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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.