Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Yup...
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.
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
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.
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
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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).
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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?
-- "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" [Oscar Wilde]
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.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
(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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
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.
Lenz Blog