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."

Comments

It's a nice idea, but

[Fox_1]

I wonder how much mindshare it will really get at the level decisions are made it in business and government.

Re:It's a nice idea, but

[Sanity]

I wonder how much mindshare it will really get at the level decisions are made it in business and government.

As it happens, plenty. The anti-swpat movement has had a profound effect on the passage of this directive, the European Parliament, which is one half of the decision process, was essentially persuaded and introduced amendments to prevent software patents. The Council of Ministers, the other half, was initially pro-swpat, but even they are now bowing to geek pressure.

Virtually all involved parties now claim that they are against software patents, even those who are in favour of them!

It is certainly premature to declare victory, but I think the anti-swpat movement currently has the upper hand, and all because of geeks exercising direct democracy.

Re:It's a nice idea, but

[Jakosa]

There is in Europe right now some sympathetic attention on the political level in many contries. The Irish leaderships proposal could fall if Poland is voting against as they have resently said they would .

I think that the timing of this appeal has something to do with the current situation. The Directive is to be voted on soon

Re:It's a nice idea, but

[The-Bus]

That's already been taking care of with the article on The Economist. That's about the only periodical I can think of where heads of state and CEOs both read (and who both appear in the letters section from time to time).

Re:It's a nice idea, but

[grasshoppa]

And yet, all those good things aside, I bet it still gets passed.

The beauty of being a politician is the public listens to what you say, not what you do.

So yeah, they'll make tons of noise about being against sw patents, and then silently pass it into law.

If it ever comes up, they figure ( rightly so I imagine ) that they can spin it so the other guy looks bad, and they were the knight in shining armor ( armour for those of you on the other side of the pond ).

Re:It's a nice idea, but

[grasshoppa]

No need, politics is the same regardless of past history. So they tried it once and failed. They won't try it again, smarter this time?

Is it still cynicism when it's based on past experiences?

Re:It's a nice idea, but

[Halo1]

Is it still cynicism when it's based on past experiences?

No, but it's cynicism if you change your argument in something you can't know and expect the worst. First it was "they say A and will do B". When it turns out this was not the case, now it's "But they will do so later". I'm not sure what your goal is. Show that you are the ultimate realist on slashdot? Save us from disappointment should we not succeed?

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.

Crossing fingers and stuff

[jmo_jon]

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.

Ineffectual

[delta_avi_delta]

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?

Re:Ineffectual

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to tell Chirac and Schroder that Bush is for the patents. They will certainly be against it then ;-)

Re:Ineffectual

[mikrorechner]

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?

A little background on EU institutions for the non-European reader:

The EU Council represents the member states, and its meetings are attended by one minister from each of the EU's national governments. Which ministers attend which meeting depends on what subjects are on the agenda. If, for example, the Council is to discuss environmental issues, the meeting will be attended by the Environment Minister from each EU country and it will be known as the "Environment Council". (Quoted from here)

So, someone from each EU member countries' current administration will attend the meeting. To get back to your argument: To reach the relevant politican, you only have to send mail to administration@yourcountry.cc. You can imagine how very effective this would be.

Besides: The members of both the Dutch and the German parliament are against software patents, but the respective administrations don't seem to care. Which you would know if you had read the appeal linked in the OP.

The time has come...

[ChristW]

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...

Re:And in related news...

[monoi]

The big business that sponsored this does not care whatsoever what Linus Torvalds has to say.

So IBM don't care about Linux, for instance?

People look out for their own self interests..

[mumblestheclown]

Film at 11.

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.

Re:People look out for their own self interests..

[dabadab]

"[i]rely heavily on imitating prior art.[/i]"

Just like all software written in the past 50 years. Perhaps you also heard about "standing upon
the shoulders of giants". That's how development works in general: you take an existing thing, add your own ideas and wow: there's an improved version (which someone will take and add his own ideas to make something even better).

Re:People look out for their own self interests..

[Sanity]

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

So what? The difference is that the interests of Linux and MySql happen to coincide with the public interest, all they want is the freedom to innovate without threat of litigation, this is good for almost everyone. Microsoft and IBM want to stifle competition, and that is against the public interest.

Re:People look out for their own self interests..

[kfg]

. . .both are technologies that, for whatever their pluses, rely heavily on imitating prior art.

As do virtually all technologies. I'll point out, however, that despite popular views to the contrary software is not technology. It is mathematics.

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.

So I'll go with two of the great thinkers of The Enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who were both scientists and inventors of commercial products and yet opposed the overbroad and over strong application of "intellectual property" in general, believing that ideas were for the benefit, and the property, of all mankind.

And software is nothing but an abstract idea.

KFG

Re:People look out for their own self interests..

[timeOday]

It sure would be funny to see you on a jury:

"The defense said the guy was innocent, but they're the defense so of course they said that. The prosecution argued to the contrary, of course. Oh, well, no disinterested parties weighed in so I guess we'll have to declare a mistrial and move on."

What you've managed to do is completely ignore what both sides are saying. Why don't you listen in and see which is more convincing?

Hmmm

[gowen]

They also call on the Internet community to express solidarity by placing NoSoftwarePatents.com links and banners on many Web sites."

Well, its a nice sentiment, but I can't imagine this having any effect. In the UK, the orchestrated FFII anti-software-patent campaign got pretty much rejected out of hand by the government...

right, europe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re software patents: As a "European citizen" I can say that this ass-kissing of the powerful is typical of what the bureaucratic joke of a socialist utopia that is the EU will become. As least the US has people passionately campaigning for freedoms - here we drop off our responsibilities at the nearest Government establishment and expect them to decide all the best things for us. What happens? When they're not whining and dining on the super-government tax collections, they're taking even more in the form of bribes from big business. No-one cares to question them. Europe is good. Europe pulled our country out of the dark ages (Britain wouldn't say this, but it applies to the greater part of EU states). Baaaa.

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 Sometimes Good

[Dink Paisy]

I know this is against conventional instinct here, but the majority of opinions on software patents I have seen presented on this site are so simplistic and obviously wrong that they don't deserve to be called thought.

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.

Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I would put forth that the idea of software or algorithm patents is inherently flawed. Just as the idea of literature patents or mathematical patents would be. I've heard it put forth by others that these three things, literature, mathematics, and software/algorithms are copyrightable NOT patentable.

Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good

[the_womble]

You ignore the key arguments against the idea: 1) They are not necessary, software as not advanced faster since patents were itnroduced, so what purpose to they serve. 2) If you can find any gains from patents, they will not be worth the extra cost of litigation and patent fees. 3) The arguments in favour of woftware patents are based on supposition not backed up by evidence. If they worked there would avhe been an increase in softare development budgets as soon as aptents were possible - this did not happen. Where are your good software patents? Where are the small firms that benefitted from them? Can you give us some examples? Enough to out weigh the use of patents by incumbents to block new entrants?

Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good

[sploxx]

Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source.
I don't think so(*). Because

1.) (Software)Patents are very expensive which is a much higher burden for a small company than a big one (in relative terms)

2.) Defending patents is expensive. In the ideal world, it would be simple yes/no outcome of a log(n)-searchtree if a patent applies or not. In the real world, it very much depends on how you pay your lawyers...

3.) Corruption. Yes, it happens.

And if a patent application of a 10000+ employees company is considered, the name is probably well known to the evaluating person etc.pp. Not so with 5-people garage inc.

IMHO, SWPATs are just an addition to the immune system of the big companys, to squash the smaller ones and in the end to stifle innovation. Yes, this is a rant.

(*) - I don't even think that ordinary patents do any good to small companies, but that's another issue...

Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good

[NigelJohnstone]

"Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source."

Software needs to interoperate with other software. Sooner or later you have to sign away your patent protection to gain the closed API, or use of someone else's patents. If you look at the companies that have successfully used patents against big companies, they are almost always pure patent plays that sell no real product.

"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,"

Patents for browser plugins successfully used in court, one click patents successfully used in court, patents for video conferencing successfully used in court..... The courts seem to have the same problem!

"But the abuses do not stop the patent system from being useful for software."

Its not just abuses there are more fundamental problems:

Software implementation is already covered by copyright. The algorithm inside the software was never previously patentable, as a result most existing software is built on algorithms that haven't been disclosed.
YOU CAN'T TELL THE ALGORITHMS USED FROM THE COMPILED RESULT.
Hence prior-art can't be established because you can't see inside the old software.

The BSAs tricky wording removes the 'technology' requirement from software (as required by TRIPS). Other inventions have to be technological, but thanks to some backdoor work by the BSA, simply being software is enough to count as technology.
So a one-tick of a paper order form isn't patentable, but the same system written in software is.

The lobbyists bypassed the EU Parliament to push this through.

Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good

[Garabito]

Software patents are even more important than patents in other fields, due to the ease with which software techniques can be duplicated.

I think that's exactly why software patents are dangerous. If a developer can come with a solution to a problem, it's more likely that another developer will solve a similar problem using a similar solution, without knowing about the former developer or his solution.

I for one, would agree with patents on some algorithms that took a considerable amount of research, money, time and effort to develop; but it seems like these are the less. Most patents I've seen fall between the obvious procedure to do some trivial task or some vague concept for a software application or feature.

Patents are absolutely necessary to protect small companies from having their ideas taken without any credit or compensation to the original source.

Small and innovative companies that produce useful software do not benefit from sw patents. Some of these are actually threatened from sw patents. There are two kinds of companies that benefit from sw patents:

• Big Corporations, that use these patents to attack smaller companies that come with better, innovative competing products or open source solutions.
• Paper "IP companies" that do not have any product, but file patents on vague terms and wait for a real company to have a product that infringes their patent, so they can litigate for royalties.

Re:Software Patents Sometimes Good

[Jason Earl]

The problem with software patents is that they don't really protect "the little guy," at least not if the little guy actually writes software.

Let's say, for example, that your small company gets a patent on some cool idea and creates a software product based around this idea. Now, let's further speculate that your idea becomes the next web browser, the money starts rolling in, and Microsoft announces plans to create a similar product.

Your company is safe because it has a patent, right?

Wrong, because chances are good that your company infringes on all sorts of patents that Microsoft has, including stupid patents like the double click and the isNot operator. So the Microsoft folks show up with a stack of papers three feet thick detailing all of the ways in which your product violates their patents. Now, theoretically you could fight Microsoft, but the reality is that the litigation could easily cost you hundreds of millions of dollars, and there is a good chance that you would lose on at least some of the patent infringement charges.

So what do you do? You cross license your patents with Microsoft, and you probably end up paying Microsoft some money because they have more patents than you do. After all, you still want to be able to sell your product.

The only case in which patents help "the little guy" is in those cases where the little company doesn't actually write software. Microsoft (or IBM, or Sun, or whoever) can't put pressure to cross license patents on companies like Eolas, because Eolas doesn't actually have any products.

In the real world all patents do to "the little guy" is force up his development overhead. This gives the larger development firms a distinct advantage. They already have patents that they can cross-license, but you don't. This allows the large software houses the ability to shut down smaller shops essentially at will. How many small companies can afford to litigate against IBM or Microsoft?

Now, if you want to live in a world where the little guys have to satisfy themselves thinking up patentable ideas instead of actually writing software, that's fine. It's not where I want to live, however.

What is crucially missing...

[ZakMcCracken]

...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.

Too late for the U.S. but...

[Dorsai65]

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.

Software as a mathematical forumula or as an idea

[relativePositioning]

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.

Why doesn't the....

[JaJ_D]

...open source community fight fire with fire and:

• 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 community

Look 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

Mindless, ignorant drivel.

[Wolfbone]

"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."

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!

The battle could go either way

[Christian Engstrom]

And yet, all those good things aside, I bet it still gets passed.

That kind of defeatist cynicism is not only counter-productive, since it risks becoming self-fulfilling. It's also quite unwarranted at this point in time, when looking at the political scene in Europe.

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.)

The beauty of being a politician is the public listens to what you say, not what you do. So yeah, they'll make tons of noise about being against sw patents, and then silently pass it into law.

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.

They will listen.

[oliverthered]

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.

not a law adopted in the U.S.

[brlewis]

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.

Re:not a law adopted in the U.S.

[Alsee]

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.

-

Self Correcting Patent System

[DrStrangeLug]

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.
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/arnold/archive/2004/1 1/selfenforcing_p_1.html

Re:Not No Software Patents, but SMART Software pat

[Hast]

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.

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.