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
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"[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).
Real life is overrated.
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
. . .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
...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 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?
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!
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.