the public. I used DAT as an example of how IP in general is doing this. The e-book restrictions might apply better to the book publishing industry. I can't remember if I posted this to you before, but IP promotes speculation, not innovation. The desire to make our lives better is what sparks innovation. Speculation is about the desire for money, which is what IP is about. By the way, I don't care for real property speculation either, and it shuold probably be outlawed. If you don't use the property over a certain period of time, you should have to give it up. I couldn't speculate how much time that should be :-)