Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Moves Toward Software Patents

Posted by michael on from the imperial-march-playing dept.

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."

90 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. How would this work? by sH4RD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    WASTE - The Secure P2P
    1. Re:How would this work? by Dogbert2006 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      ~Mike
    2. Re:How would this work? by computational+super · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    3. Re:How would this work? by pluvia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    4. Re:How would this work? by BillyBlaze · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

    5. Re:How would this work? by AigariusDebian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

  2. Why? by timealterer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    - Allen Pike
    Altering time, one time at a time.
    1. Re:Why? by The_Mystic_For_Real · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      _____

      Thank you.

    2. Re:Why? by timealterer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    3. Re:Why? by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Why? by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Why? by caseydk · · Score: 2, Insightful


      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.

    6. Re:Why? by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Why? by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
    8. Re:Why? by MSZ · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
  3. I'll probably get modded down for this but... by foidulus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but... by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but... by ZuperDee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but... by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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.

    4. Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but... by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
    5. Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but... by Yohahn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but... by Yohahn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    7. Re:I'll probably get modded down for this but... by Hast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.)

  4. another USA by Coneasfast · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:another USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  5. Ok then... by claudiac · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  6. I don't mind software patents by cybrthng · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Data structures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Data structures by sir_cello · · Score: 2, Informative

      > 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.

  8. Patents on Software...uhoh by linguae · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Patents on Software...uhoh by Dogbert2006 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
    2. Re:Patents on Software...uhoh by Dogbert2006 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ~Mike
  9. We are better than you silly Yanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:We are better than you silly Yanks! by johannesg · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

    2. Re:We are better than you silly Yanks! by Xymbaline · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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. *
  10. Breaking news by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Politicans fuck over the electorate. Film at 11.

    --
    Beep beep.
  11. Web Protests by RoadkillBunny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Cheers,
    RoadkillBunny
    1. Re:Web Protests by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  12. ...it's OK....we can still blame MS by j3ll0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!!!!!....

    1. Re:...it's OK....we can still blame MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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,

    2. Re:...it's OK....we can still blame MS by JPMH · · Score: 2, Informative
      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).

  13. Look who sponsors the irish precidency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Look who sponsors the irish precidency by danila · · Score: 2

      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."

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  14. Re:What oo Software Patents Have to Do... by leonscape · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --


    If a first you don't succeed, your a programmer...
  15. Re:What oo Software Patents Have to Do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
  17. Re:It saved Apple! by servoled · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
  18. Ridiculous. by Featureless · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:Ridiculous. by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Donate free food here
  19. not happy? Then SIGN THE PETITION! by acidvoid · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    NetNewsWire into Yojimbo!
  20. What will be patented? by hattig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. Data Structures? I patent the vector! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

  22. Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    What?
  23. Good or bad by javatips · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  24. Bolkestein left Brussels today... by stock · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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

  25. Cut the xenophobic crap... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Cut the xenophobic crap... by roard · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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).

    2. Re:Cut the xenophobic crap... by AigariusDebian · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Cut the xenophobic crap... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
    4. Re:Cut the xenophobic crap... by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative
      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)
      --
      Donate free food here
    5. Re:Cut the xenophobic crap... by njdj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  26. Patent reform progress in US? by Micah · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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
  27. Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
  28. It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux by gnuman99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux by servoled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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".
    2. Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux by gnuman99 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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!

    3. Re:It is not MS vs. Linux, it is Patents vs. Linux by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative
      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).
      --
      Donate free food here
  29. why do developers have to get screwed on this too? by js3 · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  30. Re:Ethics of Intellectual Property by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  31. How "democracy was subverted" by darkonc · · Score: 4, Informative
    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!
    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  32. patents favor closed source by acomj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  33. Backwards by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  34. Patenting Data Structures?...... by james_in_denver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  35. This is already patentable under the EPC by kanweg · · Score: 3, Interesting


    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

  36. Europeans - write to your representants! by linuxhansl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  37. Problem with ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  38. The battle is not yet won and not yet lost by AigariusDebian · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  39. Re:why do developers have to get screwed on this t by AigariusDebian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  40. What he is smoking is... by Animaether · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What he is smoking is... by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Donate free food here
  41. Misleading by antientropic · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  42. Re:patently bad? by juhaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  43. I think I will patent... by erik_norgaard · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  44. What might work by trezor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  45. Educating your legislators may help! by abuch · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!


  46. That does it, I'm now against the EU (again) by Celvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

    --
    -- If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
  47. Re:here we go again! by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  48. Re:here we go again! by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 2, Informative

    (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.

  49. Re:here we go again! by JPMH · · Score: 3, Informative
    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)

  50. No, it is correct by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    --
    Donate free food here