Linux Kernel Maintainer Joins Patent Celebrations

wikinerd writes "Linux kernel maintainer Alan Cox was among those celebrating the EU decision to rethink the introduction of software patents in Europe, while Debian developer Wookey says that 'This is a very encouraging sign.' However, Alan Cox adds that 'the battle isn't over.' The EU software patent directive was criticised as anti-opensource and anti-smallbusiness, while the US patent office has granted various controversial patents like the one-click shopping."

Comments

Woo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Pop the cork

Re:Woo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

First post, 1 minute after the story, 3 minutes before the next post AND IT IS HIT REDUNTANT.

Never truer than now

[Saven Marek]

They say "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and it looks like that is how europe is having to work to defeat patents.

You know well they will try again to introduce patents again and again but keep being vigilant and we will keep winning. thank you poland!!

The best mac support on the web

Re:Never truer than now

[Nicholas Evans]

Darn tootin'. The Thank You Poland banner will proudly be displayed on my website until the end of time.

Or until I forget to pay the hosting bill. Whichever comes first...

Regards to Poland.

Don't celebrate yet, it ain't over

[Anonymous Coward]

Clickable link Unfortunately, the restart isn't a reality yet...

Re:Don't celebrate yet, it ain't over

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that such a two finger salute will definitely not make the EU councils directive popular in the EU parliament.

If the council pushes on, ignoring the restart demand of the parliament, the directive will be a dead duck in the second reading even for those MEPs currently undecided - any other decision would be a declaration of its own powerless and rendering the parliament a toothless tiger.

The risk (for the council/commision) is the parliament will most likely reject the directive completely. A new directive must then take its place and this may take some time to implement, much longer than a restart.

Wow, what a bunch of fags!

[Anonymous Coward]

Alan Cox? Wookey? Two slang terms for penis. I knew the Open Source community was a bunch of fags, but Jesus. At least try to make it not so fucking obvious.

Re:Wow, what a bunch of fags!

[Anonymous Coward]

That hurts me personally. I am proud of my name John Dick Johnson

Hah

[mao che minh]

When politicians put things on hold to "rethink", it usally means "let's pretend we care about what the common man thinks while waiting for the corporate lobbyists to come up with more cash". I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:Hah

[Kjella]

Well, either that or:

"let's pretend we actually want to pass a decision one way or another, while we pretend that the beurocracy is this complex, at least until we're out of office so the next guys can get the blame (since at least one side will blame us)."

People have a much much longer memory for *bad* decisions, and often specifically vote against such people. The best politicians have done enough good to be voted onto the list by the party, and not enough controversial stuff to be voted out by the public.

Kjella

Re:Hah

[tesmako]

So, you're suggesting a bloody revolution then? I get somewhat annoyed with the political nihilism that people love to express around here, it is in no way interesting or constructive. While I don't want to be a don't-complain-if-you-don't-have-a-solution-guy, this kind of complaint suggests that the whole system as we know it is hopeless. Without any idea what a system that would work would be like (or at least a vote for anarchy) the complaint is pointless.

Compare; "I think all modes of transportation that exists suck".

Re:Hah

[Anonymous Coward]

It's important to understand the situation. The parliament decided to add amendments to the first text, and those amendments were dropped later by the european council. What has been voted was to restart the procedure, so that they can re-add the amendments.

It's also important to note that the persone now in charge of the project is now as close an "anti software patents" man as possible while still being a politician.

Re:Hah

[dabadab]

You are missing one important detail: the people who were about to make a decision and the people who restarted the process were not the same.
The decision would have been done by the Council of the European Union while the JURI (who restarted the process) is part of the European Parliament (which is pretty much against SW patents).

Re:Hah

[sacrilicious]

While I don't want to be a don't-complain-if-you-don't-have-a-solution-guy

But you are being that, just so you know. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. :)

this kind of complaint suggests that the whole system as we know it is hopeless.

Many people indeed feel exactly that sentiment.

Without any idea what a system that would work would be like (or at least a vote for anarchy) the complaint is pointless.

Disagreed. A complaint without a proposed solution at least allows other people to (a) debate the legitimacy of the complaint, as well as (b) apply many minds to the sometimes difficult task of coming up with a realistic solution.

And for the record, it's not as though proposed solutions don't exist. Capping individuals' wealth at 10M Euro, capping politicians' wealth at 1M Euro for life, banning political contributions of any kinds, stricter anti-corruption standards and enforcement thereof, changing parliamentary voting procedures and records, the list goes on.

But whether you or anyone believes any of these solutions is feasible has no bearing on the accuracy and validity of the initial complaint itself.

Re:Hah

[RWerp]

There is a solution: increase the powers of European Parliament. The EP will make dumb decisions too (like recent attempt to call Auschwitz a "Polish concentration camp" and refusal to say openly it was run by Germans), but they will have more of a democratic mandate than current decision made by the Council.

Re:Hah

[grozzie2]

People have a much much longer memory for *bad* decisions, and often specifically vote against such people.

I guess you missed the election results in the USA last november. basically proves your theory wrong. the best politicians are the ones that can dupe enough people into voting for them. Good and Bad have nothing to do with it, it's all about how gullible the population is.

The Linux Gay Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

IMPORTANT - THE LINUX GAY CONSPIRACY - PLEASE READ
by propstoalldeadhomiez on 10:31 PM December 3rd, 2001 (Score:0)

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

• Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
• Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com], spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
• Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.cx] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com], which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com]!

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.cx] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org]. To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.cx] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexu

Square -1

[Doc Ruby]

Instead of repeatedly sending SW patents back to the starting point as a way of procedurally rejecting them in an endless game of snakes and ladders (chutes and ladders to Americans :), they should pass a constructive law guaranteeing freedom of innovation and expression in its place. Otherwise that IP monopoly protection racket will return every time, stronger, more wily, and attached to more attractive special cases, until it finally passes (American-style "amendments"). Europe's new leadership in true freedom must explicitly fill the power vacuum, or the revenant IP monopoly laws will.

Re:Square -1

[Anonymous Coward]

they should pass a constructive law guaranteeing freedom of innovation and expression in its place

Where's the profit in that?

Re:Square -1

[Doc Ruby]

Innovation and expression are inherently profitable. EU legislators need to learn how to get their bribes from a growing domestic software industry, rather than just one software monopoly company at a time. Increased competition might not allow a gargantuan dominator like Microsoft to grow in Europe, but it will allow the industry to grow larger, and support larger bribes as a whole. Then the EU legislators taking bribes from competing industries and consumer groups can compete with them, raising the bribe ante along with the increased overall productivity, and therefore profitability, of the EU economy.

Re:Square -1

[Anonymous Coward]

The IP monopoly protection racket over here as worked pretty well for us.

We're bigger, richer, and more powerful than Europe partly because Intellectual Property in all its forms is protected.

It's why Europe is so stagnant, and why America really the land of opportunity. I'm a wealthy man because of the American system.

Re:Square -1

[Doc Ruby]

I'm a wealthy American due to the lack of IP monopolies in my old startup business' market in the 1990s. Nowadays it would be much harder and less likely; many of my more recent startup plans have involved Europe in many ways, all relating to their freer markets. You are afraid to compete on merit, preferring to hide behind a law that protects the best lawyered corporation.

Re:Square -1

[kanweg]

There is an apparent correlation, which doesn't mean it is correct. The US has a way larger army. Why not use that as an explanation. It certainly forces countries to accept their way of maintaining their economy. For any theory you throw, I have another: The US is a country of immigrants, apparently people willing to take a risk to get a better future. Europe is where most of these come from. So, relatively less risk takers here.

IP law is a very blunt knife when it comes to stimulating inventions. Essential for some inventions (e.g. medicines), extremely detrimental for others (software: you don't want a word processor where you can have tables and another where you can have pictures, but not both. You certainly don't want rights to be lost after 20 years. If Apple had had full protection for the GUI of the Macintosh, Microsoft would still make DOS. Competition is in the best interest of the consumer. Of course, I mean FAIR competition.).

Bert
IAAPA (I am a patent attorney)

Re:Square -1

[kanweg]

"they should pass a constructive law guaranteeing freedom of innovation"

I'm a patent attorney, and we'll always try to stretch the law. Don't forget, if you read the European Patent law you'd think that patenting software is impossible. Yet it happens.

Apart from that there is (already) freedom of innovation when it comes to software. The goal of patent law is to distribute knowledge, facilitating others to achieve the result themselves quicker than having to find things out for themselves. The problem with software patents is that they don't help in this respect: It conveys just an idea (I can come up with 5 software "innovation" ideas per evening. Just let me use shitty software like MS Office). The programming is the hard part. The only exception I can think of where software patents contribute above what the skilled programmer (who can think up things to program faster than he can program it) can come up himself, is compression technologies.

BFN

Bert

Re: Square -1

[Alwin Henseler]

The IP monopoly protection racket over here as worked pretty well for us.

Let me guess: Working in the legal business, are you?

We're bigger, richer, and more powerful than Europe partly because Intellectual Property in all its forms is protected.

You must be confusing 'protection' with 'abuse'.

It's why Europe is so stagnant, and why America really the land of opportunity.

Look again. In economic sense, Europe isn't doing so bad compared to the US. Maybe the Euro-Dollar exchange rates over the last months could give you a clue?

Re:Square -1

[johannesg]

I'm a patent attorney, and we'll always try to stretch the law.

Why, exactly? What's in it for you? Are you not content with the law as it is? Do you 'stretch' other laws as well, or just this one?

Sorry for sounding agressive, but this statement didn't go down well with me... Some professions (sportsmen, engineers, ...) should stretch the boundaries of their field, and others (accountants, attorneys, civil servants, ...) should stay well within them.

The goal of patent law is to distribute knowledge, facilitating others to achieve the result themselves quicker than having to find things out for themselves

Just curious: is this actually codified into the law itself? Or is this just a twist people (such as yourselves) give to it to make it more palatable to folks like us?

Also, how does that (admittedly noble) goal contrast with idiocy like the one-click patent? Noone is being helped here; instead, the patent is used to destroy competition.

Considering that the people who speak out against software patents are precisely those that are supposed to benefit from them, how can you (or anyone) defend the concept at all?

The only exception I can think of where software patents contribute above what the skilled programmer (who can think up things to program faster than he can program it) can come up himself, is compression technologies.

There are a thousand things that could be mentioned here which take significant investment on the part of the programmer, and that could be helped by patents. If the patent office limited itself to patenting those "hard" parts I suspect very few people would complain.

However, that is not what happens. The patent office allows patents on all the easy, obvious bits (even after the technique was seen in the wild a decade or more before), thereby making it impossible for us to continue to use those techniques even though we have been using them for a long time already. And then they have the gall to say that someone else (i.e. the _victim_) should sort it out, by taking it to court!

Re:Square -1

[Doc Ruby]

I'm not so sure that patent law, at least the part that grants monopolies on inventions, is essential to medicines (pharmacological inventions). Most patented medicines, especially the most (either theraputically or profitably) successful ones, were derived directly from a traditional medicine. Asprin from the willow is the best known, but in fact most effective medicines were directly derived by researching active ingredients in aboriginally bred biology. The patents protected big corporations with global marketing from the risk of competition, but it thereby excluded competitors from using the same base from which the patenters benefitted. Including aboriginals using their own medicines, now replaced by the more expensive patented versions.

That system, perfected in the 1800s, is the model for most appropriation of public domain IP by monopolies. The latest example got a tiny bit of publicity when America revised Iraq's IP laws last year to criminalize Iraqi farmers using native seeds now available in GM form from American companies. But the entire IP protection racket is running amok. It is unjust, anticompetitive, and serves innovation only in the shortest terms, for the fewest people.

Re:Square -1

[kanweg]

Hi,

1) As a patent attorney I work for the interest of my client, who wants to secure a patent.
Laws are written with words, and can't deal with each and every particular situation. So, if the arguments for a patent application are rejected, you try it another way. If you secure that patent, the border may have shifted a bit. That's a starting ground for the next discussion.
And it is apparently in human nature to like winning arguments.

2) A law comes with an explanation why it is there. An yes, that is the point. Logic sense tells you the same: If it takes me 100k to develop a product and you can copy mine for 10k, you can sell your product way cheaper than I can. I may go broke, while you get a profit.

Patent law is a necessary evil. But its basics are pretty nice. The general idea is: sharing. Sharing knowledge, and you can't keep the monopoly on the knowledge for ever. It will become the property of the society, so the whole society can benefit.

The (perceived) attitude of your post is interesting. And why judge me for the one click-patent. Firstly, I'm against software patents for several reasons (I mentioned that I could think of an exception, where I would say that indeed an invention is present: compression algorithms). One of them is that they rarely do share info, yet a monopoly is granted. The problem with software is implementing the idea (and getting all the bugs out). So, for that reason software patents should not be granted. Indeed I've written a paper to support open source advocates here in the Netherlands, and attended a meeting on this subject with a "sub" minister of economic affairs being present, in an effort to convince her that patenting software is not a good idea (I think it is detrimental to the economy and my business, because they will slow down progress in fields other than software). There are other factors here too: If some software is available for one platform only (and patents can ensure that), that is something that really can kill platforms. I'd rather have competition. Mac OS X wouldn't be as good as it is (or even exist at all) if Apple had had a patent on the GUI in 1984. And Windows wouldn't be as good, if it hadn't been for Apple.

I'm also critical of other IP laws. If politics decides to extend copyrights, let the copyright holder pay for it with an anual fee. At least here in the Netherlands, the annual maintenance fee for patents increases for each year you keep the patent in force longer. So, that forces the patentee to consider every year whether it is worthwhile to. So, this helps to prevent that monopolies exist longer than justifiable.

So, just the fact that I'm a patent attorney doesn't mean I'm putting my self interest (my company could earn money with writing software patents) first. Thank you.

If it is a significant investment, the programmer has at least his headstart. If it was hard for him, it is hard for another programmer as well. And it is not easy to reverse engineer software (otherwise the Word format compatiblity problems wouldn't exist).

"The patent office". I assume you mean the USPTO. The European Patent Office not only has fairly objective standards but applies them pretty well. It is also receptive to logical arguments. If I get a patent application rejected, I usually can live with the arguments they base their decision on. Also, the EPO considers documents from anywhere in the world. As to the USPTO, the state of the art seems to be US patents mostly.

Bert

Re:Square -1

[RWerp]

I assume this is not satirical. Since everybody in your opinion are taking bribes, tell me how much do you take? Or are you an exception in this world of corruption?

Re:Square -1

[Doc Ruby]

I am not a politician. I don't distinguish between "campaign contributions" and illegal bribes. I am also not entirely uncorrupt - that makes me more expert in identifying corruption, not less.

Re:Square -1

[Ed Avis]

My goodness, a patent lawyer who isn't in favour of extending patentability to software. Until now, I had assumed that patent lawyers all pretended that the purpose of the law was to grant favours ('legal certainty') to patent holders, and pretended not to see the difference between computer programs and physical objects.

(I think it is unfortunate that the reputation of the patent system as a whole is being tarnished by the abuses in extending it to software. There are abuses in other fields too, but not to nearly the same extent.)

How many of your colleagues share your views? As far as I can tell the associations of patent lawyers in various countries are in favour of extending patentability to software. Could they be persuaded otherwise by their members?

Re:Square -1

[johannesg]

Thanks for the info. Sorry if I came over a bit strong; your statement about law-stretching ticked me off but I didn't mean to attack you personally.

I chose the one-click patent because it is an easy example, but I know of a great many others that are just as silly; some examples are here. I have also been asking for "good" software patents on slashdot for a while now, and so far have heard of one that might be good (some people disagree strongly): the RSA patent. Some compression-related patents might also apply in this category (and I suspect the same people would have the same problem with it, being that it is too much a mathematical technique). Actually this might make a good "ask slashdot": name a 'reasonable' software patent. Although it would probably end in flames anyway...

With "patent office" I do indeed mean the american one. We don't hear as much from the EPO, which could simply be down to the americanocentricity of slashdot in general, or maybe it is because the EPO does a better job, I do not appreciate their "stretching" of patents to now also include software patents though, and since they did that I distrust them.

A law comes with an explanation why it is there. An yes, that is the point. Logic sense tells you the same: If it takes me 100k to develop a product and you can copy mine for 10k, you can sell your product way cheaper than I can. I may go broke, while you get a profit.

Actually that is not quite the same thing (sharing knowledge is not the same as protecting investment). So which is it? Do we hand out patents to share knowledge (with limited protection being the reward for doing so?) Or do we reward investment as a principle, with sharing of knowledge as an unintended side effect?

This is a serious question. The way things are going, many people now believe there is some God-given right for some people to own abstract ideas without having to share at all. Consider, for example, ringtones: artists now consider themselves owner of not only their own songs (which is fair enough), but also fairly significant variations on those songs, such as monophonic renditions of just a handful of measures. If we allow this to continue the road is open to argue for unlimited copyright, patentability, etc.

Speaking of copyrights: to my shame I must admit I know the purpose of american copyright (to promote the progress of science and useful art), but not of european copyright. Is it actually the same? Or is there some other notion behind european copyright (which wouldn't surprise me at all, considering the historic reasons for copyrights...)?

There are other factors here too: If some software is available for one platform only (and patents can ensure that), that is something that really can kill platforms.

That is my biggest fear regarding software patents: that there would be a very direct effort by Microsoft to destroy the softwarebase that makes Linux worthwhile (i.e. Samba, Apache, Open Office Mozilla, ...). For that reason alone software patents must be considered extremely dangerous.

If politics decides to extend copyrights, let the copyright holder pay for it with an anual fee. At least here in the Netherlands, the annual maintenance fee for patents increases for each year you keep the patent in force longer.

Agreed. Seems I've misjudged you, sorry about that.

As you may have guessed from my username, I'm in the Netherlands as well. I didn't know about the increasing fee though. I assume the patent runs out (fee or no fee) after 20 years anyway? And earlier, if the patent holder chooses to stop payment?

Re:Square -1

[Anonymous Coward]

YABSS (You are blood sucking scum)

Re: Square -1

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't doing so bad, in that put together the total GDP of the EU is greater than that of the US. Europe has larger barriers than the US, such as language, customs, differeing laws.

I would also add that the op needs to define bigger. Larger landmass? You have a lower population than Europe.

Re:Square -1

[kanweg]

A patent is granted by the government in return for sharing your knowledge with society. To avoid a plethora of silly patents, there are strickt requirements. An invention must be New and involve an Inventive step. And you have to apply for it and pay the cost involved. The reward for sharing your knowledge isn't money (one could quible years over what an invention is worth), but a monopoly: The patent. So, a good patent law entices people to share, but does dolly out patents like madness, otherwise it would be hampering the development of society again. So, there is a balance. Now, we have only one patent law for all inventions. For medicines, 20 years (the maximum duration of the monopoly, provided you pay the annual fees) may be a bit short, especially because it is very time-consuming and expensive to test drugs before you can start earning money. So, there is little time to earn your money back. For software it is the opposite. Many software ideas can be incorporated in an existing product by a programmer in a day or in a couple of weeks. Yet such ideas would be protected by 20 years as well. And while a medicine is on the market and be bought, if an invention is available for platform X only, it is of no use to me.

If software patents were allowed on open source software only, then things would be more interesting. With the consent of the patentee, I could implement it for my platform and pay a licensing fee.

Now I do think protection of Intellectual Property is a good thing, but we're all too often confronted by manufacturers who treat their product which you bought as theirs. It is easy to download an illegal copy of a song, but you may have trouble to get the legal CD on your iPod. You may buy a legal DVD, but if it was from the wrong region, you may end up with expenses to get your computer fixed, as you're allowed to change regions only a limited number of times. You buy a phone, but the manufacturer still wants control over it, and doesn't allow you to do what you want with it. You buy an Aibo, and get into problems with Sony if you want to hack its software.
And of course, you buy software, but only the data carrier is yours. That would be fine by me, as long as the manufacturers fixes the bugs (Are you listening Bill?). The problem is, there is no competing word processor software that gives me sufficient compatibility. Legal protection for software? Copyright protection for and patents on software? Maybe, only if its source is available and reasonable licensing is possible and we overcome a couple of other obstacles (finding out what does already exist is a nightmare for software).

Bert

Re:Square -1

[Matje]

2) A law comes with an explanation why it is there. An yes, that is the point. Logic sense tells you the same: If it takes me 100k to develop a product and you can copy mine for 10k, you can sell your product way cheaper than I can. I may go broke, while you get a profit.

Patent law is a necessary evil. But its basics are pretty nice. The general idea is: sharing. Sharing knowledge, and you can't keep the monopoly on the knowledge for ever. It will become the property of the society, so the whole society can benefit.

The first paragraph does not imply that patents are necessary. You might as well argue that, without patents, those innovations that are presently too expensive to develop are simply weeded out (if your 100K product takes 10K to copy, maybe it isn't the right time to market that product yet).

And where's the punch?

[Donny Smith]

And what exactly is newsworthy in this article?

Don't the events described take place almost every day?

Re:And where's the punch?

[Tony Hoyle]

Alan Cox celebrating?

I guess it *could* happen every day.. not sure he'd get much coding done though.

Re:And where's the punch?

[Anonymous Coward]

The punch is the funny /. headline that suggests Cox is celebrating the patents instead of the delay of said patents...

At least I went "Whoa what is this", but then the summary spoiled it for me... and indeed, nothing new in the article or the discussion. Well maybe if they can add the details of Cox celebrating.

Thanks to the Poles

[SteveAstro]

The ONLY folks brave enough to get this shouted down were the Poles. They fought the Germans, they fought the Russians, they fought the communists and now they have beaten off the bureaucrats. A victory for the little guys.

Well done.

Steve

Re:Thanks to the Poles

[dadioflex]

" They fought the Germans, they fought the Russians, they fought the communists and now they have beaten off the bureaucrats." They just can't get along with anybody.

Re:Thanks to the Poles

[Anonymous Coward]

You call a nation with over 1000 years of history, that was at its time the largest european military power "little guys"?

Sheeesh.

Re:Thanks to the Poles

[Anonymous Coward]

> They just can't get along with anybody.

I think we should invade them and bring them peace and democracy ...

WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck? Dude, you've serious problems. That's the most fucked up thing I've ever read on Slashdot.

Re:WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to admire the amount of work put into a troll like that one. Even if it is sick, someone actually took the time to make it all up, and for what? Posting it to Slashdot, getting modded down, and being read by maybe seven people, tops.

Now, if only these powers could be used for good instead of evil.

Huge Public Concern?

[higginsm2000]

The European Parliament is taking account of the huge public concern about this directive

I read this site daily and was not aware of this directive. To classify as a huge publice concerns would seem to be overstating somewhat.

Re:Huge Public Concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be kidding. Or, you just looked at the pictures... :-)

Re:Huge Public Concern?

[albalbo]

I would suggest you get out from under your rock then, assuming you're European. If you're not, it doesn't matter whether you were aware or not, since you're not "the public".

It certainly has generated public concern. Look at the number of FFII protest signatories, or "Thank Poland" signatories, or the people who protested outside the Parliament. Or any the protectinnovation.org testimony. Or any other of the public feedback on the directive.

If you read slashdot daily, you must be missing a lot of stories.

Re:Huge Public Concern?

[higginsm2000]

And I would suggest that you get off your high horse.

There is no "huge public" concern here. I googled (google news) for "Thank Poland" and got precisely two stories. And one of them was slashdot. How are you suggesting that the "public" found out about this? Slshdot or ZDNET?

What may be a huge concern to you is not a concern at all to the general public. You and I are a small (not huge) part of the public. Heck, it seems that only a few people on slashdot are actually interested in it, given the low number of posts.

Re: Huge Public Concern?

[Alwin Henseler]

To classify as a huge publice concerns would seem to be overstating somewhat.

OVERstating? See this anti software patents online petition. The counter currently stands at 381,846 people/organisations who thought it was important enough to sign their name in protest. There are some more (smaller) online petitions like this. I haven't yet seen ANY online petitions seeking support for software patents.

Then when Poland helped shoot down the proposed directive, a special "Thank you, Poland!" site was started. Last thing I heard, another 25,000 people bothered to put their names on that list.

So 'a huge public concern' is hardly an overstatement.

Re: Huge Public Concern?

[higginsm2000]

Then to say that there was huge support in the online community would have been more appropriate, don't you think?

Re: Huge Public Concern?

[Alwin Henseler]

Then to say that there was huge support in the online community would have been more appropriate, don't you think?

With the internet as common as it is today, 'online community' and 'the public' aren't so different, you know. BTW: When was the last time you saw an online petition on ANY subject gather 380,000+ votes?

Re: Huge Public Concern?

[higginsm2000]

I don't disagree, it is very impressive number of signatures.

However, the general public is still the general public. The key word there is general, distinct from any one specific group. My grandmother doesn't know about this issue or petition petition, nor do my parents. Even if they did, they probably wouldn't care (even if they could understand it). I speculate that if you talked to a random person on the street, the chances are that they wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about.

And that is my point. My intent was in no way intended to detract from the achievement, just to point on that claiming that the general public supported this (or are even aware of it), is an overstatement.

As a side point about online petitions, how many of those signatories do you think just followed a link on a chain email forwarded on by one of their contacts? More than a few I would guess. There is no investment required in clicking a checkbox. For that reason, I would question whether the 380,000+ signatories are really supporters. Petitions in general are suspect in my opinion.

Re:Huge Public Concern?

[timmyf2371]

No, it hasn't generated huge public concern.

I've seen nothing about this on the BBC News, ITV News, or in any of our daily newspapers. In fact, the only reason I know about the whole software patent issues is because I read Slashdot. I imagine the situation is similar for a lot of my fellow Europeans.

Re:Huge Public Concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there was a documentary on radio 4 as has been mentioned.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137086&cid =11454994
Also in the current issue of Private Eye
And surely it was mentioned on your lug mailing list?
If it was in the Fortean Times then it would cover all my sources of information.
I don't see how it could get wider coverage ;).

Re:Huge Public Concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen nothing about this on the BBC News

Not sure whether it's been on broadcast TV or not, I'd be surprised if they've missed it completely. It's certainly covered on their web site.

or in any of our daily newspapers

Possibly not in the Star or the Sun. The Times, The Financial Times and the Guardian have certainly all covered it. Oh, and the Economist of course.

In fact, the only reason I know about the whole software patent issues is because I read Slashdot.

I'd seriously recommend following the BBC site for news if you don't already.

Sad News ... Ossie Davis, dead at 87

[Anonymous Coward]

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Movie actor Ossie Davis was found dead in his hotel room this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to unpopular movies. Truly an American nigger.

Alan Cox is a moron

[mkavanagh2]

Does anyone else remember that he supported voting for the UKIP purely on the basis that getting the UK out of europe would get us away from European software patents? What an asshat.

Re:Alan Cox is a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Alan Cox is most certainly not a moron. The UKIP is the one of two UK parties to be totally against the imposition of Software Patents. The other is the Green Party. The rest suck up to big business for most if not all of their funding. Even Labor is doing this these days now that the funds from the trade unions are drying up somewhat to past times. Patents will only benefit those who can afford to fight for the imposition of them.
As a software developer by profession, I may have to carry insurance in the future to guard againt me accidentally violating some patent that MobsterSoft (or similar) has been granted. A work to all developers, NEVER delete any source code. It might give you a getout due to prior art in a patent case.
Is this anyway to properly run an industry? No Way Jose.

Re:Alan Cox is a moron

[technolalia]

Nope. He advocated a vote for either UKIP or the Green Party as the only two UK parties that opposed EUsoftware patents.

See his open letter, where he says:
"Please, if you were not going to vote, either vote for the UKIP or Green-EFA alliance members."

That said, I personally feel that UKIP showed no real knowledge of the patent debate, opposing it only for being 'European', and thus leaving the door open to a UK patent legislation. The greens had a much better grasp of matters.

I do share the posters concern about voting UKIP - they're a ridiculous bunch of racist scum.

John

Re:Alan Cox is a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I would have said the Greens were more ridiculous than UKIP (the last time I checked their site I didn't come across anything racist, perhaps you're thinking of Kilroy Silk's new party).

Cox not exactly celebrating

[KontinMonet]

FTA: "Unfortunately, however, it seems the Commission will not treat this as a chance to drop the entire issue but will continue pursuing software patents for the sole benefit of a tiny number of large, mostly American, companies," said Cox.

Don't shout victory now

[Kartoch]

Europe's ministers are planning to push ahead with controversial patent legislation despite a vote on Wednesday by MEPs to restart the process. The decision will set the two decision-making bodies of the EU at loggerheads.

The original news

Somebody celebrating is news?

[xXunderdogXx]

Next up on Slashdot: Linus has people over for tea.

Re:Somebody celebrating is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the reason for the celebration is the news. Bloody important news for us Europeans indeed.

http://www.ffii.org/

Am I the only one...

[This Is Ridiculous]

...envisioning happy software Ewoks partying to primitive-sounding music?

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

The UKPTO carries on regardless

[KontinMonet]

"Technical effect", the weasel wording used to justify pure software patents (what software does not produce a 'technical effect').

The Patent Office says: "Participants [to a series of workshops] will be shown a variety of definitions for 'technical contribution' and invited to work in groups to test these against a range of innovations. They will also be welcome to propose definitions of their own."

What about publishing these definitions so that the general public can see them? Not in jolly old Blighty...

Re:The UKPTO carries on regardless

[Anonymous Coward]

The wording "technical contribution" is not weasel wording. It is taken from a number of leading court cases, notably Fujitsu Limited's Application [1997] RPC 608. Which along with every other hearing and court decision is widely available online and in old fashion print form.

If you signed up to the workshop you might learn something. Not all software produces a technical contribution "just cos its on a computer".

Re:The UKPTO carries on regardless

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this covered by the new freedom of information act?

Re:The UKPTO carries on regardless

[flossie]

What about publishing these definitions so that the general public can see them? Not in jolly old Blighty...

I would be the last to defend the UK Patent Office's handling of this directive. In this case, however, you are being too harsh. The workshops are open to the public - if you want to see the suggestions, register.

Re:The UKPTO carries on regardless

[KontinMonet]

It is weasel wording because there is no proper definition. Why do you think workshops are being held to define the term? Patent lawyers will easily get round most definition and, unless there is a lengthy and strictly maintained definition, pure software patents will become a fact of life in Europe.

Re:The UKPTO carries on regardless

[KontinMonet]

You register to go to a workshop. And not everybody can get to these workshops as they are being deliberately limited. If you wanted really to be open about it, the UKPTO could publish its definitions on the Web (whichthe imply they have). At least the public would then be informed.

Re:The UKPTO carries on regardless

[Anonymous Coward]

They are published on the web, just go and find the Manual of Patent Practice and read up on Section 1(2)(c):

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/reference/mpp/ss 1- 6.pdf

Re:The UKPTO carries on regardless

[KontinMonet]

Sigh... Ooooh, how obvious was that?

Anyway, not patentable: [Section 1.2.(c)] a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer; with the caveat: "but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such" and "In the main, the exclusions are directed to mental, intellectual, aesthetic or abstract matters, though 'a program for a computer' does not entirely fit into these characterisations."

I think that sort of means "except as defined below". So, I read most of that document. Nowhere, let me repeat that, nowhere are the phrases 'technical contribution' or 'technical effect' or any (supposedly) equivalent phrases actually defined in the document.

There are vague references to German cases, EPO and UK court decisions. On that note, how is the general developer community supposed to determine what is meant by 'technical effect' by reading these cases (in German if you're Italian or whatever)? Does the UKPTO deliberately want to obfuscate any definition for the general public? If not, publish the definitions.

On the other hand, there are some lengthy paragraphs in very tortured English of patents that were rejected because they had no 'technical effect'. One sentence gives the idea: "Decisive is what technical contribution the invention as defined in the claim when considered as a whole makes to the known art." Of course, still no definition of 'technical contribution'.

Later sentences give a hint perhaps: "...program causes the computer to operate in a technically different way..." Aaargh! More rubbish! "...operate in a technically different way..." What does that mean? How does a computer specifically built to operate in a technically specific way alter that process? That vague definition simply raises a ton more questions. It's not a useful definition.

Later on, we get the EPO (which, politically, tries its best to get pure s/w patents and has had its wrists slapped as a result) saying that: "...allowing an operator to ... feed information into a computer ... and that this is a technical matter." Good grief. They'll define watching TV as a technical matter next.

So, 1/10 for your post. No recognisably useful definitions and consequently the UKPTO stating they have such is just a load of hot air designed to allow US mega corps to pay your wages. To the detriment of SMEs and individuals, of course...

USPTO punting on software patents (approving most)

[obiwan2u]

What I've heard from a lawyer friend here in DC is that the patent office is basically punting on software patents (ie. approving most of them) and letting the courts sort things out afterwards.

This might be one of the reasons that the volume of patent related lawsuits is going through the roof. See the graph patent lawsuits per year (from the article A radical cure for the ailing U.S. patent system)

Ben in DC

Change of strategy....

[johannesg]

Let the Wookey win.

You'll have to read the article to figure out what that means ;-)

Alan Cox ?

[Anonymous Coward]

or Anal Cocks

Re:Alan Cox ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read over the five words I wrote and I didn't say either of those.

m=od Down

[Anonymous Coward]

no maxtter how already dead. It is POSTS. THEREFORE during play, this common knowledge and piss cocktail.

HYUO FAIL IT.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you c4n work are about 7000/5 Both believed that 200 running NT contaminateD while The facts and Surprise to the

Computer Implemented Inventions?

[Urd]

Why doesn't anyone point out here that any program on a computer essentially comes down to manipulating numbers, a.k.a. math?

You do not patent mathematical proofs no matter how complex which are in essence the same as computer programs. (I.e. they represent the mathematical means to perform said action.) So why do people have the idea software can be patented when ultimately software is just a wrapper for math?

Like math, software evolves based on prior experience and builds on previous "proof" or "algorithms". This implies that almost any software idea someone has, someone else will think of also.

Anyway, I'm European this concerns me and I think software is more like "math" then it is like "discovering the wheel". I don't want software patents anymore then I want patents on math.

Thank you very much!

Phew

[MasTRE]

Maybe now they can focus on finally releasing 2.6.11 ;)

Whaddya mean he isn't celebrating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whaddya mean he isn't celebrating? He max'd out his Visa Check Card last night (someone file a bug report, that shoulda been a "min") on hookers and spent all his cash on a cocaine bender. Today, he is headed to the tattoo parlor to have "Linus" tattooed on his ass.

What exactly is a software patent?

[NotoriousQ]

Can someone clearly explain this.

Basically I do not understand which side is to be taken. If software patent is something like 1-click shopping, or the look and feel of the interface, or some crappy new way of solving the same problem, then I am against it.

But if it something like a completely radical new way of designing OS's, or things like RSA, then I will actually side with software patents being a good thing.

Also I am worried about legally distinguishing the two cases above. Can it even be done?

Thanks.

Re:What exactly is a software patent?

[wikinerd]

The spirit of the patent law is to allow the inventors of useful devices to earn some money and continue living, so that they can invent more things, and also to encourage them publish the details of their inventions. So, if an inventor has invested 20 years of his life and thousands of dollars to build an anti-gravity spacecraft, then he can patent it. To do that, he must publish all details about the device and its blueprint, but in return he gets protection from the court/law system in case someone builds his spacecraft without his approval (which usually costs money).

However, in practice, patents, and especially software patents and business methods patents are used to achieve a mini-monopoly over an idea or simple device. In this way patents hurt competition and lead to higher prices in the market. In my opinion, restrictive patents are not very compatible with the free market ideas.

The law in most countries usually says that you can patent a device or implementation, but not the idea of the device, only if its construction is not evident to an expert in the field. For example if you can create a new aeroplane and its construction cannot be immediatelly described by expert engineers, then you have created something new so you can request a patent.

When you request a patent, you submit some papers and blueprints to a patent office. The investigators will check whether the patent is really new and may accept or reject it.

The problem is, how can we be sure that the investigators really do their job? How can we know that megacorps don't have the power to influence their decisions? Unfortunately, we can't.

Re:What exactly is a software patent?

[Coeurderoy]

The idea behind patents is to give a time limited monopoly to the bright inventor in exchange for revealing how his/her invention works.

In practice in Software (and in Health Care BTW) you cannot make "one invention", but you have to combine whatever invention you made with hundred or thousends of inventions other people have done in the past 20 years (so that is a large chunk of IT history).

So whatever you expect to gain from licencing your inventions has to be offset by what you have to pay to others.

And since finding and assesing the value of all the "invention" a software is using is a time consuming and non technicaly creative work the value will NOT be captured by Computer Scientists but by IP lawyers and Marketing people.

This obviously give a temporary adventage to huge companies (that can afford to capture a large portfolio of patents and pay all the leaches needed to suck money out of the system).

But it actually makes it harder for creators to create and over the time kills the incentive to invent.

If you find a radical new way to make an OS you will still need to get all those Apps to make it usefull (why do you think GNU/Linux happened :-)) And if you have to pay an huge amount of licencing fees you will probably just drop the subject.

So There Is No Excuse For Complex Systems Patents Ever.

And NO IT CANNOT BE FIXED.

Re:What exactly is a software patent?

[leomekenkamp]

The spirit of the patent law is to allow the inventors of useful devices to earn some money and continue living, so that they can invent more things, and also to encourage them publish the details of their inventions.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Patents were introduced to keep inventions from oblivion; if someone would invent something and keep the secret of the invention to himself, it would die with the inventor. In order to preserve inventions for society, the inventor could get a (temporary) legal (royal, whatever) monopoly on using his invention (he would have the same anyway if he just kept his finding private); in exchange he had to fully document his finding.

It is not about letting the inventor make money; that is only a means to reach the real goal: not having inventions forgotten.

Definitely no time for complacency!

[Mjlner]

This time we only won one defensive battle. However, the process hasn't ended, it is restarting. This gives the pro patent-lobby a good chance to regroup and rethink their strategies. Anybody opposing software patents in the EU should do the same.

All those letters to MEP's are still waiting to be sent, BUT ... this time we could try harder to get the public aware of the threats that software patents bring. Letters ought to be sent to all major newspapers so that the readers know that there is such an issue and that it is a serious issue. Also, people should be made aware that this isn't a free software issue, but an issue that threatens the software industry of the EU.

When writing these letters, remember to point out that you aren't anti business, but rather that software patents are anti business. The greatest support for software patents is from people who think they are pro business.

You FAIL iT

[Anonymous Coward]

found out aboute the

Re: Patent legibility and benefit...

[martinm_76]

I haven't looked at too many software patents (and none that weren't), but from those I did look at, there is something that seems at odds with the supposed benefit of the patent system:

They do not tell you how to reproduce the 'invention'.

They weave and wave in strange tones about this and that, but are not concrete about much of anything. How is that helpful to anyone?

Wasn't the idea that patents would allow the public to use the 'idea' after the monopoly ran out by referring to the patent and reimplementing it as you saw fit? Or am I ill informed (certainly a possibility)....

This is not in any way an attack on you, it's just something I have wondered about repeatedly...

I sure hope patents in other areas are more 'recipe' like, or are you supposed to have an expert of the field and a very good patent lawyer present to decipher anything?

PS: Maybe that's not quite true. Looked up a couple of patents on swpat.ffii.org and the description part seem reasonably fleshed out and somewhat understandable - fairly free of lawyer speak. So that leaves the 'invention height' of most of these patents which are often quite low indeed. Hmm....

Current legal threats and potential patent threats

[Anonymous Coward]

Jason Scultz, staff attorney for the EFF, will be giving a seminar next week titled "Current legal threats and potential patent threats to Linux" at the Southern California Linux Expo. He will discuss patent and copyright attacks against open source projects, as well as the DMCA.

For a free exhibit hall pass use the promo code "free" when registering or use the code "NEWSP" for a discount on a full access pass.

"Thank you, Poland!"

[GrassyNoel]

There ought to be a Eurovision Software Contest.

The Age of Open Patents

[newpath4comVersion2]

I released my internal non-combustion engine onto the Internet in August of 2003. Helsinki knows about it. Detroit fears it. My engine is self-cooling. Doesn't need a cooling system, radiator, hoses, engine jacket... Less weight therefore means it doesn't have to generate an equal power as a gasoline engine. It doesn't exhaust anything, so it does not use a heat manifold, catalytic converter, tailpipe or muffler, all of which are also adding weight to a vehicle. Links are on several pages: http://www.newpath4.com/NNINDEX/nnindex.htm is a good place to start. The "Icy Hot" pages take you through explanations of the engine. IcyHot 4 & 7 are very short pages, so don't think they're all as long as the first ones. http://www.newpath4.com/icyhot4.htm , http://www.newpath4.com/icyhot7.htm. Once you reduce half the weight off a car or truck, the new engine only needs produce a small power to pull the actual load down the highway. There is NO combustion, just the explosion that comes from mixing steam vapor (300 degrees) with liquid air/nitrogen (Minus 300). The steam collapses in front of the expanding liquid gas, creates a "rolling vacuum" in front of the air/nitrogen gas that draws the explosion, slamming into the piston. I put this engine online for free but I still retain my rights as inventor as my information is under U.S. Copyright that serves as legal documentation (Proof of Invention). Anyone who puts a patent on my engine can easily be charged with fraud if it doesn't bear my signature. I have other inventions. I know how to make a Galaxy-class transtellar engine but I'm not giving it away. Interesting thing about that engine is that it also achieves flight without propulsion as you know it... overcoming Gravity inside a gravitational field. In Space it should achieve Light Speed. Note for anyone visiting my website. The host is Cap Specific. If the Caps aren't right it defaults to Home Page.

that, or...

[N3wsByt3]

I have always thought a solution (at least a better democratic one) would be to abolish the powers that the counsel of ministers and the EU commision has, and divide that power between the EU parliament and a directly elected EU president.

Ofcourse, since all sovereign countries will need to agree with new EU laws/directives, it seems higly unlikely that the counsel of ministers will ever be totally dismissed. A bit more realistic and feasable though, would be to limit the power of that counsel somewhat, and to transform the EU commision into a real EU government, with an elected president (for periods of 5 years, for instance) at the top (and not an unelected bureaucrat as chairman for 6 months, like it is now).

right

[N3wsByt3]

When you talk about the joe-doe-in-the-street, you are probably right; he probably doesn't know anythingt about it. It was totally new to my less-tech-savvy friends too.

But then again, one could say that in general: seldom a political issue generates a truelly 'huge' public concern, not even when it's about jobs or taxes.

The fact that it generated as much concern for such a topic, is really astounding nevertheless.

And, I must say, if you read slashdot daily, and you still managed to miss the EU-patents issue, I would suggest buying some glasses. ;-)