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."
Man, only in the EU can I get First Patent!
I'm disappointed that the German government voted for after initially saying they'd at least abstain -- my understanding is that they could have held up the process if they had at least abstained. :-(
What the hell am I talking about?
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/
Ok, now that software is patentable, where do I apply for a process which decodes digital content which has been encoded in MPEG2 standard? And while we are at it, what about a process that converts 3 numbers which range in values from 0-255, into visible light? Or better still, converts a group of eitht(8) ones(1's) and zeros(0's) into human readable text and numbers?
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
This side up.
and you're surprised because why? contradiction, hypocrisy and breaking promises are the hallmark of liberal, representative democracy.
think of this: the number of domestic votes a country like, say, germany has that would be swayed by an issue like this is very minimal. the amount of potential campaign contributions from major software vendors, contributions that can translate directly to votes, is big. the outcome is obvious.
remember that a liberal democracy is a system whereby the rulers get votes from the poor and money for the rich while promising to protect each from the other.
2 1337 4 u!
My patent papers are in for the following ideas that I invented:
1) A method for translating program source code into a machine runnable format.
2) A method for displaying a computer's file system (see earlier patent for details) based on the top of a typical desk.
3) A number system based solely on the numbers 1 and 0.
4) A method for having sex with a computer (you know it'll happen one day... and when it does... I'm rolling in the cash)
-m
#
# Modus Ponens
#
Too late, I already patented that idea. Pay 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.
According to Heise (german), the Germans forced a collection of amendments through. The idea behind the changes was to protect free software and avoid trivial patents.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
...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.
Er...wait...what am I saying?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Indirectly.
This will hopefully hasten the collapse of the software industry, highlighting exactly why software patents are bad.
The next 10 years could really be a mess, but hopefully people will learn from it.
This is all so typical. There is always someone, somewhere trying to twist the system to squeeze out some self-benefit, but always at the greater cost of society (and ironically, also usually at the long term cost of the selfish people themselves.)
.sigs are for post^Hers.
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?
Besides, what kind of dorky attitude is it that nobody should be allowed to build on an idea for twenty years?!? Imagine that somebody has had a trivial idea and you get the same idea from elsewhere, and build something much larger on it. Well, you cannot use your ideas for the next twenty years if the first person has patented it.
But there does look like there is some hope quote "The catch is that if the Parliament still doesn't like software patents, it has to have a majority of all MEPs to put its amendments, which means that in practice they need a two-to-one or three-to-one majority in the chamber,"
Hopefully this draft gets stopped in the next round of voting. If not, this could be a very bad thing for Europe developers of OSS.
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.
When this sort of thing happens in the US, there is a huge cry of "you don't like it, you voted for them. Vote them out." Well, now it's time.
I'm in the US, so I can't do it this time. But to all the Europeans on Slashdot: Your own governments just lied to you about an EXTREMELY important issue. Your own representatives said they would vote against software patents, and then voted for them. Your next move is very simple.
1) Send a letter to the appropriate bureaucrat stating that you are upset, and inform them that they have lost your vote.
2) In the next election, send a letter to their opponent telling them why the incumbent pissed you off (software patent support), along with a check.
3) Vote for the challenger.
4) Watch as a few people wake up and realize that the voting public is not completely stupid and full of sheep.
5) Profit (not in money, but in Freedom).
Your turn now. You take out those bosos while we work against George "Fascist" Bush here on this side of the Atlantic. If you don't, you only encourage our slide into an information dark ages.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
In a surprising development, internet news site Slashdot has become one of the first companies to apply for a European Software patent. The patent, describing the proccess of "seeing into the mysterious future by becoming a Slashdot subscriber", has caused much controversy over karma whoring. In response to the controversy, one Slashdot reader said "Imagine a beowulf cluster of karma whoring /. subscribers rushing to apply for various patents at the announcement that EU software patents have been approved."
In related news Slashdot is reportedly in the proccess of filing for another EU patent for the beowulf cluster.
Full Story at 10:00
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.
The protection that we need is the protection from getting sued if we have an innovative idea and dare to publish the resulting software. Software patents make great weapons against small developers who cannot afford a patent lawsuit.
If you put it out there and don't get a patent then you can use it and it then becomes prior art to any patents. 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.
Besides, what kind of dorky attitude is it that nobody should be allowed to build on an idea for twenty years?!? Imagine that somebody has had a trivial idea and you get the same idea from elsewhere, and build something much larger on it. Well, you cannot use your ideas for the next twenty years if the first person has patented it.
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.
Evolution or ID?
This afternoon, 5 of us officially presented a petition against software patents to Dutch MP's responsible for Economic Affairs.
:)
:(
:(
We were rather lucky, since one of us had good contacts with one of those MP's, who was sympathetic to us and had considerable influence, resulting in a quick arrangement to hand over the petition. Normally, the procedure would have taken weeks.
Many MP's were quite interested in our information, and were particularly concerned about the fact that our minister of Economic Affairs, Laurens-Jan Brinkhorst, who was to vote in the EU council on our country's behalf, had apparently misinformed our national parlement.
They even announced they would be holding an extra debate, probably tomorrow.
During the day, we were kept informed through our mobile phones. It was nerve wreckening. We kept receiving conflicting reports about wether we would be getting a majority against or not. Near the end, we even heard that the Netherlands would probably have the deciding vote! You can understand that nearly drove us crazy.
Eventually, the news broke...
And again, mister Bolkestein seems to have played a crucial role on the side of the software patent supporters.
On behalf of all the people in the Netherlands, I would like to apologize to all the people of Europe for mister Bolkestein. He makes me ashamed to be Dutch.
The fight is not over, however! It will be more difficult now, but the European Parlement seems to be really pissed, and most Eastern members that are joining the EU now (and will be part of the parliament after the next elections in June) appear to be opposed against software patents.
Also, it amazed me how easy it can be to get in touch with influential people, as long as YOU KNOW THE RIGHT PERSONS that have the relevant connections!
In spite of the defeat, I'm still impressed with the difference we managed to make today. At least more people in our government are informed now. And we won't be giving up the fight! We made a few mistakes the last few days (hey, we were new at this), but we also accomplished a lot and also learned A LOT of lessons.
I would like to end this post with two pieces of advice:
1) I'm calling upon ALL European Citizens to VOTE IN THE NEXT EUROPEAN ELECTIONS! Even though there is much wrong in European politics, not using your vote and at least applying that little influence you do would be insanely foolish!
2) Let's all coordinate our lobbying efforts! If you have even just one or two hours a week available to help out, spend it by contacting certain EP's (preferably try to start a dialogue with one or two specific EP's, so you can concentrate on them and build up more personal relations) and contact FFII to notify them of your efforts and inform them who you are in contact with. There were only five of us, and look how far we have come in only 5 days time!
Let's get to work! Autumn will be upon us before we know it! And the elections are even less than a month away!
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
They are talking about a different proposal, for having a single patent 'territory' covering the whole EU, rather than patents within individuual countries. The directive on what is patentable will still have to be implemented by the individual countries, even if the EU-wide patent never happens.
if there is hope, it lies in the proles.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
File patent after patent until the system dies. This is the only way to kill the beast.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
Thats from the article....
Now WHO THE FUCK told them they could throw those two cats in the same bag?
NO SIG
At this point, it still has to go back for a "second reading" to the Parliament. Considering that, in addition to the original issues, this is now seen as a challenge to democracy and the role of the parliament in the EU, it seems likely that the parliament will soundly reject it.
On the other hand, some amendments were made at the last minute which convined a number of the representatives; since the parliament version was also this bill with amendments, they might have actually passed that version.
"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...
Why do some people *need* to hate an entire culture of people? This decision within the EU doesn't prove that Europeans are liars and pushovers anymore than it would mean that if passed in any other country. What it *does* mean is that politicians are politicians regardless of what country they are in and will always cater to special interests, regardless of what those who elect them actually want.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
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.
Engineering is the skill of applying pure mathematics/science to real world problems.
As such, since a patent is (supposed to) protect an *application of an idea*, not the idea itself, patents are very applicable to engineering, and not at all to math/science. You can't patent an algorithm; however, you can patent applying that algorithm to a problem in a novel way.
I.E. - turbo coding? Not patentable. Using turbo codes as your coding method for voice over RF? Patentable, but only if the use of turbo codes enables significant advances over the current state of voice over RF. This is arguable.
That's why engineering is different from science.
Now, why is software engineering different from classical engineering? It isn't. However, a lot of bad software patents have been granted. If you're going to grant patents, you need to grant software patents as well; there is nothing fundamentally different about software allowing it to be treated differently than a circuit board. However:
The implication of patentable software is threefold:
1) Reverse-engineering of patented software to determine how it works must be legal under any circumstance.
2) There must be no copyright protection for source code.
3) The entire source code must be included in the patent application.
This places software on a level with hardware, which is where it belongs.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Whom shall I vote? The guys which lied to me about what they would do, or the other guys, which didn't lie to me yet? The only thing I can be sure of is, that whomever I vote, they will lie and turn for the people with the money.
This is SO frustrating and SUCH a shame for democracy.
Sometimes you can't eat as much as you want to vomit... (Manchmal kann man nicht soviel Essen wie man Kotzen möchte)
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?
``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.''
One of the differences between how lawsuits tend to work in the USA versus how they tend to work in Europe is that in Europe, the winner is usually compensated for the costs they made. Which means that you _can_ afford a patent lawyer - if you have a solid case.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
bollocks. Just write down a description of your idea, have one or two people sign/date it, and have it notarized. No $500 an hour patent lawyer needed. This is what a group of patent lawyers told the software development group in a persentation on what we should keep an eye out for with regards to patentable work, while I was working at Optical Solutions in Minnesota. Note to those who have heard of it, mailing it to yourself doesn't hold up in court. You can steam open the envelope and reseal it with whatever you want inside. The lawyers said, repeatedly, have one or two people sign and date a description, and have that notarized. Cheap and easy way to establish prior art. Just don't loose it.
--rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
Quite the opposite. We need to hurry up and get Sterling into the Euro. Then the dollar will go through the floor, the American economy will collapse, and maybe the EU will stop modelling its laws on what's 'obviously' working so well for the USA.
This is just going to force innovation away from the West and into the hands of emerging powers like China and India.
While the US and the EU commit ritual suicide via patent litigation and red-tape, the East will be making leaps and bounds in closing the innovation gap and capturing market share.
Outsourcing has already created the business channels and the beginnings of infrastructure to allow those nations to compete directly with the West. The only thing missing is innovation, and here it comes.
The UK is indeed a member state of the European Union.
http://europa.eu.int/abc/european_countries/eu_mem bers/uk/index_en.htm
Now, we have to take the action: ...[your ideas here]...
1 - Create one OSS/FS patent pool for defensive protection
2 - Enhance Open Source Licenses patent-defensives
3 - Ask/"Open Letter" to *all* companies supporting Open Source movement asking for explicit promise to not use software patents to attack Open Source software. Please, ask to IBM, HP, Oracle, Sun, CA, Veritas, Novell, Fujitsu, Dell, etc.
4 -
The talk will then be followed by round table comments and discussion by Euro-candidates from all of the political parties. Come along, and tell them what you think.
The event is free, and all are welcome.It's a 300 seater lecture theatre, and this has had to be organised at the last minute, so help us get the word out. Let's show the candidates that swpat is something we really care about.
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