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.
One only has to look at the rampant achievements and success of Free Software and Open Source to see how much the rest of the industry is being held back by software patents and other "intellectual property" restrictions.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
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
Um, I think you're a little confused.
Open source software, and free software *depend* on copyright. Yes, depend on it. Without copyright, then anyone could take the code, including large corporations, and modify it for their own interest, and sell it without releasing the source code. Basically, it'd defeat the point of the difference between "free", and "Free".
Software shouldn't be *patented* because you're patenting an algorithm. And computer code is a completely logical process. It'd be very similar to patenting a mathematical formula. They're both *discovered*, not really *created*. It also creates a lot of problems in enforceability, and in large corporations being able to sue anyone they please. It's not only logically wrong, but also effectively wrong. It's similar, in a way, to the DMCA in that it gives bigger corporations the power to control everyone.
Very very few people argue against copyright when it comes to software. Free software people/open source people argue against patents alone.
oh, and trademark has nothing to do with the issue. Don't lump the three under the whole "intellectual property" umbrella. You'll almost always be wrong when you do. They have very little to do with each other.
If you create something really novel, even if it is in software, why *shouldn't* you be able to get a patent on it?
12:02 Restate my assumptions:
1. Mathematics is the language of nature.
2. Principals and ideas in mathematics are universal truths; hence they are discovered, not created.
3. Computer science is the straight forward application of discreet mathematics. Thus ideas and algorithms written in computers are not patentable.
[...]the impact of denying access to techniques and logarithms effectively shuts out competition[...]
Ah, yes, the old "don't let them look up logarithms in a table" trick.
Very good post.
Copyright and patents were intended to encourage people to make stuff that otherwise wouldn't be done. When people and organizations are willing to create an entire operating system and a collection of thousands of programs (GNU/Linux and the thousands of associated programs), the basic premise of copyright and patents is nullified.
If people will create without incentive, there is no reason to impose needless costs on both consumers and creators by strangling the public domain with laws like copyright. If Microsoft refuses to develop Windows because it no longer has any copyrights, then Linux is there as a replacement, and it will become 10x what Windows ever was or Linux is today once it becomes unshackled from copyright and patent issues and has the customer base of MS Windows today.
And that is assuming that no grants are given to fund open source development. The Chinese government, among others, has shown that they are willing to fund open source work. A small amount of federal funds would replace a massive amount spent in retail software licenses.
The motivation behind patents is not to reward people who innovate for the sake of patting them on the back, but to provide insentive for them to begin innovating in the first place, with the hopes that society will benefit from their creation after a small time period.
The reasoning behind patents is dubious in general - it presupposes that there would be less innovation were they not to exist (or even to exist in a more limited form). If history has taught us anything, it is that greed always finds a way to mask its ugly head and I'm sure that businesses would find a way to profit from their inventions even were patents not to exist. Being the first to market (and the name recognition that goes along with it) can be a very powerful ally indeed.
Secondly, it is not clear that the current time period for software patent expiration is anywhere near reasonable. In the fast-changing world of computers and information technology, even a year can be a long enough time period for software to become obsolete. How long do software patents last? 10 years? 17 years?
Then look at the patents that companies try to secure - one click ordering via amazon.com? If the patent on one-click ordering were even remotely influential on the companies decision to implement that feature, then I could perhaps see that a software patent may be useful in achieving its dubious purpose. But in this case, it is the ease of ordering - the desire to improve the customer's experience - from which the implementation gains its lure.
The above question strikes me as no more grounded than when a five year old gets into a fight with his sibling and says "stop copying me!". One person's being the first to have a particular idea does not in anyway entail his or her posession of that idea. So with this in mind, the question is: "If you create something really novel, even if it is in software, why *SHOULD* you be able to get a patent on it?"
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.
If you don't want someone to know how you did something, close the source. If someone comes around 2 weeks later and duplicates your work.. well it wasn't really novel was it?
I've come up with many algorithms in the past that I've thought were novel... then found out someone thought of it and gave it a fancy name 50 years ago. I could have got a patent on it if I'd wanted - but I wouldn't have deserved it. I'm just not *that* good.
The purpose of patents is to allow the patent holder a limited monopoly on the invention while telling everyone how it's done.
Think of it as a solution to a problem for which one can, if the solution is truly clever, receive a government granted monopoly on the solution for a period of time.
What we have now is that any solution, no matter how obvious or trivial, is being granted the same monopoly protection as if it were really unique.
It's like giving a class a test in which the first person to solve the problem by some method gets an 'A' and the rest using the same method are given 'F's. The question is whether that problem is sufficiently difficult that the other students would have been able to arrive at the same solution without copying the solution of the first to solve the problem.
If the other students could have only solved the problem by copying that of the first, then the 'F's would be appropriate. But if the problem was such that every student satisfactorally solved the problem on his own, they should all receive 'A's.
"....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.
I'm a creator, but I'm concerned that operating in a legal minefield of vague, overlapping and bogus patents will destroy my ability to make money.
Copyrights are a reasonable match for software, and that's all the protection it needs. Software is too maleable to support well-defined patent claims. Software doesn't need copyrights and patents. Other kinds of products don't get double IP coverage; why should software?
I'd rather take my chances that some someone duplicates the functionality of my products and competes in the marketplace than risk having some jackass submarine patent-holder pop out of the woodwork demanding cash out of my bank account.
So, tell me again why we should introduce this costly, bureaucratic and monopolistic process. Exactly how will it benifit the citizens of the EU? Will it give us new, innovative software? Will it give us more jobs (apart from all the patent lawyers, that is)?
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
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.
Being the first to market (and the name recognition that goes along with it) can be a very powerful ally indeed.
To be fair, this was potentially something that patents were about: If a small company or lone inventor comes up with a stunning new product they potentially don't have the capital to get it to market. To get the capital they need to shop the invention around venture capitalists. Once they've made the idea somewhat public (in the shopping around phase) a large company with lots of resources could easily duplicate, produce, and market said invention before the inventor can manage to raise the capital and get production underway. In principal the patent would help alleviate this because the invention could be openly published, but there would still be a window of time for the inventor to raise funds and get his product to market before anyone else was allowed to join in.
Of course in this day and age of NDAs for everything, and the rate at which new products (particularly software) can be brought to market, this sort of concept just doesn't carry as much weight as it use to.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
... 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.
I guess this is one major difference that sets software apart from everything else: R&D cost. As far as I know, R&D for chemicals and proteins (i.e. medicine) is expensive, even after taking the salaries of the researchers/inventors out of the consideration, due to the infrastructure, equipment, and raw material necessary even just to build the prototype. So, for someone (and nowadays, most likely a company) to even get started on a new invention/innovation, he has to have some sort of guarantee that if he succeeds, he will be able to recover his costs and even proft, perhaps---thus, a simple solution is legalized monopoly (and the price-markup that necessarily follows).
On the other hand, software patent? What R&D cost exactly goes into it? Sure, programmers might get paid a lot (or at least there was a time when that was the case...), but if a lone-coder is making a program, other than the so-called "opportunity cost" what other cost is there? Hardware purchase cost? Perhaps---but that's negligible, compared to other expenses (i.e. "cost of living") throughout a year. Multiple hardware purchases (for testing, etc.)? But that would only be limited to programs that deal with the hardware directly, and those don't constitute a majority.
So, with software, the developer doesn't have to worry about recovering the costs because there isn't that much to begin with (now, profit motive is something else, but why should we make a law that make a few people wealthy beyond reason?)---so, there isn't that much incentive software patent gives to innovate. Rather, by creating an artificial barrier-to-entry in the market, it stifles innovation (and yes, the same argument may be used for even traditional patents, but in those cases, it can be argued that the incentive outweighs this).
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
Patents which are too ambiguous and too general, those having no real use to an overall industry or those too similar to existing patents or existing work, should not be condoned. Companies should not even bother---it makes them seem disrespectful to the industry.
In perfect world this wouldn't happen and therefore software patents should be possible. But in the real world, where companies try to patent anything that they can, patent offices are not able to investigate wich patents are too general to be allowed. This is why you get patens for one-click, double-click, scrollbar...
Other industries have existed long before patenting and on those industries most of the common tools and technigues have been availeble for everybody to innovate. When it has gotten more complex, then came the patents. But with more complex structures you need more R&D or something really innovative to prevent anybody else of doing something basic stuff.
software industry is just too young and evolving to be limited with patents.
Not being allowed to exactly duplicate someone else's work will encourage people to try alternate solutions, or experiment with variables.
Or just forget their ideas, because they have not enough resources to find out what parts of their innovation has been already been patented. Why risking everything, when you can join the big company and work there as they have allways done.
Eventually someone's bound to slip up and say "YES".
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
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?
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.