Slashdot Mirror
European Council Approves Software Patents
A. S. Bradbury writes "ZDNet reports that the EU Council has voted to pass changes to European patent law that will allow the patentability of software. See the FFII for more coverage. Currently, the FFII states 'The Irish Presidency's proposal was passed, with support from Germany, France and most of the other countries whose ministers had publicly promised to oppose or at least abstain. The only no vote came from Spain (to be confirmed), Italy and a few others abstained.' As you may remember, Germany had previously promised to vote against software patents. The FFII news page seems to have been showing growing support in European countries for the FFII and other organisations fighting against software patents, but unfortunately that wasn't enough. So, what now? The European elections are approaching, which means MEPs might be more willing to listen to our views than normal. Slashdot has covered software patents in Europe before."
It's not so much the possibility of patents that's a threat. It's also the way they are issued.
If the european patent office seems more sane than the us (a little like the japanese seem to do) and not issue patents for obviously stupid stuff, the problem might not be that big
Artists against online scams http://www.aa419.org/
This side up.
I may be mistaken, but it is my impression that this was passed against the will of the EU Parliament. Yet another example of how the EU's internal structure can be undemocratic.
...the Pope is found to be Polish, and bears are found to be rather partial to crapping in the woods.
C'mon, didn't we all see this coming? Did we really think that those unelected officials which govern in our name would make a decision that reflects our best interests?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
As a german citizen I am really angry that this happend although there was an intelligent debate. Seems like the big cash won over the judges. I am deeply concerned about what this means for the german software industry.
;-/
The sad part is that I believe that most of the propatent folks really believed that they are doing the software firms a favour and helping local developers up on their feet again. The Irony! The only thing that will probably happen is that the bigshots (i.e. Microsoft and the like) will further dominate the market instead of, growing, newcomers that could produce the next big thing and create jobs instead of outsorcing.
Look, I feel bad for you, really, but all we've been hearing for years on Slashdot is that Americans are idiots who keep electing bad leaders. The USA doesn't have a patent on bad lawmaking, so please keep that in mind, would you?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Yeah but it could force OSS underground.
Saving IP is one thing, but to limit someone to do the same thing with totally different code is another.
already stated but once again. Fuck.
If you, as a small-time developer, hold a patent on an algorithm, you can be assured that the mega-corporation that "steals" your idea will hold a number of patents on things you do. They can cross-license with you (ie. you get nothing but the opportunity to remain in business), or they can litigate you to death. In no circumstance will you come out ahead.
Patents may have been conceived as a means to protect "the little guy," but nowadays, they're nuclear weapons on a very small battlefield. Your bombshelter is not deep enough.
-Hope
Not quite. Their amendments were gutted of the most important parts. Here an extract of the Italian speech, nicely summing up the situation:
Basically, the German amendment was meant to define what "technical contribution" means (i.e. sth technical, with the exception of anything that happens within the computer itself). Now, what's left are vague formulations such as "computer programs as such are not patentable", etc. which have been shown to be weasely and highly ambiguous.Say no to software patents.
Thats from the article....
Now WHO THE FUCK told them they could throw those two cats in the same bag?
NO SIG
"If you can't afford a patent lawyer then just put it out there. If someone else patents it then yours is prior art to theirs."
Yours is prior art to theirs _if_ you can _prove_ it is in court. Which rather requires that patent lawyer you couldnt afford in the first place.
If you cant afford to patent something there's no way you'll be able to defend yourself when someone else steals your idea, patents it and claims they were first, then proceeds to sue you for patent infringement on something you invented in the first place.
That sure is going to have such beneficial effects on that 'innovation' thing...
This concept can be held to any kind of patent. From engines to circuit boards to anything. So, your saying there should be no patents. No IP protections.
There are arguments to be made that patents are never good, for anything. And I have yet to see an independent study that proves that patents are a net benefit.
But that wasn't really what he was arguing. What he was arguing was that 20 years is way too long for patents in the software industry, even if you concept software should be patentable. The software industry has lifecycles of 2 to 5 years (most products inching closer to 2 than to 5), meaning you go through 4 to 10 iterations of your product before your patent expires. That's too much. 2 or 3 product iterations is ok, but more than that is not in the public interest. And remember that patents, copyrights and trademarks are meant to serve the public interest, not the corporate bottom line.
Besides, just look at the examples of long lasting patents on useful stuff that expired. Take the patent of RSA. Once that expired we've seen a dramatic upsurge in encryption products. Before it expired, ssh was a niche product, now it's often the only way to log into a system. That single expiration brought dramatic benefits to the entire software industry. I'm not saying the original inventors shouldn't have benefited from their invention, but the RSA patent held back strong encryption, and the products based on it, for two decades.
Besides, I think there's something seriously wrong if the only way we can reward inventors is by handing them absolute monopolies for two decades. Solve the cause, not the symptoms.
Because software patents cover concepts themselves. If it were allowed in literature, youd have patents for 'novel where a person gets murdered', 'novel based partially in historic facts', etc. With the current rate of software patenting it already is pretty much impossible to write any program doing anything without violating several patents.
Software is already covered by copyright, which protects a certain implementation of something, so the intention of software patents implicitly is to extend beyond the implementation to the very concept of doing or accomplishing something.
Software, unlike pretty much any other field, becomes twice-covered by both patents and copyright.
Let's be honest this is yet another permanent employment act for Brussles aparachiks. The act says they will permit patents to be filed. It says nothing about how many millions of Euro-person-hours will be required to be granted one.
These are the people who have 80 page specifications for a bus steering wheel. Can you imagine the requirements for a successful patent that has to be passed in 25 countries at the same time?
This whole software-patent thing has nothing at all to do with protecting ideas. Right now, anyone can get a degree, download the java sdk and eclipse and write good software. By screwing everything up so that you need a legal department to write code, the big software companies hope to make it so that little guys are excluded.
The goal is to create what economists call 'barriers to entry' into the software development industry. Because barriers to entry make it expensive to enter the industry, firms can increase prices farther than they otherwise could because competition will only enter the market if their potential profits exceed the start-up cost. Creating a menace to FLOSS is icing on the cake.
I know, I know, IHBT IHL and I'll HAND. I just wanted to explain this to the people who modded the parent up or read it.
Im European by the way, and strongly believed that this crap would never pass. Americans are welcome to point and laugh at me for my ignorance.
In some respects, innocense is ignorance; do not be ashamed of innocense.
God, fucking stupid politicians, they don't know shit about software and should keep away.
Problem is, politicians are by nature corrupt. No, every politician is not corrupt; but many are, and the carreer attracts those that love power for the sake of power. It doesn't take but one or two of those to ruin the whole batch, as they introduce corrupt bills (such as this patent "reform") that are sponsored by those with deep pockets and deeper self-interest.
In this case, the politicians that don't know shit about software were encouraged to vote, and educated by, the ones with the most self-interest in this perversion of knowledge ownership. And all they saw were the most "important" players in the software industry backing the bill.
The problem isn't politicians, per se, its the corporate influence on politicians that fuck things up so badly. Once the government starts serving the corporations instead of the people, we are screwed. And that has started to happen.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Even if the small company wins they stand to lose. Look at EOLAS, they won the case, they got awarded millions and then MS had the patent invalidated (pending). You think the patent office would listen to you or me or EOLAS if we attempted to invalidate an MS patent?
I think Jesse Jackson put it best "Capitalism without capital is just an ism".
evil is as evil does