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

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

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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...

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

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

Change of strategy....

[johannesg]

Let the Wookey win.

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