Slashdot Mirror
Linus, Monty, Rasmus: No Software Patents
Jan Wildeboer writes "The three most famous European authors
of open-source software have issued an appeal against software patents on NoSoftwarePatents.com. Linus Torvalds (Linux), Michael "Monty" Widenius (MySQL) and Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP) urge the EU Council, which will convene later in the week, not to adopt a draft directive on software patents that they consider "deceptive, dangerous, and democratically illegitimate".
They also call on the Internet community to express solidarity by placing NoSoftwarePatents.com links and banners on many Web sites."
I wonder how much mindshare it will really get at the level decisions are made it in business and government.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
The big business that sponsored this does not care whatsoever what Linus Torvalds has to say.
I really hope we don't get the same absurd laws here many other countries has adopted. Maybe with the weight of these three dudes it'll help out but I'm scpetical. Tha lack of knowledge people in power have about what they make decetions about is downright scary.
I'm pretty sure lots of banners and links are going to have a minimal effect. Considering that the bill will be decided by politicians, how come they don't organise an email campaign, where you can find your relevant politician, and send him an email?
The time has come to stop this lunacy called 'software patents' in its tracks in Europe, but I'm afraid that lobby groups in Europe have been busy 'talking to' politicians here as well...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Here is a clickable link: htttp://www.NoSoftwarePatents.com.com
That NoSoftwarePatents.com link appears to be broken.
cat
NoSoftwarePatents.com
Great HTML wizardry there, Slashdot.
Unfortunately Samir and Michael don't own any super-voting shares.
People wonder why Republicans win elections. Ineffective, but passionate, circle jerks like this. Good luck, we'll need it.
Linux and and MySQL have much to lose if strong european software patents become a reality since both are technologies that, for whatever their pluses, rely heavily on imitating prior art.
Therefore, it is little surprise that they'd come out against software patents. It's like hearing exactly one side of the argument. I don't see any reason to take their views as somehow more correct or enlightened than microsoft's or IBM's might be from the other side. each actor is acting in his economic self interest in a pretty blatant way.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
This is a shameless plug, buit we're already carrying their banners. If you run a site, do the same.
Linux wouldn't exist as it does today.
:-) :-) I forgive them!)
/. has had concerns raised.
Is this the first time Linus has used his 'fame' like this?
I say great work for all three of them, I have used all thier products numerously, and together, they should win awards (although the combined 'banging head against wall' linux, mysql and php have given me in the past
Patents are patently a bad idea, they illegitimise our very thoughts. I am all for protecting and incubating progress for small companies, but patents have only done the following:
Small company gets rediculous patent, Kodak buys them, and forces a settlement for publicity.
The european constitution should write that software is free from patents. Patents are supposed to bring about change, yet we see it stiffling progress at every turn!
I myself worry about patents in my own programs, and ask
OK I'll shut up.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
...if they didn't look like the result of "My First Adventures in Photoshop".
It's a good cause, and I support them wholeheartedly, but they could really do with a more professional edge...
Re Torvalds et al.: I don't care what a few figureheads have to say. Especially not benevolent dictators with special interests and a band of unwashed groupies (us, mostly..) whose drumming typically resonates as far from the realities of modern politics as can possibly be measured. The tune is markedly different, but the drum might as well have been made in Redmond.
I would like to see people discussing personal freedom and rights. I would like to see this as a battle for the individual, not "us" vs "them". Unfortunately, that involves a lot more thinking than "gooooooo Torvalds".
Do as otehrs are doing!
Software patents are even more important than patents in other fields, due to the ease with which software techniques can be duplicated. Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source.
Much of the criticism against patents that has been leveled on this website is also driven by ignorance. People do not realize how specific patents are. I have seen posts on many patent articles here that read the first one or two claims and assume that a huge range of existing work is covered, without checking out the remaining claims that make it clear that one very small thing that is original is the actual target of the patent.
I won't defend the existing patent system too much, since it is flawed with respect to software. Since software patents are easy to implement, the costs required to develop them can be recuperated much faster than other areas, so a shorter duration of protection would probably be better. Some patents have been applied overly broadly, or granted when they were not merited.
But the abuses do not stop the patent system from being useful for software. The problems are things that can be worked out, not fundamental flaws with the idea of patenting software algorithms.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
...but a little harsh. This is about generating awarness, not branding. Sure if they were selling Nikes, looks would count. But they're not.
Um, the link in the posting is broken. Amazing that so many comments about it have already appeared.
Come on this is Slashdot, who reads the article before posting?
Summation 2
Have you been in a coma for three years, or are you one of the 4400? The LZW patent expired last year. GIFs are patent free.
Why is it amazing? Do you have the singular power to fix broken links? Do you think a group of techies can't figure out how to fix what the (submitter|editor) missed? Is it such a stretch to think even non-technical people may have actually tried typing "nosoftwarepatents.com" into their address bar since the link was broken, given the link's text?
what a software patent is.
What aspect of software would one patent?
What about algorithms, i.e. the FFT.
I can see some logic in allowing patents for algorithms but patents for implementations of those algorithms seem redendent.
.IANAL and would appreciate a clear explanation of just what a software patent is.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
What we need to do is fighting patents
the smart way instead of the hard way.
I think that if we continue the fight the hard
way (lobing) we will have to fight it every year
as long as we have a corrupt governments, which
i have reason to think is as long as we use money
as a payment system.
I think the smart way to handle the patent problem
is to make a patent license which work with patent law
as the GPL work with copyright law.
here is an example:
There is 3 players
1) The public patent foundation (PPF).
A not for money foundation which
hold a collection of patents under PPL.
2) a small inventor.
3) a big corporation.
Here is how I think the public patent licence (PPL) should work.
For a inventions under PPL the following is required.
a) All other patents the invention violate must be under PPL.
b) Blueprints/Source code/technical details for the invention must be published trough the PPF.
The is also a similar Lesser PPL (LPPL).
For a inventions under LPPL the following is required.
a) All other patents by the invention violate and made by the inventor must be under PPL.
b) Blueprints/Source code/technical details for the invention must be published trough the PPF.
c) The inventor must be a member of PPF.
As a member of PPF you pay a fee which help maintain the
PPF patent portfolio.
So, PPL invention is free for all while
LPPL invention have some secondary patents.
Scenery.
1) The small inventor.
a) A inventor get a patent, for an invention and start to produce and sell the
product.
b) A big corporation start to make and sell a cheep copy.
c) The small inventor call the corporation and say stop that I got a patent.
d) The big corporation say your invention violates 10 of our inventions.
Please, grand back your patent or we sue you.
e) The small inventor sells drops in the competition with the cheep copy,
and he can't afford to maintain hes patent.
f) He donate the patent to the PPF and get a nice tax discount.
g) The PPF goes to the big corporation and say your violate
one of our patents, either stop making the cheap copy or get a PPL or LPPL.
the FFII and others cannot even define precisely what a "software patent" is and most of the arguments boil down to no patents period - which is never going to happen.
instead of engaging the pro-patent side in thoughtful debate and trying to reach a compromise, Open Source is shooting themselves in the head by taking such a strident anti approach.
my colleagues are of the opinion that the best way to combat the anti-patent forces is simply to let them speak and make fools of themselves in front of the parliament. it seems to be working. emotion and passion are simply no substitute for sustained debate.
at the end of the day, friends, the EPO is not controlled by the EU and even if the EU does nothing the situation at the EPO and in the member states of the EPC will remain unchanged.
torvalds et al, despite their god like status on slashdot, are simply no counterweight to the European companies supporting the directive:
Accenture, Agilent, Alcatel, Apple, Bang&Olufsen, Blaupunkt, Bull, Canon, Corning, Dell, EADS, Epson, Ericsson, Fujitsu, Grundig, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Infineon, Intel, JVC, Kenwood, Konica-Minolta, Lexmark, LG Electronics, Loewe Opta, Lucent, Marconi, Matsushita, Microsoft, Motorola, NEC, NEC-Mitsubishi, Nokia, Nortel, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sanyo, SAP, Sharp, Siemens, Sony, Texas Instruments, Thales, Thomson, Toshiba.
and the National Trade Associations:
Austria: FEEI; Belgium: AGORIA; Czech Republic: SPIS; Denmark: ITEK, ITB; Finland: SET; France: ALLIANCE TICS, SIMAVELEC; Germany: BITKOM, ZVEI; Greece: SEPE; Hungary: IVSZ; Italy: ANIE, ASSINFORM; Ireland: ICT Ireland; Latvia: LITTA; Lithuania: INFOBALT; Malta: ITTS; Netherlands: Nederland-ICT; Norway: ABELIA, IKT Norge; Poland: KIGEIT, PIIT; Slovakia: ITAS; Slovenia: GZS; Spain: AETIC; Sweden: IT Företagen; Switzerland: SWICO, SWISSMEM; United Kingdom: INTELLECT; Turkey: ECID, TESID
http://www.patents4innovation.org/
what is needed is to put down the spears and drums and to engage in thoughtful debate so that reasonable legislation will result. give up the NO PATENT position and try to reach the compromise that is inevitable and that best serves everyone's interests.
From the FSF page about GIF:
Of the places whose patent databases we were able to search, the latest expiration date seems to be Friday 11 August 2006.
Note that the patent which expires at that date is not the Unisys patent, but an IBM patent also covering LZW (and therefore GIF).
Now, I guess IBM is unlikely to sue (it would probably hurt their Linux strategy), but that doesn't make that patent disappear.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
...is a proposition spelling how to transition from the current world to one where software patents are outlawed...
Because the problem is, companies have *already * invested in software patents in Europe. So take a large company that has applied for maybe 50 software patents over each year, worldwide, in the past 3 years.
Some companies do so because they believe that their software methods should be patented. And while it is true that some awarded software patents are outrageously stupid, some are really nontrivial.
Other companies have mostly seen a "tactical advantage" in doing this, because (1) at a certain level (read: non-technical execs, financial analysts, shareholders) the number of patents granted per headcount per year is thought to reveal the quality of a Research & Development organization, and (2) when you have a portfolio of patents of your own, people are less likely to attack you for infringement, out of fear that you will attack them in return.
You can agree or not with these reasons, but the reality is that they have pushed many companies to invest millions in software patenting. So, as long as activists out there don't propose a way for these companies to "land smoothly" in no-software-patent land, actions like these are very unrealistic.
It doesn't help that the group is using bogus figures, such as claiming an average cost of EUR 30,000 for patenting something. Application fees have been made very small (in the hundreds of EUR depending on the country). Patent attorney fees, from my own experience, are more likely to range in the EUR 2,500 range for single-country application, and twice or three times that for worldwide application. That is not EUR 30,000 at any rate, unless you count in the inventor's own time writing down his/her invention.
These articles on ZDNet UK: http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020505,39174245,00. htm
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651, 39174217,00.htm
say that after Poland has withdrawn it's support for software patents there isn't qualified majority for it any more.
The irony of your comment - which is probably accurate - is that a majority of the companies you mention are highly dependent on OSS in different ways, at the very least in their R&D labs but also in their infrastructure, and quite often in their products.
The problem with software patents is very simple and it is this: software is not a traditional industry in which invention is expensive and needs protection. In software invention is the process itself. When a vague notion of patents is applied to the software development process it rapidly becomes a land-grab in which a few wealthy groups control access to primary technologies.
The sheer volume and complexity of software inventions makes patents almost impossible to assign in a fair manner. Thus the small developer - from whom most innovation comes - is penalized in favour of larger, richer ones. Note the cost of a patent application: EUR 10,000 and more.
The discussion is in fact moot. Software patents will come about thanks to the skillful lobbying of a few concerned companies, the willful ignorance of many others, and the compliant corruption of our politicians. Software patents will, inevitably, turn into a major source of income for some companies whose existing markets are shrinking, and software patents will become a tax on innovation that will eventually be as intolerable as the telecoms monopolies once were.
The only downside? This scenario will take at least 20 and perhaps more years to play out. In the meantime, independent software developers will be forced to base themselves in patent-free nations, or go out of business.
We are in for a very sad and turbulent era, in which the inevitable forces of technology commoditization (which OSS is an expression of) are being fought tooth and nail by the firms threatened. Technology commoditization is the only real route to productivity, to better living standards, and to increases in overall wealth. Patents - and especially software patents - are a clear and present threat to that.
How do you compromise on such things?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
if we Americans can voice support for the EU to ban software patents, then we must might be able to use that as a flanking maneuver to ultimately get them stopped here.
It's a thought.
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
All right, let's see /. do this.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
There is a list of companies who would like to lock people out of any good ideas they have while they stand on the shoulders of developers who have forwarded the software industry, at a revolutionary rate, without using patents..
The list represents a minority of powerful interests who wish to hold the rest of us back because they lack the confidence to compete in a free marketplace.
Patents were created to protect novel physical inventions. Not the idea of a physical invention, but an actual implementation of an invention (we can all dream up flying cars, but its very difficult to build the first working model). Mathematical formulas and ideas were intentionally exluded from patent law.
When a person tries to patent software, they either patent the idea of what is done or a particular implementation. The problem with this is that patenting an idea doesn't require implementation (and therefore invention) and an actual software implementation necessarily reduces to a mathematical formula. The patenting of new mathematical constructs would have a strongly chilling effect on Western learning. The patenting of ideas is quite silly and is the cause of most slash scorn concerning patents.
Either way, I think that software patents (and business process patents) are a horrible mistake and as an American I wish that the EU remains a safe haven from this recent legal development.
"I'm a loner Dottie, a rebel."
- Pee Wee Herman
Absolutely true!
I have been following the OS wars for several years and have seen common business practices become patented. This is like patenting driving on the right (or left) hand side of the road. It is a custom that has been built into law, and is therefore not patent-able.
SHould the broken patent system get an overhaul, I feel that software and business process patents should be discarded. They are only there to give more to the "haves and the have mores" to quote a well-known figurehead.
As you already should know, software is protected by copyright. Patent protection for software is unnecessary and even counterproductive.
"the FFII and others cannot even define precisely what a "software patent" is"
Neither can the EU/EC apparently. The EC wants "all patents", the EU came up with "patents on this but not on that" which was great, but the EC/Big Business demanded things their way.
Anyway, whats the point of debating this? After all, if we (anti-swpat people) win, the multinationals will just lobby for a change in the law until they get it.
"deceptive, dangerous, and democratically illegitimate"
The EU Concil is anything but democratic. They make arbitrary decisions by whoever has the loudest voice at the moment.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
torvalds et al, despite their god like status on slashdot, are simply no counterweight to the European companies supporting the directive:
Or the American, Asian and Multinational companies which by far outnumber them on your list.
Is the asurb nature of copyright and patent laws here. Put simply, etherything comes under copyright, oh and now paintants. forget the american idea of goverment stuff being in the public domaiin. Here its all "crown" copyright and various other companies. Still, its not like things wont get even worse when they bring in ID cards. Sometimes i think we have been taking lessons from Sadam/China/The Soviats
"being somewhat involved in these discussions"
to what extent? are you working in a patent office?
"FFII and others cannot even define precisely what a "software patent""
The claims in a software patent defines what you can not do with a computer (without a licence).
Just the same as with other patents.
"my colleagues are of the opinion [...]"
Which collegues?
Some of us looked at the linked URL, saw what was wrong, corrected the problem, and then RTFA. No shit Sherlock! http://nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index.html
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
- Set up a standalone trust/charity/not for profit organisations
- Patent various aspects of the OS code/world and any new stuff that's developed
- Take out the patents in the major places (e.g. us/eu etc.)
- Assign the patents to the above organisation
- State that the software patents can only be used in OS products or have to be licenced from the above organisation
- Team up with a bunch of laywers to tackle anyone who uses the patents without permission (no win no fee)
- And fight, head-on, the bigger organsiation
The monies from licensing fee can then be used to develop/promote/move forward the OS communityLook the OS community has proved that we can write good software and fight hard when we need to. We have also shown that we can organise disperate people in various places, timezones, languages etc. and form them into a very effective development team. Now why don't we do the same for patents and a) protect ourselves and b) fight back!
Hell if anyone else is interested in helping I am more than happy to try and setup the organisations (UK or worldwide), e.g. do the leg work, talk to people etc..
what do people think?
Jaj
Every single claim stands by itself, (although it may build on another claim e.g. 1 or N-1) and you can be sued for any single claim that you violate.
In addition, if the patent has an overbroad claim 1, a court may still decide that the rest of the patent has merit. This is very wrong and puts no incentive up for patent attorneys to even file a decent patent!
Think of each claim as a gold mine that gets staked out.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
A lot of questionable assumptions here.
It should be kept in mind that the fools rushing in are the patent lobbyists, trying to define very abstract and highly dubious principles unprecedented in commerce.
While it's possible to portray the FOSS position as naive and unrealistic, it's equally possible to regard it as a prudent and conservative restatement of the status quo ante.
My own opinion, which I have not seen stated elsewhere, is that society should indeed reward those who produce ideas, but this requires considerable advances in both the technical and economic spheres to accomplish fairly.
If your political colleagues are demanding that the public adopt a bad law because it is better than no law, the onus is on them to provide the supporting evidence and then to make sincere efforts to mitigate its worst consequences, particularly as regards FOSS and small companies.
Apart from this being generally one of the most insightless posts there's ever been on this subject - while disgracefully and ironically dismissing as ignorant the many truly insightful ones there have been - the parent is himself grossly ignorant even of what a patent is: Patent claims in a patent document do not narrow the scope of any of the earlier claims. Each independent claim stands on it's own - which is why it is called a claim! I would've thought most people here would know that by now. Driven by ignorance indeed!
I thought software was information conforming to computer language rules, consisting of anything a sofware writer wants to write, and written on a computer-readable medium, including "1+1=3."
Heh, patents4innovation is as retarded as Lord Sainsbury.
"The maximum term for patent protection is 20 years. By contrast copyright lasts much longer, for 50 years after the death of the author. Curiously, the OSS lobby has not voiced any concern about the much longer term for copyright even though copyright is the protection mechanism favoured by the OSS lobby. If 50+ years is not too long, why is 20 years maximum too long?"
This is such a bloody irritating strawman it is untrue. If my web browser infringes upon your copyright, I can remove your copyrighted work, and somebody who has never seen your code can replace it. If I infringe upon your web browser patent then I'm screwed. FOR TWENTY YEARS.
How can people say this sort of crap in public and not get called on it?
No, you are wrong, we have already won. Patents4Innovation is from Eicta, those guys behind the directive who are not seeking a compromise but spread false claims. It is a common observation in the debate that newbies have a false impression about the real power distribution.
Heh! Feeling the heat now are we? - Now that the parliament and states like Poland have listened to the thoughtful and sustained debate and found that the dissimulation and downright lies of your industry sponsors and the parasite patent attorney lobbyists to be an unacceptable substitute for same.
Furthermore, plenty of people *are* bothered by perpetual copyright extension (currently 50 years). Just look at the campaigns against perpetual post-mouse copyright in the USA.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Neither the large corporations, mostly American and Asian, who stand to benefit from this legislation at the expense of local businesses and consumers, or the minor trade organisations who I think you intend to represent the "little guy", represent SOFTWARE manufacturers for the most part.
You also have no consumer, academic, media, or social support. Consumers at least are kind of important for this sort of thing.
I notice the site you mention is devoted to patents in general. Are the names you give devoted to software patents specifically, or just patents in general?
Any "compromise" over pure software patents will result in pure software patents being introduced in some form. That is not a compromise. If you have a genuine compromise, let's hear it. Otherwise don't try to present IP extremism as the voice of reason, your facts (such as tehy are) don't support your argument.
There have been lots of email campains, but time it now up. If there's anything else bugging you you should still contact you MP or MEP, you never knowm, they may listen, it's quite close to a UK election and I don't think that there party will shuffle them around to a less safe seat if they break ranks a bit.
Anyhow...
If you want to contact your ME go here(what's an MEP?)
UK
If you want to fax your mp go here
Sorry, the whole MEP thing's a bit crap, and it looks like lists are regional.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
- Software has not advanced faster since patents were introduced in the US, actually quite the opposite.
- The average cost of patent litigation, even to get a lame patent tossed out, is around $4 000 000 USD.
- So far the arguments in favor of software patents have not been backed up by evidence
- Most of the small and medium business owners I've heard claiming to favor SWP have only one major customer, in Redmond
But don't listen to me. World experts covered the topic much better at the recent two day conference. You can listen to the proceedings in the form of MP3.Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I september 2003, the FFII and other software patent opponents won a major victory in the European Parliament, when a majority of the politicians there adopted a version of the directive that said no to software patents.
Last week, it was announced that Poland will not support the introduction of software patents in the Council of Ministers, which means that there is no longer a qualified majority in the Council. This too is a great step towards a Europe free from software patents.
Right now, the issue hangs very much in the balance in Europe. The best estimate I've heard anybody give, is that it could really go either way. So this is no time to give up and resort to armchair cynicism. We managed to get a majority in parliament, now let's try to reach the politicians in the Council as well.
Right now, this one winnable in Europe.
And even if things had looked gloomier than they actually do today, I think there is a lot of wisdom to the German saying "Wer kämpft kann verlieren, wer nicht kämpft hat schon verloren." (If you fight you may lose, if you don't fight you've already lost.)
Yes, your'e quite right that even the politicians that support the bad version of the directive claim to be against the introduction of software patents. In a way, this is of course a victory --- there is nobody on the political level that claims that patents on software are a good idea --- but it really makes it difficult to establish a constructive dialogue with the pro-patent side.Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
They will listen and either agree or deside to shut you up.
Ok i think it's looking like a close run thing
According to this site
there are 278 allied for patents.
and 269+ allied against.
The European People's Party and European Democrats (EPP-ED) remains the largest party in the parliament with 278 seats. The EPP-ED brings together Christian Democrat, conservative and other mainstream centre and centre-right political forces from across the twenty-five EU member states. The UK's Conservative Party MEPs are attached to the EPP-ED.
The Party of European Socialists (PES) is the second largest party in the parliament with 199 MEPs. The PES brings together the socialist, social democratic and Labour parties in the parliament. The UK's Labour MEPs are members of the PES.
The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) brings together European political parties with common liberal and democratic ideals. This group was newly formed from the European Liberal and Democrat Reform group (ELDR) after the June 2004 elections. Despite only having 67 MEPs, which is relatively small compared with the EPP-ED and PES, the ALDE often holds the balance of power in crucial votes. The UK's Liberal Democrats are members of the ALDE and the current President of the ALDE is the UK's Graham Watson.
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) is the political grouping to represent green parties and parties of stateless nations in the parliament. The UK has two Green party MEPs and the SNP and Plaid Cymru MEPs are also members of this group.
The European United Left/ Nordic Green Left (EUL/NGL) is a socialist and communist group within the parliament. (go on you reds)
The Union for Europe of the Nations (UEN) is an anti-federal group of MEPs from parties on the right of the political spectrum.
The Independence and Democracy group (formerly known as the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities (EDD)) is critical of further European integration and centralisation and favours the creation of a Europe of Nation States. The UK's UKIP MEPs are attached to this group.
Wow, it's just like a bush kerry, but with less blood and more money involved.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
OK, OK, I guess he is not European. I just noted that all the others of what is the typical "ASP" web setup of Linux, Apache, PHP and MySQL was involved, so his absence kinda stood out. ;-)
The U.S. never officially adopted software patents. The U.S. Supreme Court always ruled that software for a general-purpose digital computer is not statutory material for a patent. Lower court decisions appear to have contradicted the Supreme Court, and the USPTO has certainly granted many patents like the ones the Supreme Court struck down, but software patents have never been formally legalized. If the EU formally legalizes software patents, they will precede the U.S. in doing so.
If software patents were about allowing small competitors to jump in and topple big, established businesses, big companies would be fighting against them tooth and nail. The truth is big companies can leverage the limited monopoly granted by a patent much better than any small company could.
Is that the same 'economic majority'* that raised it's head in the UK patent offices public consultation?
*AKA: 'the minority'
Members of Latvian Open Source Association (LAKA) work together with our MoJ on software patents problem. I've discussed this issue with them last friday. It turns out that EU authorities had very little information on software patents before we started this anti-patent company. Now they understand (we hope) how harmful SW patents can be for entire SW industry here in Europe.
The image put out by the NoSoftwarePatents.com organization is detrimental to the cause:
Has anyone looked at the immature banners that are provided by NoSoftwarePatents.com? The European banner is misspelled: Europe's better off without software patents. Learn the difference between a contraction and a possessive before making banners to be distributed around the world. The other notable one is "Stop the patent mafia!" That may be a valid analogy, but it is so childish that no one will take it seriously. Then, a barely readable sign surrounded by flowers.
The advocates of this side tend to cite naive outrageous one-sided claims, then wonder why businessmen and politicians don't get the message. Some of the over-hyped Slashdot headines serve as good examples. Pictures of students protesting isn't going to sway anyone's opinion. Try a picture of a company losing money because everything they try to do is covered by some trivial patent.
They're not even trying to compromise of course: they're trying to pretend to a lay audience that a return to a strict interpretation of the EPC's exclusion of computer programs, maths etc. will bring down the WHOLE PATENT SYSTEM!!! They are desperate and it is a heartening thing indeed to see this kind of hysterical nonsense. To see what it is they stand to lose, take a look at the patent applications waiting in the database (search for IBM, Hewlett-Packard etc.) and consider why these companies have begun to flood the EPO/UKPO with applications that are so clearly for business methods and pure software if they have taken seriously (as the rest of us are expected to do) the UKPO's insistence that such abominations will never be patentable.
Intellect, the UK subsidiary of EICTA, managed to get the DTI to include 'software R&D' in exemptions from tax recently. Lord Sainsbury is convinced that software patents are of little importance or relevance to society but will be a good measure of UK "innovation". He thinks that he will be able to count all those large (mostly hardware) manufacturers' software patents as a measure of the UK and Europe's success in competing with the likes of Japan and the US (that's what the Lisbon Strategy, which is at the root of this mess, is all about - the technological competitiveness of Europe). It doesn't seem to matter to him that 75% or more of those patents will in fact belong to corporations mostly from - yes, you guessed it - the US and Japan!
Ken Arnold's blog on java.net has a great (IMHO) idea for reforming the patent system that make it self-correcting and gives incentives for the patent lawyerst to enforce it.1 1/selfenforcing_p_1.html
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/arnold/archive/2004/
/.'ers talk and talk about sh!t they no nothing about. Original poster WebWorld is just making the point about that. They didn't even bother checking the link. Move Along. (-1 redundant? makes no sence.)
You are burning straw men.
No one has suggested "no patents, period". Not in this discussion.
And the FFII has never had any trouble distinguishing software idea patents from valid patents. Actually, it is very easy since software idea patents are specifically excluded from current legislation.
Donate free food here
Not only that, the majority of people here want copyright reduced to 20 years, or even less.
Sounds like that web site is full of direct lies.
Why should I care? My company gives us $200 for every patentable idea that we submit. That's a hell of a lot more profitable than working in open-source :-)
Look at this people, all those patent ideas are just a surefire way for large corporations to increase there monopolies. Lets face it large corporate dictorial control is the future of the world, forget governments there all just puppets anyway, if you stop buying things, the companies won't have so much control over you and your future. I guess metroplis isn't such are far fetched future now is it??
I really wonder where that open source obsession of all you pro-software patent people comes from. You guys even seem to think FFII is some kind of open source lobbying organisation. Maybe the fact that this easily shown to be false when talking to politicians is one reason that we have been so successful until now, as that immediately raises doubts about other things that may have been wrongly described by your side.
Nice copy/paste from Axel Horns' blog (maybe you're even him?). He has even linked to your post.
There is a very simple definition though, which we even spread to all MEPs in September: software patents are patents that cover computer programs. There, that wasn't hard, was it? Of course, that's not a juridical definition ready to go in the directive, but that's what we want to exclude.
And unlike what Mr. Horns says, this does not per definition exclude everything that is computer-implementable. We do think it would be best for innovation and the economy (and moral reasons) if all pure logic/math advances were excluded from patentability regardless of what devices they are applied to (and most economists are even with us on that), but we are prepared to compromise.
As the document Mr Horns referred to earlier says:
However, there has been no sign at all from the "everything under the Sun should be patentable" camp that they are the least interested in a compromise. For them, it's indeed all or nothing it seems.
If you still mean FFII with "Open Source", we're actually taking very much a "pro" approach. How many conferences with economists from all over the world has the "pro" side organised?
Yes, sure. Sustained debate like this? :) "Semantical wafare", "vast armies of volunteers", "They must not be allowed to "occupy" any of the long-standing concepts of patent law." Claiming that only patent lawyers and others from the "IP incrowd" should be listened to in this debate.
You might actually want to talk to the people of the EPO. They have publicly stated that they will follow the EU directive, whatever the outcome. Besides, patents have to be enforced under member states' laws, whi
Donate free food here
It's nice to know that the Eu is finally becoming the main location for so many US and Asian companies. Feels like 5 of those are actually european companies.
Thank you, now please go back to knowing that you cannot do anything and leave those that actually do something fight for what they feel is worth fighting for.
Thos who can, do. Those who can't, claim its impossible and that those who are doing are wasting everyone's time.
Congrats big-time to the European techies for standing up to the entrenched interests on this subject and, possibly, changing the course of history for the better. I do not pretend to know what the outcome of your efforts will be, but as one embittered American who has watched our democracy vanish at every level, from the grass roots on up to the lobbiests, I applaud your efforts and the positive results they have had thus far.
Well done, and please keep up the good work!
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
LZW was a significant acheivement, significantly novel and inventive, and it is a specific implementation of file compression. I feel it deserves some protect if the author wishes it. This sort of thing allows people to invest significantly in finding of new ways of acheiving things like compression with some recourse to profit to recap investment afterwards. This encourages innovation. I'm not sure the current duration of patents is appropriate here.
However end results should not be patentable. You should not be able to patent the idea of compressing a file - it is obvious and would stifle anyone wanting to implement it.
I don't have facts and figures, do you?
Well, we are 400M people that may have interests
that does not necessarily coincide with the interests of those companies.
And what you think is inevitable doesn't really
matter at all. Just because people like you
state something as fact doesn't mean it is so.
So please do fuck off, miss asshole.
I do care what a few figureheads have to say, especially when what they say is accurate and well reasoned. At least there is much a better chance that those who are actually making decisions in europe will heed these "figureheads" than that they will read my individual post on /.
I would like to see people discussing personal freedom and rights. I would like to see this as a battle for the individual, not "us" vs "them".
You are two enamoured of Rambo. Groups win more battles than do individuals, even battles fought on behalf of "indivduals".
You can listen to the proceedings in the form of MP3.
MP3 is software patented.
"Europe's better off without" silly people who do not understand English grammar.
An easy solution would be not to allow new patents. The existing patents won't be valid forever.
Is this website for real? If software patents get passed, the EVIL AMERICAN CORPORATIONS WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD, the sun will turn eternally black and Jesus Christ himself will eat your baby!!!
Come on, isn't this a bit alarmist. It might be better to say "we have some concerns about the potential effect of software patents on the industry". I don't think it's at all reasonable to tell people that the evil "patent mafia" and "american corporations" will take over the world. As if there is a group of impovrished, and unscrupulous lawyers sitting around saying, "gee, if only there were software patents, then we'd be able to make some money".
Now, I guess IBM is unlikely to sue
Especially given that the prior Unisys patent is prior art that would probably invalidate the claims of IBM's patent as they relate to implementations of LZW. (Other claims in that patent are said to relate to other compression structures.)
Politicians say one thing, do another. But let's say it passes.
Let's say someone writes a new program, and tries to bring it to market. The guy down the street sees it, copies it, and sells it as his own. What's going to stop him?
Frankly, if someone told me that all my work was going to be non-patentable, I'd leave. It's telling me that my work isn't worth it, and that we're going to take it and give it to the public for free. Well, that's not going to pay my rent, put food on the table, or take care of me when I'm old and need to go to the doctor.
-- No sig for you!
Halo1, i see you are still spreading FUD and demonstrating how little you really understand about this. first of all, "everything under the sun" has NOTHING to do with software patents. that was the language that was used in Diamond v. Charkrabarty to affirm the patentability of micro-organisms.
the case you should be citing is Diamond v. Diehr which, by the way, was a patent applied for by the Federal-Mogul company, an automobile parts manufacturer - a brick and mortar company from america's rust belt.
but it would make your side look bad to recognize that patents on software is a actually a far bigger economic issue than the narrow interests of "software" companies. you think this is YOUR debate and you ignore everyone else. big mistake, amigo.
For them, it's indeed all or nothing it seems.
bingo! give the man a prize. this is the problem Halo1, because you people are acting like a bunch of tree-hugging dimwits, the professional patent community is IGNORING you when actually your side has some perfectly valid points that should be heard and should be considered.
but no, it's much more fun to scream and yell and call people names. it's not only childish, it's counterproductive to your "cause."
why do you think that axel horns and many others dismiss you as a "bunch of communists?"
some of you are, that's hard to deny, but there are a few - a very few - that actually have something constructive to say.
this is my point. as long as you rant and rave and behave like a bunch of spoiled children, no one in the professional patent community is going to listen to you and they are going to continue to attempt to impose the bog standard regime of patents on software, when it is absolutely clear to me that sui generis protection is what is needed.
software IS different, but it is not so bloody different that it should not be patented at all however some special considerations have to be made.
what is needed is some calm rational debate between all the parties in order to arrive at a compromise on these special considerations.
but every time i try to get my clients to listen to what you guys have to say, one of you idiots says something inflamatory that pisses everyone off and the attitude becomes one of "to hell with them."
that being said, i take a deep breath and try very hard to separate the message from the messenger because it is my job to be rational.
i suggest you do the same.
oh, and by the way, the EPO is going to go its own way unless some rational compromise is reached. the EU hate that institutions like the EPC still exist in Europe, but until the EU can demonstrate that they can craft better legislation, the EPC will remain the forum through which patent legislation will be amended.
I wonder how much mindshare it will really get at the level decisions are made it in business and government.
Less than they deserve.
It would be more impressive if each of the persons was introduced by some figures of merit that matter in the minds of the attendees.
[Making this up ... YMMV] "My name is Linus Torvalds and I am the original author of the Linux operating system on which over 50,000 computers in the EU run, night and day, saving businesses 100 million euroes in licensing costs per year, over 500 programmers from the EU have contributed to the Linux codebase, which was recently valued at over US$ 1 billion (yes, I know that's less and less in terms of euros every day)....blah blah...etc."
This would be better than "I'm a smart young computer geek that wrote something you yourself don't use everyday."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
...is an ignorant pedant. You're wrong. There is an apostrophe in "Europe's". And I suggest you learn how to quote text properly. Following on from your colon after the word, "misspelled", it was not immediately clear when the direct quote ended. Before you presume to correct others please brush up your own act.
I don't think it's fair to lump in realists with do-nothing naysayers. It also has the side-affect of discouraging people from thinking less like a realist and more like a blind optimist who chooses to ignore the challenges rather than size them up realistically.
A "get-things-done optimist" should always understand the challenges he faces like a realist, but should act persistently and keep his eye on the ball looking for opportunity and taking advantage of opportunity when it comes around.
Rather than attack realism, maybe you ought to spend your efforts propagating the phrase/meme "do-nothing naysayer".
I was not referring to any particular court case. I merely meant that the proponents of software patents are generally proponents of unlimited patentability (except sometimes for business methods, keeping in mind that "technical" business methods such as one-click shopping have to be remain patentable). Unlimited = anything under the Sun.
FWIW, you might to write this 'one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America"' also an email noting that he doesn't know anything about it (see the paragraph that starts with "This change").
Absolutely not, it is a fact that the software patents debate is much wider than just software development or the ICT sector. Software is used everywhere nowadays, it's a so-called "enabling" technology. In fact, most software patents are owned not by software companies, but by traditional manufacturing and electronics companies.
The reason is simple: those companies have always protected their innovations using patents. Currently, they are moving more and more stuff to the software field because it's easier and cheaper (otherwise they would keep using their old ways). But they want to keep using the ways of old to protect their innovations. It's plain innertia.
It's making a television that becomes more and more like writing software, and not writing software becomes more and more like making a television. Unless there are extremely good reasons, it does not make sense to change the whole IPR system of the software world simply because those companies cannot adapt to this fact.
I don't call people names. You do. Axel Horns does. Simon Gentry does. Alex Pfeiffer does. You anecdotical evidence is as weak/powerful as mine.
Because they can't cope with the fact that they aren't the only ones that have anything to say in this debate. They don't even want to consider any form of systematic limitation of patentable subject matter. They try to paint us as communists, open source hippies, anti-globalists, anarchists, family-terrorising psycho's (honestly, in front of MEPs no less!) and who knows what else, because ... I don't know why. Because they ran out of sane arguments?
And how exactly did you want to fit that in the TRIPs agreement?
I never attacked you personally. I simply pointed out how "rational" Axel Horns is from time to time in his blog. If you want to see rational ar
Donate free food here
I personally don't find this idea that funny, rather I'm pretty disappointed that Slashdotters are so rash to jump to conclusions and assume the principles behind the GPL couldn't be applied towards patents when a lot of the same people here probably initially laughed at the initial idea of the GPL actually providing a viable alternative to commercial.
...and if you STILL don't think it will work, tell the person why so they'll have the benefit of your feedback.
You're telling me people are going to run their businesses on software written by people all over the globe in their spare time?
What's going to motive them to write the software? Did you think about that Einstien?
Where are those do-nothing naysayers today?
Before you laugh at this or any other "hairbrained idea", why don't you give them the benefit of the doubt and invest a little bit of thought and try to inject some healthy doses of realism mixed with optimism.
most of the arguments boil down to no patents period
Take your straw man and go home. Pure FUD.
Stating that patentability should not be EXTENDED to software is in no way an argument against patents on actual inventions.
cannot even define precisely what a "software patent" is
engage in thoughtful debate so that reasonable legislation will result
The definition of valid patents (and by implication defining by exclusion non-patentable software) has already been created, the thoughtful debate has occured, and reasonable legislation has resulted.
I merely need point you to the Patent Directive as amended and PASSED by the European Parliment. The one currently being obstructed by the European Council.
give up the NO PATENT position and try to reach the compromise that is inevitable and that best serves everyone's interests
I will gladly "give up the NO PATENT position" and happily compromise on patents on physical inventions and invention processes teaching how to harness the physical forces of nature in physical processes.
Of course that happens to to exclude any and all so-called "computer implemented inventions" because the ONLY thing a computer can implement is calculations. All software is nothing but a series of mental steps. In principal any software can be carried out purely mentally, and in fact many so-called "software patents" can in fact be carried out in pure thought in a matter of minutes or even seconds. You cannot "invent" or patent a sequence of thoughts, and you cannot "invent" or patent calculations. Software is nothing but a series of mental steps, nothing but a calculation, math.
The compromise is simple. You can only patent inventions.
The European Parliment's Patent Directive is perfectly good law. It upholds the patentability of inventions. It prohibits any absurd attempt to patent calculations or series of mental steps.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I like your idea, but after reading the article on Nathan Myhrvold investing significant amounts of money to purchase patents for his new company "Intellectual Ventures", it occured to me:
Why can't patent holders who are sympathetic to OSS loan or license their patents to this organization to provide ammo against companies who threaten OSS with their patents?
Any proceeds from litigation could also contribute to a defense fund.
It's an idea worth exploring.
The banner is on!!
... be it those three or their political opposition.
The reason is really very very simple...
politics and machine switching logic are way big time different things.
There are two ways to discover gravity. drop and apple or step off a cliff.
Either was gravity is going to take charge.
The same applied to software.
The difference here is that it seems half of the people with influence are insisting on doing it the harder and more deadly way. While the others are trying to present apple dropping evidence to those who find that evidence to weak to accept and respond with smart ass comments about making apple pie, again and again... they will try again next year if they don't kill someone this year....
So there is really only ONE WAY to get the hard reality across to the death seekers.... give them death...
ALOT OF IT!!!
bring to a hault all software development and use of anything that is not patented yet and don't pay for anything that is....
This can be bigger and better than the itty bitty "boston tea party". And it can make the boston tea party analogy hardly used...
So I'm being asked now..... how would it be possible to have such a party, that those against patents on software would most certainly attend?
Any ideas? Or is there a fear that most will wimp out?
pursuade the creators of the _first_ operating system on a digital computer to patent the method of controlling transistors by using commands entered by human readable characters (or something like taht) and put some money toward it (i would), then if any bad people decide to sue over software patents, just sue them for writing software and refuse them a license.
Would this be possible? no, i mean outside america.
(not a troll, just a badly guided plan - mwhaha)
Its the "to establish the hard and fast requirement that natural forces are used to control physical effect beyond the digital sphere" part that I find confusing.
Are they saying the essence of "physical phenomenon and natural law" or in a word "physics" should be patentable?
And what of our natural ability to create higher level abstractions in order to better organize for greater productivity and better communication?
Or more specifically, what of the physics of abstraction creation and use? or is such NOT a natural force
It seems clear that they have failed to understand the nature of the media of "abstraction", for which programming is founded on.
Rasmus must have dual-citizenship. I'm pretty sure he's Canadian as well.
Really? Speaking of inflamatory, how about this from Axel Horns blog:
We must ask, if he does not know what software is why is he even involved in the debate? His criticism of a well defined, commonly used word such as "software" being ambiguous is very strange when the patent establishment relies not only on it's own (mis-)interpretations of commonly used words but also requires the creation of new phrases and concepts to justify patentability. He goes on...
What is a "computer-implemented invention", what is "technical effect"? These are phrases and concepts invented for the sole purpose of making software ("as such") patentable under European Law whilst claiming to be doing the opposite. More over, what does "tinkering with software in a technical enviroment" mean precisely?
This isn't an attack against Axel Horn, I would have asked directly if there were a place to do so on his blog. What I would like to highlight is the double standards being applied to the debate by the patent lobby.
Dear troll girl,
Let me not get into your, er, let's call them 'arguments', as even the biggest software patent newby can punch holes in them. As long as you can sow uncertaintity with your half-lies, eh?
However, I would like to comment on your spelling. Not a very popular thing to do on the internet, as it may easily conflict with nettiquette, but I am certain that in this case it's relevant.
You see, Slashdot readers are generally not as bad at spelling as some claim they are. So when you decided, in your pitiful attempt to look 'wise' to the ways of the 'street', to capitalise words almost at random, this had almost exactly the opposite effect of what you intended. Instead of making you look like a real Slashdotter, it immediately unmasked the troll you are.
These may seem harsh words, but please realize that I am only uttering them in deep-felt concern for your financial well-being. Your American and Asian overlords are not going to be signing your fat paychecks for much longer when it becomes obvious that you can be seen through merely on the basis of the shape of the letters you choose to use.
"the professional patent community is IGNORING you"
Duh!
When the maffia gets to rewrite the laws on organised crime, I am sure they are not going to pay much attention to the arguments of law enforcement officials.
"dismiss you as a 'bunch of communists?'"
Unlike in your fatherland (my guess: the USA), the EU allows people the freedom to organize in political parties of any colour. Perhaps to those on the 'other side' of the political spectrum, 'communist' is a dirty word, but generally it is not considered so.
BTW, troll girl, why are you meddling in foreign affairs? I don't want to deny you that right, far from it, even if I could; I am just curious as to your motivation.
The majority in Diamond v. Diehr had a whole section (Section IV) devoted to explaining why their ruling does not "allow a competent draftsman to evade" what is and isn't patentable, and they were right. The basic idea of the ruling was that software being an element of the claim does not make the whole claim nonstatutory. The fact that this question was even raised shows how non-patentable software was at the time. The ruling seems common sense to me. If you make a machine out of stock parts, you don't base patentability on the individual parts, but on the way they're combined into a whole. People who have made the leap from Diehr to patents where all the inventiveness is in software are in direct contradiction of that ruling.
The dissent had absolutely zero disagreement with the majority on matters of law. Stevens wrote that he would have ruled the same way if he read the claims as the majority did. However, he then went on to rail at length against software patents, which may have led some to believe that the majority was for software patents. This is a widespread misconception I'm trying to clear up.
Newton had patented gravity? Or the law of Optics? Would Pink Floyd have to pay royalties for the cover of "Dark Side of the Moon"?
Maxwell had patented electromagnetism?
What if Einstein had pattented the mass-energy equation?
There is science, where patents don't apply (because scientists discover something about the physical world that had existed for ever). There is technology, where inventors pattent a device to perform something new (like Edison pattented his light bulb, he pattented a way to produce light using electricity. But he didn't (and didn't intend to) pattent electricity.
Are software pattents science or technology? Is an algortitm a device to do something or a scientific principle?
Personaly I believe that non-trivial software should be granted some kind of intelectual protection. If someone spends years to develop a new cryptographic algoritm, he deserves a reward for his job. If a jerk pattents a one-click procedure to buy online, he doesn't.
I'm not trying to give an answer to a complex problem, just trying to put things on perspective.
Some things that today are obvious, may not have been so in the past. When Von Neuman introduced his machine, it was a revolutonary new idea. Today is mainstream knowledge. (In Von Neuman's time, Computers were considered science, now they are technology).
It's an open discussion, I don't have the answers and after several beers, I don't feel like giving one.
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
On the ASWP war - the American ASWP camp have lost a huge battle to the PSWP, and the Europeans are still slugging it out.
It is important to learn the lesson of how and why the American ASWP camp lost their battle - and be sure that you guys in Europe repeat them.
Although the cynicism post may sound negative, there is a lesson to be learnt - that, DO NOT TRUST THE POLITICIANS, EVER ! - and - BE SURE TO CARRY A VERY BIG STICK WHILE TALK SOFTLY !!
Politicians only know ONE THING - and that is, they will bow to the people who have THE BIGGER STICK.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
While I generally agree with you that cynicism may have a negative impact in this matter, we shouldn't wave them off as though they aren't important.
You should understand why the Americans are so skeptical about the whole thing - they got stung by the politicians !
Perhaps because of their naivete, they believed that somehow there is a knight in shining armor who will ride to rescue them from those software patent attorneys.
They placed their bets on a handful of so-called "influential individuals" and when the end result came - that none of those "influential individuals" gave a hoot about helping a bunch of idealistic geeks, and software patents are being given out to all sorts of crooks, dime a dozen, the American ASWP camp are feeling like a deflated balloon - and they know that they could do nothing to change the course.
That is why they are so skeptical about the outcome of the European fight.
You see, what you guys are doing essentially mirrored what they did - you guys relied on the so-called "influential people" to carry your cause for you, - in your case "Poland" - and you hope/think/pray that they will continue to champion your cause till the end of time.
But when the ugly reality kicks in, that those who champion your cause may end up betraying you, and everything is lost, FOREVER - you will end up like your brethens on the other side of the big pond - and feel like a deflated balloon.
So please take a lesson from the Americans - DON'T EVER TRUST ANY POLITICIAN
!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
When I clicked on the link, and ended up HERE what I got is an incomplete article.
Anyone here got a copy at hand to share ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
One crucial event is that the EU judge will hold a meeting on Thursday to discuss the possiblity of suspending sactions against MS. This would be a mistake on par with allowing software, literature, or algorithms to be patented in the EU. While technical work continues on codecs like dirac and theora, more political and legal work needs to be done. Failing to impose sanctions until illegal behavior is stopped would be very harmful to Europe in general and to the European software industry in general.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I am not sure how we can take anything you write seriously. You also came up with this amazing little tidbit:
8 68 118
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=91407&cid=7
indication of very thing I mention above
torvalds et al, despite their god like status on slashdot, are simply no counterweight to the European companies supporting the directive:
Accenture, Agilent, Alcatel, Apple, Bang&Olufsen, Blaupunkt, Bull, Canon, Corning, Dell, EADS, Epson, Ericsson, Fujitsu, Grundig, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Infineon, Intel, JVC, Kenwood, Konica-Minolta, Lexmark, LG Electronics, Loewe Opta, Lucent, Marconi, Matsushita, Microsoft, Motorola, NEC, NEC-Mitsubishi, Nokia, Nortel, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sanyo, SAP, Sharp, Siemens, Sony, Texas Instruments, Thales, Thomson, Toshiba.
and the National Trade Associations:
Austria: FEEI; Belgium: AGORIA; Czech Republic: SPIS; Denmark: ITEK, ITB; Finland: SET; France: ALLIANCE TICS, SIMAVELEC; Germany: BITKOM, ZVEI; Greece: SEPE; Hungary: IVSZ; Italy: ANIE, ASSINFORM; Ireland: ICT Ireland; Latvia: LITTA; Lithuania: INFOBALT; Malta: ITTS; Netherlands: Nederland-ICT; Norway: ABELIA, IKT Norge; Poland: KIGEIT, PIIT; Slovakia: ITAS; Slovenia: GZS; Spain: AETIC; Sweden: IT Företagen; Switzerland: SWICO, SWISSMEM; United Kingdom: INTELLECT; Turkey: ECID, TESID
http://www.patents4innovation.org/
what is needed is to put down the spears and drums and to engage in thoughtful debate so that reasonable legislation will result. give up the NO PATENT position and try to reach the compromise that is inevitable and that best serves everyone's interests.
Or perhaps they are trying to get the BIG companies to realise that this is going to cost them a fortune in the long run... companies whose bread and butter is NOT software, like parmacutical companies, automotive companies, large retail chains, oil and gas, etc. Infotech companies are small fry compared to other industries, and THESE are the ones that must be convinced. If the oil industry were to determine that this bullshit would hurt their bottom line, they could squash all the infotech companies combined like a bug.
It doesn't really matter how the law serves the software industry, be it microsoft or redhat. What matters is how it serves everyone else that makes use of that software. Patents aren't about helping anyone make money, they're about motivating ppl to reveal trade secrets and giving everyone better stuff. If the system bounds things so badly that there's no collective economic gain in having these secrets revealed in the patent framework, we're better off having ppl hide their code if they so choose, and leaving us the ability to recreate from scratch.
Personally, I think patents WERE good in their time, when there were fewer ppl doing work and much less communication and cooperation. We've now reached a point where there are so many educated ppl on the planet, communicating and cooperating like mad, that revealing these secrets is less important because we have the manpower to recreate them if we have to. We're not trying to get the alchemists to reveal their secrets to the unwashed peasants anymore...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
People who choose to interpret "as a whole" to mean that any novel part makes the whole patentable are ignoring the majority's very explicit section IV, that addresses exactly this issue. They are also ignoring key parts of section III, where they affirm the "long-established principles" of the Benson and Flook cases.
After Diehr, patent examiners could not reject a patent as nonstatutory just because one element of a claim was nonstatutory. Nor could they remove that element and look at the novelty of what was left. The way elements are combined may be novel, even if the elements themselves are not. "The way elements are combined" is the only interpretation of "as a whole" that is consistent with the Diehr opinion.
Patents that claim "program A plus some computer memory to run it in" cannot be rejected as nonstatutory under Diehr. Instead, they must be rejected as non-novel. Program A is nonstatutory, computer memory is non-novel, and the way Program A and computer memory are combined is not novel. Having the program run in the memory is exactly how programs and memory are always combined. Thus the patent is invalid on the grounds of not being novel.
If the USPTO and courts would follow Diehr, we wouldn't have this big software patent mess.