Germany to Vote Against Software Patents in the EU
YKW writes "According to Ars Technica, Germany has decided to vote against all changes to current European patent laws. In a statement given to demonstrators in Germany, Federal Department of Justice Minsterial Director Elmar Hucko read the riot act to the EC: 'Under no circumstances do we want American procedures in Europe, Hucko vowed with regard to the US patent process. A patent must be "a fair reward for a bona fide invention and not abused as a strategy to bludgeon competitors.' With the largest EU member against software patents and French IT leaders lobbying their goverment to vote against them too, Europe might be saved from software patents. At least for a while. An older Slashdot article about software patents in Europe is here."
I am curious to see how this will play out with big US companies like Microsoft and Apple, specifically with foreign competitors cloning their products.
Will Microsoft be able to prevent Windows clones from being sold in the US by US patents, even though they may be legal in Europe?
On Groklaw, this was reported last Thursday. Not only will Germany vote no, but there is some pretty heavy pressure on France to do the same. In fact, to quote Groklaw, "They call business methods patents on software corporate racketeering and say they don't want to copy US methods"
The entities putting pressure on the French govt. include the head of MandrakeSoft, who has pretty heavy pull over in France. In fact, IIRC, a lot of French govt. agencies use Mandrake Linux.
bash: rtfm: command not found
Patenting simple ideas and abusing legitimate businesses tends to be the realm of large businesses, not private parties, though it does happen both ways.
Nonetheless, requiring fabrication is a burden that places most patents in a class that only wealthy businesses can pursue.
Finding a private backer isn't all that easy, especially when you can't reveal your invention because you haven't patented it. Saving money can either take time or be beyond the realm of possibility. Patents were made for the small man, NOT for the mega-corporation. That's changed significantly in the years between.
My great grandfather, in his lifetime, twice invented something that could revolutionize the automotive industry. The first time, he could not find a private backer, nor would his wife let him put their house at risk to get the money to patent it himself. He took a gamble on the good will of the men in Detroit, and lost. Terribly. His invention was stolen.
The second time he came up with something far more amazing. This time, he was able to get the money to pursue patenting it. He couldn't get a patent, though, because his prototype was deemed inadequate. He fully intended to pursue marketing it to a company which could make use of it, but he didn't, because he couldn't protect it.
I've personally designed several things that could be quite impactful, but I'm unable to pursue marketing them to companies that could make use of them because I lack the very sophisticated and expensive resources necessary to begin down the path required by the present system. Though I prefer ideas be in the public domain, I know that, generally speaking, to bring an invention or improvement to a wide market so that it will be useful, it must be protected by a patent so a company will consider using it. What can I do? Nothing, presently. It's really killed my passion for invention.
Genuine innovation, and the pursuit of marketing that innovation, is indeed possible without the resources for fabrication. It's happened a lot over the years, but most people aren't able to do anything with it, because the present system is classist.
Der Spiegel (article in German) does not agree with you. Maybe they also listened to Heise but it does not look like it.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.