EU Parliament Demands Fresh Start for Patent Directive

ravenII writes "Members of the European Parliament from countries including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden have asked for the software patent directive to be redone from scratch, according to a report on Monday."

Comments

Patent machinery

[Lindsay Lohan]

Members of the European Parliament from countries including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden have asked for the software patent directive to be redone from scratch

The patent directive is ill-advised because it unnecessarily broadens the area that could be governed by patents. It's not even just about software patents. Patents on ideas are wrong, whether in software or in business. You should patent some concrete machinery, not a way of doing things.

Re:Patent machinery

[ThosLives]

Your comment is starting to get at the heart of the matter: what is it that patents (and copyright) are "supposed" to do?

"Copyrights" should really have been called something like "distribution and performance rights", but back in the day, you enforced this by limiting the ability to copy. Now there are no physical barriers to copying so the word is odd. What "copyrights" are intended to do is this: make sure that the people who originate a work of art are the only ones with the right to obtain compensation for the distribution of that art. I'm not even sure how 'performance' fits in, because there are some folks that maybe wrote a song but couldn't sing, but other folks will go see someone else who sings it better - so are the people paying for the song or the performance of the song? It's not clear what the correct distinction should be.

Patents were slightly different - they were originally around so that the garage inventor would be protected from the giant corporation (at least, I hope that's the original intent!). Think about it: if you're a big corporation, you don't need to be "protected" from people stealing your idea because you can build and market it. If you're a small operation, you have to work hard to get resources to develop. The patent protected that period of time so that a rich entity didn't come along and beat you to market using your idea. Now only big entities can easily get patents, and they don't so much use them to be first to market but to keep others out of the market. The intent of a patent should be "development protection" rather than "market protection" (we all know that artificial barriers in the market are inherently Bad). Giant companies hardly need development protection, and the only reason they want "market protection" is to cover their incompetencies (yes, I know the truth is hard to swallow) at adapting to changing markets.

So, my proposals to revamp the whole system would be to come up with a new system of "distribution rights", "performance rights", and "development protection" with appropriate, thoughtful definitions for each of those (to distinguish what customers want as in the example of the writer and singer that I gave above). What we need to keep in mind is that the people that deserve the "protection" from these laws is not the big businesses (publishers, manufacturers, etc.) but the people that generate the thigns of value - the artists, the engineers, the performers. After all, you will always have artists and engineers independently of the means of getting their ideas out to the masses; the current trend in "intellectual property" seems to miss this.

Re:First Thought

[Entrope]

Groklaw's commentary on the request provided some interesting comments. One reason is that if the motion is granted, software patents end up years away rather than months away. Another reason is that it provides the European Council a graceful way out of software patents.

While I am glad that software patents have been thwarted in Europe -- hopefully for good -- I do wonder if that kind of motion will be broadly used to set back other controversial, but less pernicious, kinds of legislation.