NewsForge On U.S. Advice To EU On Software Patents

An anonymous reader points to Roblimo's "interesting article about how the U.S. sold out to software patents and the EU should as well." Should be of interest to Europeans, forced as they are "to suffer from willy-nilly software development by individuals who have not been screened, approved, and trained by corporate human resources professionals."

Comments

Jury's Out.

[Altima(BoB)]

I can see this going either way.

On the one hand, like the article mentions, Europe has a lot more socialists who aren't fans of Big Business. And they were the people who were actually able to succeed in nailing Microsoft with that big antitrust fine. (Sure that's not patent per-se, but given that every second slashdot and fark headline these days is a new rediculous MS patent, it fits.)

On the other hand, speaking from Ireland, multinations with lots of patents like Microsoft and Intel have become rather cozy here, but the tax breaks that used to be unique to foreign companies settling are disappearing from here and being imitated elsewhere. I know the local government in Ireland would be open to US style patent laws if it will keep foreign investment and jobs coming in.

Re:Jury's Out.

[jd]

Eventually, as with any addiction, it will be impossible to break free. The strain of the withdrawl symptoms would kill the patient. Carrying on (and dying from the addiction) becomes the preferred option.

No country can survive indefinite foreign investment. Some is good, but things have gone far beyond "some", for Ireland, England and many other nations.

It's a standing joke that the only road car actually made in the UK is Japanese. For a country that once prided itself on the works of Jaguar, Rolls Royce, British Leyland, Rover and Granada, that's been no small collapse. British shipyards lie derelict, with all the jobs overseas. Britain is a rusting hulk, with little left that's native and functional.

To get back to the patent topic, the situation can only get worse in the EU, if software, algorithms and business models can be patented. It's far too easy to get such patents in the US. Dangerously easy. As the blizard of US software patents worsens, EU companies will find themselves legally barred from competing on any front.

The EU may see this as easy money, but the reality is that it might as well collectively agree to gas the whole of Europe. It'll be quicker, less painful, and less stressful on the unemployment figures.

Re:Jury's Out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that most Irish people I know (including myself) would consider that a compliment, not flamebait. Though it's not particularly true, unless you're fond of "no true scotsman" fallacies. It's easy to find Irish people throughout history downright happy to throw themselves into the arms of foreign domination, from McMurrough the Betrayer to Mary Harney. You can't just say "ah, but they weren't _true_ Irish". They may be scum in the eyes of us true Irishmen ;-), but they're still Irish.

Re:Jury's Out.

[Tjebbe]

You know, this has actually been an argument from some of the pro-patent lobbyists here.

"There are already patents being granted so we'd better make it legal"

It is just wrong in so many ways I couldn't even believe it.

'Advice to the EU'

[Nicholas Evans]

First of all, why does the EU want the US's advice? The title makes it sound more like we're just running our mouth's. The EU doesn't much like us at the moment, and this just helps to foster the whole 'america gets up in everyone's grill' image. =/

And secondly, why doesn't the EU want advice from the guys down in the trenches? Is it impossible to get some body of government that listens to the people instead of greedy corporations who pay them off?

Yea, well. We can all tell I'm high. A government for the people? Pfft. I must of taken some baaaaaad LSD.

Re:'Advice to the EU'

[BiggerIsBetter]

"Advice" in political terms is usually another way of saying "veiled threat". Many of the companies pushing for software patents are American. Big EU software houses like SAP *don't want them*, but the US is trying to look after it's own big IT businesses. If EU doesn't bend over, there may be trade or policy repercussions.

I didn't RTFA, because the quote made my knee jerk and my brain think OFFS! "to suffer from willy-nilly software development by individuals who have not been screened, approved, and trained by corporate human resources professionals." Firstly, what does HR know about software development? Secondly, have they forgotten that much of this IT stuff has started form individuals developing stuff willy-nilly in basements and sheds around the world?

I've had a gutsful of companies and governments sidelining the individual for the sake of a few large corporations. I was going to say I think it's about time we (the willy-nilly developers) stood up to be counted, but I don't think it would help. We'd have to storm the relevant summits or similar, and even then we'd be called terrorists. We're just consumers in their eyes, and the thought of the common people doing anything significant without their approval scares the shit out of them.

European elections

[simgod]

We will se on Sunday how much power we have. Vote for the Greens!!!

Depressing issue.

[rice_burners_suck]

to suffer from willy-nilly software development by individuals who have not been screened, approved, and trained by corporate human resources professionals.

And this is to say what? That corporate human resources "professionals" know anything about software development? I suppose the next thing they'll believe is that programmers who learned to program in school know anything about programming.

I have some experience with that second one. I know a few people who studied programming in school, not really knowing anything about it beforehand. The way they studied made no sense at all; it was a process of memorization, like memorizing a multiplication table. This applies to everything from language syntax to design patterns. These schools turn out programmers who think they're hot stuff because they can churn out word processors using VB#.NET or whatever. There isn't the sort of deep-rooted philosophy about software design, the base in mathematics and logic, the science of the machine, or the art of putting together computer programs that accomplish a job, scale well, fit together within the overall field of computing, and age well too.

I don't know what to think about this industry. What happened to the few really good programmers who could make amazing things happen with a basically crappy machine with barely any memory or other computing resources? What happened to the respect that used to apply to this field? Nowadays, it seems like corporate managers look down on the programmers and the software, as if it's a given that software is some mindless trivial crap that takes two seconds to bang together, and the fact that it takes a really long time to engineer is scorned and look down upon.

The issue of software patents stems directly from this. There is no issue of learning or advancing the field. It's simply looked upon as a bunch of flash cards that need to be memorized, and each corporation is trying to jump on that and patent as many of those flash cards as they can. Want to use a 'switch' statement? Pay $500 per application instance, or an annual fee of $5,000,000. It's just a nominal fee...

Depressing. Free software needs to win the software war as soon as possible.

Re:Depressing issue.

[hchaos]

And this is to say what? That corporate human resources "professionals" know anything about software development? I suppose the next thing they'll believe is that programmers who learned to program in school know anything about programming.

RTFA. And, while you're at it, look up the word sarcasm.

Re:Depressing issue.

[mikael]

What happened to the few really good programmers who could make amazing things happen with a basically crappy machine with barely any memory or other computing resources?

From my experience at university, I'd say that they all went into university teaching/research and/or consultancy and if they became contractors in the UK, they are unemployed.

Corporate directors are under pressure from shareholders to maintain the mandatory annual growth rate. With the large number of graduates with 2:1's and 1st class Honours, companies were instructed to do all they could to give them employment. So companies stopped looked for contractors and just wanted project managers to train up the graduates. And even then, they will only consider graduates who have already done similar work as a project. Anyone who worked as a contractor, or wasn't willing to remain for a full project lifecycle and let their skills become out of date, is being rejected. But these are the same companies who would probably downsize their project managers, once their graduates were skilled enough to become team leaders.

Re:Depressing issue.

[red floyd]

Actually, it's sarcasm. Perhaps if you RTFA, you'd see that roblimo's proposal is completely tongue in cheek.

Re:Depressing issue.

[rice_burners_suck]

Corporate directors are under pressure from shareholders to maintain the mandatory annual growth rate.

In other words, the shareholders and managers of corporations believe:

• Corporations have a right to profit.
• The government has a duty to protect that profit.
• Corporations have a right for their profits to consistently increase.
• If a corporation's profit does not increase or actually decreases, that is the effect of a crime on the part of the consumers who purchase the product or service.

In other words, corporations have a God given right to eternal perpetually increasing profits.

While we are in court

[Anonymous Coward]

the Chinese, Indians, Asia, S-Americans, Africans

are busy laughing at us, innovation wont stop but western buisness might

so i for 1 welcome our new technology masters

The corporations take credit for government

[composer777]

sponsored innovation, much in the same way that W hides behind the troops when he is criticized for the war in Iraq, or the CEO of Walmart hides behind his employees when Walmart is criticized (i.e. "I think our associates do an oustanding job." in response to the criticism that Walmart pays oppressively low wages to their employees).

In other words, the corporate lobby that wants these patents is basically taking credit for innovation, much of which is payed for by the US government. They are using this as evidence that they deserve even more rights. There is no justification for giving corporations these kinds of rights.

Excuse me?

[fiannaFailMan]

willy-nilly software development by individuals who have not been screened, approved, and trained by corporate human resources professionals

When did Bill Gates ever get "screened, approved, and trained by corporate human resources professionals ?"

this whole thing is interesting, really

[HBI]

Things don't happen in a vacuum. US software corporations are lobbying intensely for software patents. The idea is that if they can patent software concepts, they can provide a reliable and consistent revenue stream.

This has to be the most obvious manifestation to date of the threat that OSS presents to the traditional software vendors, led by Microsoft. I doubt they would be bothering to do this against corporate competition. All corporations labor under the same constraints. They have to pay people to do the work. OSS breaks the rules in a significant way, and is disruptive to traditional proprietary software houses. They don't have any value-add anymore.

Patents are primarily defensive in nature in any event. Most attempts to use them offensively to crush competing technologies, or shake down entire industries, eventually fail.

I don't understand exactly what the current Administration thinks it is doing trying to pressure the EU to adopt software patents. It is not like the revenue stream is going to land in Europe. What goal or self-interest is fulfilled by adopting software patents in the EU? (beside the obvious cash payoff previously documented to the Irish Presidency) How are jobs created in Europe? How does this benefit Europeans of any nation?

I wonder what kind of arm-twisting by the US is going on in the mythical smoke-filled room (where all such decisions are being made).

Obviously, Corporate America has to stop this

[Brad Cossette]

You have to expect a large amount of corporate (well, American corporate) and even gov't FUD over this. Corporations want a sure thing - secure investments and market control. Patents in every form are a lock (to some degree) on money and a preventative measure on competition.

I personally wouldn't mind software patents if they were truly fundamental breakthroughs or such (RSA cryptography comes to mind), but with Microsoft patenting "To Do Lists" the EU should be really concerned over what kind of silliness is going to be submitted as a software patent.

For that matter, if the EU was to adopt software patents, what % of those patents would be American?

Should the EU choose not to adopt the software patent idea, we'll see the EU become the hotbed of software creativity for the next 20 years. That's something that'll rankle America, but will it bother the U.S. enough to suffer the pain of changing the patent law?

Slowing Down = Good for Open Source

[artlu]

I think patents in the U.S. slow down the product development process to some extent. By slowing down the process, Open Source competition can grow, and allow for software "alternatives" to arrive on the market first. The other problem with software, which is stated in the article, is that most new software is based off of previous software and this can lead to stunted growth of otherwise good applications.

Also, the fact that patents cost money can lead some software projects to open source licensing directly in order to ensure protection. I see this as good for the open source community, but bad for the software industry. Although, maybe I am misunderstanding the article.

On a side note, if you like the stock market/day trading/momentum trading/swing trading, I have built a website which showcases my paper trades. Everything is free of course, so please check it out - GroupShares.com

Thanks,
Aj

Because, you know, HR people can REALLY pick em.

[lifebouy]

I have never, ever met an HR person who I would hire after seeing them in action. An anectote about a monkey and a football come to mind.

Open Source development, however, is PEER reviewed. The bullsh*t walks, in any project of a substantial size and momentum to produce, say, an office suite. Someones screws up enough times and they get kicked from the project. Peers have the actual knowledge to say, this guys work is crap. HR can say, well he showed up in a clean suit with a good haircut and had a great handshake. Thats real nice, but Ill take the open source software anyday.

Half the reason proprietary software sucks, aside from not being free, is that its written by the guy with the best handshake, or whatever cosmetic thing the HR weenie was looking for that day. Never trust a bureaucrat HR rep to make a decision that a peer could make better.

Re:Heh...

[jd]

They didn't mention forgiving the guy... :)

(Besides, it'll be hard to forget him, no matter how hard we try.)

Back to the issue at hand...

Software/Maths patents cannot co-exist with Free Software. Ether one will survive and the other will die, or both will destroy each other in the fight.

Patents of any kind no longer serve the purpose of protecting investment, as you can patent ideas that you have no intent of ever turning into anything real. So-called "Defensive" patents. With the minimal screening, you don't need to provide any evidence the idea would even work. Just front up the cash and take your turn in line.

This kills innovation, for two reasons. First, nobody else has any incentive to actually build the damn thing (and risk being sued to oblivion). Second, the patent-holder (if the patent is any good) can just wait until someone pays them royalties to implement the idea.

In short, unless a LOT of money is at stake (as in the pharmacutical industry), it's infinitely cheaper to collect as many patents as possible - like stamps or coins - on the off-chance someone else will eventually think the idea valuable enough to buy.

Look at the patent serial numbers, and compare that with the number of items you can think of that are sufficiently distinct and unique to warrant a patent for the idea.

I'm going to guess that the number of patents issued is maybe six to seven orders of magnitude greater than the number of inventions in existance.

Now throw in software and algorithm patents, where any process that can be formally described can be patented. In fact, not all descriptions are that formal. They just have to be descriptive enough to pass muster.

Software development on any scale will simply die. There won't be any point to it, any more. It'll either be done (and patented), or theorised (and patented anyway). Either way, smaller companies and garage developers won't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving. Any more than garage developers and cottage industries have survived in the physical world.

It's not because they can't compete, or produce the work. It's because the initial costs involved are just too high. The hurdles are too great. The days when you could go into the shed and come out with a multi-million dollar idea (eg: Hewlett-Packard, Jobs & Wosnik, etc) are over. Not because - as Apple once claimed - it's all been done. No. It's because the right to invent has been killed, in favour of a right to stifle, plus the right to profit off marketroid daydreams.

Patents for hypertext? Patents for one-click purchases? Patents for list processing? Is this what civilization has come to?

Yeah, I know, I sound cynical. I probably am. I'm tired of the fiction we call the patent system. I'm tired of companies profiteering from obviously bogus patent and IP claims. These days, you don't invest money in the stock market, you invest it in the patent office!

The system assumes people will play nice. Well, they don't. It's time to retire a system that has been falling apart for decades, and replace it. I suggest using the toss of a coin. For a start, coins are cheaper. They'll also make the correct decision half the time. A much better score than what we have right now.

Ultimate in irony!

[mabhatter654]

That a punk-kid college drop out started what's now a mulit-billion dollar company!! Where the irony comes in is that those very same companies...it doesn't matter who: Cisco, HP, SGI, nVidia, Microsoft, Apple...and the list goes on... Young out-of-work innovative kids. Would never have be allowed their success in today's world. The very companies they founded are continuing to work harder and harder to make sure that NEVER happens again... that's the lesson here more than anything else. Look where all the successful companies came from...so why do we need new/stricter laws?

Re:For God's sake...

[Anonymous Coward]

balance for balance's sake is stupid, if one side are extremist wackos (in this case, thinking that it's right to "own" ideas...geez...), you just end up swinging the pendulum towards them.

Software Patents are good

[sproketboy]

But they should be limited to a 6 month life-span after which they go to the public domain. 6 months IMO is plenty of time to bring an idea to market with software.
Like double-clicking. :)

Spirit Vs. Reality

[john_anderson_ii]

I think I believe wholeheartedly in the spirit in which patent law was created. Put plainly, this spirit was to protect the inventor of a specific item. Such as a specific blender with a specific motor, and specific blades. In this way, larger competitors could not produce the exact same item, undercut him, and recieve the fruits of his labors.

Times have changed though and unfortunately they have changed for the worse. Now it seems that coprorations are using the patent system as a tool to stifle competition. The claims for patents are getting more and more vague, thus covering a broader and broader scope. In the not too distant past it would have been unheard of to pantent "Software Compression", it would be considered imprudent, where patenting as specific method of software compression using a specific library and a specific algorithm would have been ok. I think the current patent laws would suffice quite nicely if the US Patent Office would wake up and reject patents applications that are frivilous and obviously not in accordance with the spirit of U.S. Patent Law.

Re:it's been painfully obvious for a few years

[Alsee]

certification of code which found its extreme in palladium. This principally technical solution has since been abandoned.

Your misunderstand Palladium, it's not about code certification at all. Nor has it been abandoned.

The very reason Trusted Computing (Palladium) is so dangerous is because it uses the tried and true tactic of Embrace and Extend (and Exterminate). All software will run on a Trusted machine without any certification at all (embrace).

What Trusted Computing really does (extends) it allow the creation of new software and new files and new that will not work except on a Trusted Computer. Not only that, but the new software and new files and new websites will only work if you "voluntarily" configure the rest of your computer precisely the way someone else demands. For example software will only install and files will only play if your computer is configured to enforce DRM against you. Websites will refuse to display (returning an error message) if you have a pop-up blocker installed. Much like many websites already return error messages if you have Javascript off or cookies off.

Many (most?) laptops are already shipping with Trust chips installed by defalt, and the first Desktops with Trust chips have begun shipping. One major manufacturer has already announded that all new PCs they make will come with a Trust chip. The expectation is that within a year ALL new PCs will ship with a Trust chip on the motherboard.

They have been careful to ensure that there is NEVER any reason not to get a computer with a Trust chip. It would be as pointless as demanding a computer without speakers. You might as well take the default model with speakers attached, it can do everything a speakerless computer could do. You could just pretend the speakers aren't there.

So the plan is that over the next 4 years or so, everyone who goes through the routine process of replacing their obsolete machines will simply be handed a Trusted machine. Every machine available will be a Trusted machine. You wind up with 90-odd percent of all home PC's replaced with Trusted machines.

The scary part - the Exterminate phase - is that they want ISP's to install new Trusted routers. Slashdot already did a story on these routers and completely missed the fact that these are Trusted routers. The Slashdot headline was Cisco Working to Block Viruses at the Router. But they don't actually block viruses. What they actually do is refuse to give you internet access at all unless you have a Trusted Computer AND you are running (or not running) exactly the software your ISP mandates you must run (like a specific and up-to-date virus scanner and firewall). When 90-odd percent of people have a Trusted Machine then ISP's *can* fairly painlessly install these routers and make Trusted Computing and software compliance a part of their Terms of Service. The president's cybersecurity advisor has called on ISP's to do exactly that at a Washington computer convention. All in the name of fighting viruses and protecting the national information infrastructure of course.

If you refuse to buy a Trusted Machine, or if you refuse to configure it as someone else mandates, or if you refuse to run the mandated software, then it will be impossible to install any of the new Trusted software and impossible to use any of the new Trusted files and impossible to access any of the new Trusted websites, and if you refuse to submit you may ultimately be denied any internet access at all.

It's an insidious plan that can work - that WILL work - unless there is a massive public backlash against it.

The problem is that most people don't know and don't care. They just want the damn computer to work. People will get free music downloads or free video downloads or music/movie disks free with a box of cereal or a Happy Meal. And that free stuff will only work on a Trusted machine. If they try to use

American Lobbying Welcome

[Karl-Friedrich Lenz]

to all opponents of software patents in Europe.

That's not only because the American president is not particularly popular in Western Europe, so whenever Americans open their mouth, Europeans are likely to do the exact opposite right now.

It's also because even those who fight for software patents have to pretend they don't want the extremism that passes for patent policy in America these days. Even they must appear to oppose business method patents, for example.

That means that any open assistance American assistance for the project to sell out the European software industry to American patent holders will backfire. It will help the opponents of said project.

That in turn means that all opponents of legalizing software patents in Europe should welcome all the clueless interventions on part of the American government.