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?
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
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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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".
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
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.
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?
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
- 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
I wouldn't be so quick to say that. IBM may make lots on software patents, but they are in a better position to make money without them, than most of their competition.
And they strengthen that position every day. So I would expect that one day, when they feel the time is right, IBM will strike out against software patents.
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
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.
... 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?