Slashdot Mirror
European Software Patents Not Dead Yet
Ensign Nemo writes "Software patents in Europe still being pushed.
They're at it again and they're not waisting any time. Even though opposition is there the backers of software patents are getting sneakier and sneakier." Poland, if you help us out again, I pledge to never, ever forget you.
If you create something really novel, even if it is in software, why *shouldn't* you be able to get a patent on it?
Would you say they're throwing there weight around?
Should I interpret this as "European Software Patents 'Not Dead Yet'"?
Azh nazg durbataluk, azh nazg gimbatul, Azh nazg thrakataluk agh burzum ishi krimpatul! This sig blocked by Slashdot.
I think you mean "*wasting* any time"
Hmm. Guess we'll have to wait until next Monday for more definate information. From TFA:
That the matter would be settled for good next Monday, Luxembourgs Economics Minister Jeannot Krecke for one announced at a meeting of the European Parliament's Legal Committee this Wednesday.
Hmm.. Guess we'll get yet ANOTHER Slashdot story on Monday - if Ms. Krecke is correct in her prediction. Oh well, this is a matter of importance and I suppose as many news stories/comments as we can read, the better informed we'll all be on the subject!
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
er, "wating" for confirmation from Netcraft.
:-)
Is it true?
This reminds me, next month is FOSDEM (Free and Open source Software Developers' European Meeting) in Brussels: http://www.fosdem.org. I suggest we raid the EU headquarters and talk some sense into the EU ministers.
Execs are blasted as "fat cats", politicians are accused of pork barreling, it's no wonder they're all getting overweight.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The Register story http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/12/patent_mep s_resolution/
jesus fuck, please shut up.
The difference between invention and discovery is an arrogant illusion.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
of course they're not dead. software patents benefit the corporations that control the governments, so they will eventually be installed in all countries. you'd think people would get the message from the backdoor process that was used to almost install them on eu countries this time. don't count on stopping it again.
I think that a very limited term of copyright is useful to thr promotion of progress...
Strictly limted ( 5/10 years or only as long as supported ) and no patents
That said, a valid view point would be to make all software free and open. If someone "steals" the code and modifies it so what. If there modified version is not better it would die on the vine.
"....the Ministers of Agriculture in their meeting of the EU Council of Agriculture and Fisheries on Monday are to give the nod to the controversial position of the EU Council of Ministers on the Directive on the Patentability of "computer-implemented inventions"".
Isn't that a bit like asking the Minister of Defence if they think the tax system should be revised? Or asking the Minister for Education what his thoughts are on creating a new highway?
I'm beginning to see why so many Europeans don't take the EU seriously.
Almost, but not quite...
It's actually "In Europe, only stupid people support software patents".
Same as anywhere else.
it is for all developers and techlogist to go on strike until it is against WTO policy for a country to have software patents.
It would be in place in a week.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
patents create property. property is wealth. patents like all property create wealth. the more varieties of property in society the greater the wealth that can be created. the better off society as a whole becomes. you only need to look at the US versus poorer countries. it is the enforcement of property rights that has created wide spread wealth.
Weapons create property. property is wealth. Weapons like all property create wealth. the more varieties of weapons in society the greater the wealth that can be created. the better off society as a whole becomes. you only need to look at the US versus poorer countries. it is the enforcement of others property rights that has created wide spread wealth.
Q: How many polocks does it take to stop software patents from being created in Europe?
A: A simple majority.
Wait. That's not funny.
> patents like all property create wealth.
Property doesn't *generate* wealth! Patents prevent other people from generating wealth, not that patents are property to begin with, but let's not let the facts get in the way of your delusions.
... and write to your minister of agriculture, if you're a EU citizen!
Let them know that software patents are important enough to deserve a proper discussion in the parliament. Add why *you* think they are important (and wrong).
For the Belgians and the Dutch: http://www.softwarepatenten.be/landbouwraad.
For the rest of us: http://ffii.org/.
Please, take this 5 minutes, it's worth it.
Chris.
You're probably having trouble with the first word...
How about, "In Europe, Only Old People Patent Software"?
It isn't a coincidence that the 'new' members of the EC are succesfully opposing the patent legislation while the others behave like sheep. The patent lobby is not yet established in those countries yet. Now they realized they forget something there and now they come to those countries with their dollars (not euros) and 'buy' their votes for their assets. Fortunately for them these countries have a low price level so it will be a bargain after all. It's such a simple game once you notice it.
Supporting Open Source software by not introducing software patents is the best thing we can do for our trade balance. By using more and more Open Source instead of paying overseas countries for commodity software like Operating Systems and Office suites the more likely it is that Europes own software packages sell more than we import from Oracle, Microsoft, Adobe etc.
:).
That is a solid argument for the MEPs. Something they can understand.
Im all for copyright legislation because it protects Open Source aswell as commercial endeavours - that is very important, but patents on software algorithm and ideas should not be possible, next thing you know someone is patenting pi - or atleast the first five decimals
I attended the meeting where the UK Patent Office explained its pro-software patent position.r ective/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/14/patent_di
Their strongest argument was that a lot of things that used to be done entirely with hardware are increasingly done in software, so software patents are needed to replace hardware patents.
For example, electronic companies want to keep the same type of patent coverage for the next generation of their products (with more embedded code) as they are used to having. And what's wrong with that?
The UK Patent Office is aware that patents *may* be damaging to pure software, but believes that the "technical effect" rule will prevent this. Unfortunately they were utterly unconvincing when pressed for detail.
Their big picture is that the benefits of software patents to other parts of the economy (e.g. 'phone companies) will be greater than any harm to open source software.
WARNING: This test can crush your ego and expose you as a biased and/or mindless drone.
1. I challenge all anti-patent activists to name several major *benefits* of patents and software patents.
2. I challenge all pro-patent activists to name several major *negatives* of patents and software patents.
3. I challenge both sides to propose ways in which we can get all the benefits of patents while eliminating all the negatives of patents.
If you cannot or is unwilling to see the other side of the issue, then you are getting in the way of true progress and wasting everyone's time.
---
"Hey, I found examples of bad patents--lets abolish the patent system! No more patents!"
==
"Hey, I found examples of buggy software--lets abolish software! No more software!"
---
Eventually someone's bound to slip up and say "YES".
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
"For example, electronic companies want to keep the same type of patent coverage for the next generation of their products (with more embedded code) as they are used to having. And what's wrong with that?"
A hardware idea simply re-implemented in software is not a new idea and not patentable.
A pure software algo is a mathematical discovery and not patentable. You cannot patent mathematics.
I think you misunderstood what the EU parliament did, the wording rules out pure data processing patents. It does not rule out software as part of an invention.
So electronics manufacturers can still patent their widgets because the software is part of the new widget.
The other change was to beef up the 'technical' requirement, to prevent business process patents disguised as software patents. e.g. electronic shopping lists, one click ordering, assigning rating numbers to how powerful a computer is in order to decide if games will run or not...
Who could argue that that isn't a good thing!?
Surely thats what democracy is about. We argued our side in the EU parliament and won.
I challenge the pro-software and pro business process patent supported to accept the result.
Everyone run down to your neighborhood market and buy all the Kielbasa they have.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
When the political agreement in the council was reached on May 18th last year, it was only Spain that voted No. Belgium and Poland abstained.
On the 13th Jan, I received the following (extract) from the UK Labour Party group of MEPs:
"The Labour MEPs' position is reflected in the amendments we tabled and voted for in the Parliament's report on the Commission proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. In short, the position remains:
. No US-style patenting of software.
. Software as such, must not be patented. No patenting of business methods or "general ideas"
. Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must ensure that this Directive does not have any adverse effect on opensource software and small software developers.
. Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies."
I'm not sure what they intend to do about this latest news. Email/snailmail all takes so-o-o-o long and I wonder whether it's just assistants sending stock replies...
Did he inhale?
Mod the parent up !
...
That's why I think there should be a mandatory waiting-period for questions like these, after they are voted down. At least a year or so.
Now it *is* just a question of waiting (plotting) for some combination of factors in which a majority-vote can be aquired
In Germany there is a huge majority in the parliament (with supporters from EVERY party) that is AGAINST software patents.
Sadly, the parliaments "delegate" to this EU meeting (Federal Minister of Agriculture) Renate Künast has gone into a "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" mode, so demands that she stands up against the EU directive will probably fall on deaf ears.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
The problem is that FOSDEM is over the week-end.
The week before FOSDEM, MEP (Member of the European Parliament) have a Plenary Session in Strasbourg and typicaly go back home (not to Brussels) on Friday.
This should not stop you from comming to FOSDEM or protesting in Brussels...
The week after there are no committee meeting, so MEP have no other particular reason to come but "Group Meeting". You can forget about the Monday morning because MEP are on their way to Brussels.
If you have time, stay a bit longer in Brussels and try to arrange (well in advance) a few meetings with MEP of your country. Make sure you know the status of the directive, the various version (Commission, First Reading, Common Position) and try to synchronise with FFII on the amendment and strategy.
This so-called 'A-item' should not have been put before the committe in the first place as it disregards the rules for placing these items. The (unelected, govt. appointed) EU Commission (as usual) is simply making up its own rules as it goes along.
With this sort of arrogant crap we constantly suffer from the Commission, is it any wonder that even if this item is thrown out, we still might not win. The European Patent Office can still do its own thing. Don't believe me? The EPO is not bound by many of the laws or regulations that most of the citizens of Europe take for granted, such as the European Convention on Human Rights.
Some examples:
. The Employment Law offers the staff extremely limited protection. Staff can be dismissed almost at will by the President and have no claims to unemployment pay or other social security payments
. Basic legal rights are ignored. The President is the ultimate ruler of the EPO. He is judge, jury and executioner. His decisions on matters within the office are final. Any decision made by the President can be enacted immediately. There is no "stay of execution" pending the outcome of appeal hearings. Sanctions are arbitrary and harsh.
. Even criminal law is disregarded: In 1995 the then President of the EPO physically attacked and injured a staff member, the Administrative Council of the EPO subsequently refusing to lift the immunity of the President.
Did he inhale?
Why do i have to write to my "minister of agriculture"?
What does agriculture have to do with software patents?
From the Financial Times,
0 0000e2511c8.html
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d4230280-6b53-11d9-9357-
Governments had agreed a compromise version of the law more than six months ago, but Poland subsequently refused formally to sign it.
But a Brussels-based Polish official said yesterday Warsaw was now prepared to back the legislation, though Poland would issue a declaration detailing its concerns over the draft law.
Try to catch the BBC Radio 4 programme in business this week (warning the schedule info is correct but the content is still on last week's programme). I expected this to be just the normal corporate b/s, but it was in fact more interested in problems in the USA, particularly in patent examination. There are representatives on both sides of the argument, but I would have the "say no to patent expansion" side winning. There is a repeat on Sunday evening 21:30GMT. I don't know if the "listen again" has moved to the current edition yet - as I say, the web site is stuck on last week.
good to see spelling is not dead yet
You do not have to patent an invention.
But in this case you risk that someone else patents your invention and threatens to sue you over your own ideas - even if you published them before the patent was filed.
Sound ridiculous? It has happened in a prominent case.
That's why we need to be vigilant, and say firmly "No !" each time.
The Brussels-based Polish official said the same thing in December, which caused the responsible Polish minister to personally come to Brussels to block the decision back then. There's no guarantee he'll be able to do the same thing again, though.
Donate free food here
The EPO is stating that: A computer program can be patented as such, if it has a "further technical effect". But practically any solution to a computing problem constitutes a "further technical effect".
..." consisted in the economisation of space on a computer screen. Wow! Novel or what?
The EPO further declares that the "arrangement or manner of representation", may as well constitute a patentable technical feature. And examples which are given include pulse code modulation or a measuring instrument which produces a particular form of graph for representing the measured information and a computer data structure. This means that according to the EPO's guidelines, the order of information in a data structure could be patented if accessing the data structure is claimed. Yes!! I claim Name and Address (and Address and Name, to be on the safe side)!
As the FFI points out:
The most frequently used rhetorical trick of the Council paper works as follows: [A] is not patentable, unless [condition B] is met. But, upon close scrutiny, it turns out that condition B is always met.
It gets worse.
The wording "normal physical interaction between a program and the computer" means about as much as "normal physical interaction between a recipe and the cook", that is: nothing. It is a magic formula whose usage can be inferred only from recent decisions of the EPO, in which it served to justify the granting of patents on geometrical calculation rules to IBM. In the present case, according to the EPO, the "further technical effect beyond
Did he inhale?
How desperate are these people?
Agriculture Ministers to pass Software patents?
Please... somebody get these people jobs !paid by SCO.... I feel pity for the pro-patent people, I honestly think that they are flogging a dead horse, trying to get this completely undeomocratic legislation passed.
Honestly, the patent people should just admit defeat, with some grace... it's sad at this stage.
If you cannot or is unwilling to see the other side of the issue, then you are getting in the way of true progress and wasting everyone's time.
Please name several major *benefits* of only seeing one side of the issue. If you cannot then you are getting in the way of true progress and wasting everyone's time.
That's why we need to be vigilant, and say firmly "No !" each time.
Sorry, I'm old fashioned enough to think that sometimes saying "No" isn't getting anywhere and it's necessary to administer a slap on the wrist to the recalcitrant brat. Especially if he's a government minister.
That is true. For that reason, I think an arbitrary duration for copyright is probably the wrong approach. It might be better to tie it into availability: as long as you continue to make your work available to society, it's covered by copyright, but if you lapse for a certain period, then it becomes legal to copy an existing work instead of obtaining a new one from you.
This deals immediately with things like people not being able to obtain books long out of print, old software that's no longer sold, or songs you can't buy any more but can't legally copy today either. It also means that an author who does continue to make a work available is not going to be undercut by profiteers who didn't add anything except lawyers, and I really don't have a problem with that.
The implications for free-as-in-FSF software are more interesting. You could argue that the software is available forever, and therefore the GPL has permanent authority. You could also argue that the software is never available completely free of restrictions under the GPL, so the restrictions must be lifted after the "no longer published" period. (After all, copyright doesn't exist to protect the philosophical views of RMS, either.)
Perhaps a middle-ground is more appropriate: you get a fairly lengthy period of protection guaranteed under copyright law, but you forfeit that protection if you cease making the work available for an extended period of time (I'm thinking maybe 5-10 years here).
I'm not sure I buy that in practice. How often does someone write a work that's good enough to live off for the rest of their life without any further effort? Those who do write such works rarely produce a second work later on of similar quality anyway, so personally I'd rather encourage people to take the time to perfect that masterpiece that could be the key to their future, rather than rush it out because they know they have to get started on the next (probably not so) big thing.
And what if their motivation isn't monetary?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Software (and business) patents are like crack to the status quo. What easier way is there to eliminate all new competition but to make all new competition illegal?! The quest for software patents will only end when software patents are valid throughout the world.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The real costs in software development are not normally blue-sky research. In most cases the costs are those of development.
/.) examples of software in which really fundamental research needed the protection it would afford. I'm hard pressed to think of many things, except possibly in the fields of data compression and encryption where the value really is in the algorithm and not the implementation, (which is often trivial to implement once you know how).
To compete with a product, a company would have to incur those development costs themselves, all the while catching up with the current state of play while the original company likewise kept advancing. And then to convince the marketplace to go with them rather than the established market leader. It's doubtful they could sell it much cheaper than the original; if they could - well, they have better processes, and that's how things improve in a competitive environment.
If software really needs patents, I'd be interested to hear from the pro-patent lot (assuming there are any on
I wrote my representattive in the German Bundestag [parliament] today, making sure to let her know I am in her district.
It isn't much, but every little effort helps.
If you decide to write too, remember to remain polite and to say "Thank you".
Hmm, Laurens Jan Brinkhorst (the Dutch economy minister) is quite old. Time for his retirement, I suppose.
(I am posting as AC to not be accused of Karma whoring, and I really think this post should be modded up.)
CowboyNeal wrote: "Poland, if you help us out again, I pledge to never, ever forget you."
PLEASE! Don't ask Poland on Slashdot! Contact the people who have helped before! They are not reading Slashdot!!!
There should be at least one link added to that story:
http://www.fsf.org/thankpoland.html
The Free Software Foundation writes: "We are placing the "Thank you, Poland!" banner at the top of the main page to thank the Undersecretary of State at the Polish Ministry of Science and Technology, Wlodzimierz Marcinski. This is in response to him blocking the European software patent vote on 21, Dec 2004, making him single-handedly responsible for keeping Europe software patent-free."
We should not only remember Poland, but we should remember the name of the person responsible for the last blocking of the European software patent vote, Wlodzimierz Marcinski, and even more importantly let him know what we think which is easy, read on.
There are links on the FSF website and info on how to send your letter to Polish Embassy, but there is also an easier and faster way to get your voice heard. There is a website http://thankpoland.info/ - The undersigned wish to express their sincere thanks to the Polish government for their action to remove the "A-item" of adopting the "Software Patent Directive" from the agenda of the Agricultural Council meeting on December 21, 2004. It would have been a horrible mistake for the European Union to adopt this "Software Patent Directive". - just enter your name and optionally add a short message, and it will be printed and sent to the Polish Ministry of Science and Information Technology with flowers. This takes five seconds.
Search Google for the name of Wlodzimierz Marcinski:
Wlodzimierz Marcinski
Wlodzimierz Marcinski (orig. spelling)
if you know to learn more, and find more open letters, or his CV - we don't have a lot of politicians in the US who have studied mathematics and who are actually professional programmers, do we? In Poland they do.
Remember that if the Polish Ministry of Science and Information Technology knows that they have the support of the whole world, they will do it again, I guarantee. Of course the best way is to send your own snail mail letter, but even your signature on the thankpoland.info letter is extremely important. Thank you.
A US judge put it best (Atlantic Works v. Brady, opinion of Justice Bradley, US Supreme Court (1882) [see FFII UK]):
"It was never the object of [patent] laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith."
This was a prescient statement made over 120 years ago. If only EU politicians were as far seeing.
Did he inhale?
That wasn't the case in the 19th century when the US was the worst IP thief in the world. Now the US has joined the IP oligarchs, now they want to protect their patch. This attitude does not generate wealth, it does not spread wealth and it keeps poor countries poor.
Did he inhale?
This is indeed very important. That info and links should be in the story. Good thing I occasionally browse at -1 when I'm bored. Please mod parent up. Thanks.
Indeed; look at Judge Wells's discovery ruling in the IBM/SCO case. She even refers to SCO's tantrums as a reason to grant the discovery! ("By requiring this, the court seeks to circumvent future complaints by SCO alleging that IBM failed to provide all CMVC and RCS information.")
>> WARNING: This test can crush your ego and expose you as a biased and/or mindless drone.
Oh boy! Lucky me I'm an AC!
>> 1. I challenge all anti-patent activists to name several major *benefits* of patents and software patents.
It makes a lot of money for companies that already have lots of money, preventing sudden competition to arise and damage their business plans.
>> 2. I challenge all pro-patent activists to name several major *negatives* of patents and software patents.
I'm lazy so browse any Slashdot thread about software patents (use 4 or 5 threshold). There are lots of them. They may not be from pro-patent activists, but they do make sense.
>> 3. I challenge both sides to propose ways in which we can get all the benefits of patents while eliminating all the negatives of patents.
The "benefits" of patents are just a side effect of the fact that "patents" are just a lame patch over our global "free market capitalism", which is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways. Patching it with patents and copyright is NOT the ideal solution which, as I currently see it, involves the elimination of patents and copyright altogether.
>> If you cannot or is unwilling to see the other side of the issue, then you are getting in the way of true progress and wasting everyone's time.
I see all of the "other side", and I don't like what I see at all.
And "Progress" is -1 Overrated.
1) The major benefit is for companies which already have huge portfolios of software patents who can then make money licencing their patents to people.
2) The major negative is for everyone else who do not have large portfolios of software patents and will have to face the threat of court action when developing almost any piece of new software.
3) Patents are very useful in other areas where the idea being patented is clear and unambiguous and it can take a long time to develop an idea and bring it to market. Software is already covered by copyright which prevents outright theft of a persons work anyway so there is no reason for them to be covered by patents as well, especially since patents do not translate well to protecting software developments.
the 5:40AM AC is *almost* right: An A-item is an item on which there already was uncontroversial consensus. It will not be discussed and (get this!) not even voted for, but simply passed. That's why A-items can appear on the agenda of unrelated council meetings. Now it's absolutely preposterous that this is brought up as an A-item, since if they would vote right now, there probably wouldn't be a majority (since Holland will abstain instead of voting `yes', and new member Poland will probably not vote `yes' either).
"1. I challenge all anti-patent activists to name several major *benefits* of patents and software patents."
I'll take this one. Patents create wealth by granting a monopoly for a limited time. In theory, that monopoly confers advantages to the inventor.But what everyone CONSTANTLY misses is the fact that often the inventor doesn't do anything with the patent. They either sit on it, or screw up the company which is trying to market the patent - preventing advancement of the idea, and related ideas.
There are numerous examples of this. And it's what is harmful to society.
I'll skip two. As for three, I refuse to bite. I can make some suggestions and see the other side. But software blossomed like it never has before when people weren't worried about Software Patents. Look at the 80's and early 90's (which saw the creation of the Internet, the Web, Linux, PGP, among others) Now look at today. Things are no longer revolutionary, they are positively stagnent. And a large part of this is due to patents
The directive is brought up as an A-item, which means it is uncontroverial and can be passed without discussion and even without actually voting. Obviously this directive is *not* uncontroversial, so it'd be a very bad thing if it got passed during the meeting monday.
I've just spent the last 10 minutes on the Web trying to find out a) Who my MEP is and b) Who my agriculture and fisheries MEP is. I have drawn a blank in both cases.
I have found one MEP who may be my representative since she appears to cover the West Midlands area and on her website she says that "feedback is an opportunity for me to hear your views". Which is nice.
I would hazard a guess that 99% of people in the UK have no idea who their MEP is, have never seen them on TV or read about their opinions in the media, have never met them and have never been contacted by them. Doubtless this ignorance is partly our fault and we should take an interest but these people who are supposed to be representing us should I think make a much bigger effort to find out what our views are.
The current text, however, allows abuse of the law in a way that:
When you create software, you get *COPYRIGHT* protection on it.
When was the last time a book plot got patent protection? That's really novel, right? Why shouldn't you be able to patent the plot of your book? It's just the same damn argument.
Still, I'm against the Software Patents Directive as it's proposed now. That's because even though I think software patents are essentially good, in the current form they can be abused. I'll give some examples:
- They run too long. IT is a fast market, the temporary monopoly should run out faster.
- They can be used to intimidate those who are smaller. Patents would be too expensive if they were all tested beforehand, so the idea is to basically grant all patents, and in case of dispute decide whether it should have been granted in court. Basically, if you're small, going to court against one of the big boys might not be a chance you'd be willing or able to take, even when the patent was really invalid.
- They can be used to `torpedo' big companies. Companies might turn up that patent ideas (or buy patents) that they carefully keep quiet until one of the big players also invents them and starts to depend on the techniques patented. Then they `emerge' and threathen to enforce the patent, at what stage the big company will be eager to pay large sums of money to be able to stay in business with the technique on which they have grown to depend.
Until problems like that are solved, I think no software patents are better than exploitable software patents.It's only once that algorithm becomes functional by being run on a computer and generating actual physical operations beyond just the pure calculations that it becomes patentable. And yes, running an algorithm on a computer does generate physical operations (movement of electrons in particular pathways if nothing else), even if we usually abstract those away when we discuss how computers work. So do human brains but, so far, we as a species have decided to consider ourselves special in this regard.
You are welcome to think about whatever you want (don't you feel *special*?). You're welcome to write it down. You're welcome to talk about it, and improve on it as a thought experiment. All you're not welcome to do is stick it into a machine (itself a separate invention) and have that machine perform useful functional and physical operations based on that algorithm.
The problem with software patents can't be attacked on this basis. *All* inventions are essentially pure thought until you instantiate them in a physical object and have it do something useful. *All* inventions are pure thought. *All* inventions are algorithms. Ultimately, depending on your personal metaphysics, all inventions may even be pure mathematics.
Pick a better argument. Personally, I think the best argument would be one based on the non-novelty and obviousness of most of the existing patented algorithmic inventions.
Trying to fight software patents on the basis that they are mathematical algorithms will only get you laughed at. You're essentially trying to fight the entire notion of patents on anything. Only ivory-tower acedemic CS profs think that software is nothing more than math.
Um, I think you're also a little confused.
Open source software and free software are not the same thing.
Open source software under a GPL-type license permits reuse of the open code if the reuser agrees to perpetuate the same restrictions downstream - essentially to also have open code that can be incorporated by anyone that follows. It might be free, but it might not. That has a little to do with copyright, but a lot more to do with the license.
Copyright does not prevent anyone from taking the code, and modifying it for their own interest, only from copying it and reselling it. Sufficient modification is itself a derivative work, and the new parts independently copyrightable. There are just two copyrights instead of one. The old parts would, indeed, be infringing if sold. But nothing in copyright demands that you release source code. Only the license does.
Even more modification, it's beyond derivative work, and copyright does not prevent that "anyone" from reselling it with new restrictions. Patent law can. However, patent law can also prevent someone who independently comes up with the same solutions from selling their own work. That's why patent law is indifferent to open source.
I'm not saying that patent law or even patents are good. They probably aren't.
Your argument, that software shouldn't be patented because you're patenting an algorithm is very popular. But it is lazy, and flawed.
There is no f-ing difference between a paper mechanical patent, a paper electrical patent, or a paper computer science patent. In every case, the author thought up the solution to a problem and used the piece parts and tools familiar to em - four-bar linkages, op-amps, or the discrete cosine transform, whatever. In practically every case, no one ever built anything or tried it out, and it wouldn't matter if they had. All of them are completely logical and mechanistic, and all of them can be reduced to formulas - that's what a patent claim is trying to do. Nobody is patenting math or logic - they are patenting how to use that math or logic in combination with other tools to solve problems. Chemicals and biologicals are a little different. That is a process of experimentation, and even more discovery than creation.
Are there real economic problems, oh yeah. Does the enforcement of a monopoly cause disparities between big and small players - yes, both ways, and miserably. But it's not software patents that are the problem - all patents are the problem.
Do you want to work and live in a commons, and give it away, for sheer joy joy joy, and believe that cooperation makes for better design - then patents are bad. Do you want to keep it all yourself, and get more more more, and believe that competition makes for better design - then patents are good. But don't pretend that there is any difference for software patents. They are all the same.
As for the last topic, the DMCA is just stupid and the product of political influence and cash. Everyone knows that. But it is not related conceptually at all.
If this is the case, comparing softare patents to agricultural patents (which Monsanto uses to fine and even jail often-innocent farmers with) should kill any support by EU agricultural ministries for SW patents in a heartbeat.
The invention could be a process or device that could be implemented in whole or in part by software on a computer.
It's called "non-obviousness" and if you don't know what "obviousness" means in this context (and I can assure you that there is scant evidence of knowing it on slashdot) then you don't know what "non-obviousness" means.
Please allow me to help:
It doesn't mean "obvious to you after it's been explained by your teacher or after you learned it on your own from a book."
It doesn't mean "obvious to you after you've been led by your nose by others to it, six years after someone has already found the problem, fixed it, and published their findings."
And, perhaps most ironically for many here, it doesn't mean "obvious to you because you're an expert in the field."
1. There is progress in Nature, which deserves a Patent. These are the only true extensions of human achievement and should require a physical model expressing the advance in order to be granted the Patent privilege.
2. There is progress among humanity which deserves only a copyright, but in a wholly corrupt fashion has been gathering Semantic (or process) Patent privileges. These patents have been granted to the kind of progress that only represents a re-organization, no matter how novel, of simple relationships between humans and true patents.
This is an entirely corrupting expression of a very important policy that has improved life as we know it today. If it is allowed to continue, progress itself is at risk. Stop the IP Pigs before you lose freedom itself.
Yep, you probably thought of it too. And it seems so obvious, but I can't say I've heard much about it. How come they're not voting for a law forbidding software patents yet?
Poland has announced that hasn't finished its analyses yet and wants the vote postponed.0 1/poland-again-to-seek-eu-software.html
http://europeansoftwarepatents.blogspot.com/2005/
I'm not sure that the distinction we draw between software and physical process really stands up to scrutiny (what if you develop a complete theory of physical process, what would that imply?). But there is a much more practical angle on this. In the US, patent is specifically meant to encourage innovation. My experience as a software developer is that patents are not at all needed to encourage to software innovation. Instead, their practical effect is to form a cartel of companies that generate patents and cross license each other, then shut down the small competitors with infringement claims. So, whatever the theory, the practical conclusion is that patents are a hindrance, not a help, to software innovation.