Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
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.
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.
- Allen Pike
Altering time, one time at a time.
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)
~Mike
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?
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.
What?
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...
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
"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.
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.
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
Thanks
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.
What?
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?
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
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.
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,
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
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!
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.
US Company : Let's patent this in the U.S., so that nobody else operating here can use it without licensing. ... oh, drat, we can't.
:D
:D
EU Company : Let's patent this in the E.U.
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!
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!
So yeah, that's basically what he's smoking.
There's finer nuances to this, but that's the gist of it.
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.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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.
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.
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.
Donate free food here
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?
* The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. *