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
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?
So IBM don't care about Linux, for instance?
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.
...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".
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
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.
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...
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
Not true - an EU patent requires translation into all languages. That alone catapults the costs near or over the 10000 Euro limit. (Except if you are fluent in every European language yourself)
Also it is not about declaration - the true costs come in when you need to defend the patent before court and we are talking big $/EUR here.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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
You're half right.
The initial/primary problem was the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in Diamond v Deihr. The 5 member majority redefined how you evaluate a patent application. That 5 member majority went on at great length about how they were not going to allow software patents. The 4 judge dissent explained why the majority ruling was wrong, and that it did throw open the door for software patents.
The four judge minority was right. The change in rules for evaluating patent applications turned patent applications into a word game, and with the right wording software patents could not be rejected.
The majority had claimed they were not going to allow software patents, but once you make a rule that 2+2=5 it is impossible to avoid a sequence of VALID logic/legal steps leading from 2+2=5 to get to 1=2.
The problem is that patent applications now need to be evaluated "as a whole". If the patent includes something new and something non-obvious and it mentions patentable subject matter then it meets all three criteria and gets approved. The fact that the new and/or non-obvious "invention" itself is NOT PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER no longer matters. Now you get patents on a mathematical equation stored on any computer readable media. The mathematical equation is "new" and "non-obvious", but math is not patentable subject matter. Howevert the moment you mention "computer readable media" that is patentable subject matter - a physical object - dispite the fact that we are talking about a plain old ordinary floppy disk. The math is new and non-obvious, the floppy disk is a patentable physical object, and "as a whole" they satisfy all three criteria for a patent. Groan.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If the software patent proponents have their way, there will be "patent terrorists": Smart ex-developers who file patents for methods that will become useful within a decade, and go for UAD (Unfair and Discriminating) licensing. Some of them may be kind enough to harbour some free software projects under their umbrella.