Slashdot Mirror
More on the Microsoft v. EU Decision on Software Patents
bollow (a) NoLockIn writes "As
pointed
out on Groklaw, Microsoft has told the EU's Court of First Instance that
"certain of the communications protocols that the Commission requires it to
provide are covered by patents or patent applications and that it intends to
file, before June 2005, a large number of patent applications." In view of
this,
Poland's
courageous action against software patents is a great relief. There's an
online thank-you letter for Poland with
already over 10000 signatures."
Unless there has been a change since I had a minor involvement with it, European and international patent law requires that a patent be at least applied for before an invention is put into commercial service. Apparently putting an unpatented invention into commercial service is roughly the equivalent of publishing it. I believe this is different from US patent law.
And also that documents defining protocols or interfaces may be copyrighted, but that fact alone should not prevent competing implementations of such protocols. Read: perhaps a patent covered protocol, a copyrighted document describing the details, but still allow 3rd parties to make their own implementation of it.
Microsoft may have many bases covered, but sometimes the interests of society to enable inter-operating software, weighs heavier than the patent/copyright interests of a company. IMHO a very balanced, and righteous decision. It doesn't prevent Microsoft from making money with implementation of such protocols, it just levels the playingfield a bit for other parties who want to do that as well.
If a software interface isn't so crucial, one might say: let company have its way, and consumers choose alternatives if they want to. But with 90+ % market share, a software interface can become crucial, or leave no real alternative. A legal decision like this is good, simply for putting at least some limits on corporate greed and vendor lock-in.
If you can't beat them, make them irrelevant.
> You think that's bad? Try working at an isp and have people yelling at you and blaming you for ;).
> breaking hotmail
>
> ahh the joys of the internet. bx
You too, huh? I even get the odd like "Why did the Internet screw up Word?" or my ever favorite "The Internet caused my printer to stop working, so when can you fix it?"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
but a reasonable chance of food on the table. Lousy but public health care. Public education. Tyrranical but secular governemnt which allows women to go to school and become professionals. And (bonus) not being blown up on the way to school. In time, with patience and some work perheaps a peaceful, bloodless, transition to less totalitarian form of government ala Eastern Europe.
Liberated Iraq = democracy offering freedom for ANYONE to build a political party and candidates to sell for market value or give away free (whatever the the party boss desires)...
You mean "anyone with sufficient cash and corporate support" ala USA. Wholesale theft of Iraq's resources by the Western corporations. Near total destruction of public infrastructure. 60% unemployment. 15% flat tax unable to generate revenues to cover even the most basic necessites of government. Laws dictated and set in stone by the occupiers (new government is not allowed to reverse these). 5-mile long lineups for gas in one of the largest oil producing counties. 100% prospect of either Islamic theocracy or civil war. Loss of rights for most females. Higher chance of getting your ass blown-off or shot-off then getting education. Non-existant medical care. Arrogant foreign army complete with mercenaries, "shoot first, ask questions later" checkpoints, cluster-bombing of cities and even modern rendition of concentration camps, gearing itself to stay in Iraq for foreseeable future (building permanent, hardened bases).
If I were an Iraqi, the choice would be rather easy: Saddam as bad as he was, was an Iraqi problem and Iraqis would have dealt with him sooner or later, thank you very much, and truth be told the "liberation" will be spelled "conquest" in Arabic for generations of Iraqis to come.
Also note that the assault on social foundations of Iraq is totally consistent with the philosophies US-led band of Christian-capitalist fundamentalist ideologues. It is part of their agenda and was indended to demonstrate that zero-government inteference, dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest capitalism will produce miracles in the "new" Iraq. And all they had to do it is to kill 100,000 people (after starving to death another 500,000 earlier).
I would like to take the time to thank you personally for resisting pressure from special-interest groups with a vested interest in pushing software patents. Software patents are slowly stifling our industry, and by extension muddling and retarding our technological advancement as a species.
The original aim of a patents was to grant a *temporary* monopoly, for the express purpose of encouraging innovation by allowing inventors to bring a new invention to market without having to worry about plagiarism. Software is not an invention - is is more akin to an idea, which was expressely *not* patentable for most of the history of patents.
The US has (relatively) recently begun to allow the patenting of ideas - software algorithms, "features" of software, even "business models"(!), and this has almost completely co-opted the patent system from an inventor support mechanism to a business weapon - "You do what we want or we'll sue for infringement". This was never the intention of patents, and patenting of ideas instead of inventions has mired the entire US technology industry in litigation, and made independant developers afraid to write useful software in case it infringes upon a patent they didn't even know existed.
Add to this the US patent office's blatant inability to understand the industry, and terrible track-record on prior art (eg, people were able to successfully patent the idea of "hyperlinks", even many years after the web became mainstream), and you have a situation where patents are issued almost carte-blanche, and it is left up to the legal system to decide who owns what (which rapidly becomes a case of "who can afford the most justice"). If it's left up to the legal system to decide on patent claims, invariably the richest company or individual will succeed, and many (most?) smaller developers and inventors are simply priced out of the market - they can't afford to defend their patents, so they aren't worth the paper thay're written on.
This devalues patents as a concept unless the holder can afford hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal fees. This leads invariably to a type of techno-feudalism: the rich and powerful can own all the (intellectual) property they desire, while the poor have no rights they can defend - their right to own (intellectual) property exists in name only.
I doubt this gigantic and unequal division between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is the *intended* consequence of a decision to allow software patents, but it is the inevitable one.
Many thanks for taking the time to read this letter, and please continue to resist pressure from all those who would co-opt our laws and statutes for their own selfish ends. You have the support of the technology worker (even if not the technology companies) behind you.
<name>
<e-mail address>
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself