Dutch Say No to Software Patent Directive

Rik writes "Thursday night the Dutch parliament has decided that the Dutch government should not vote for the EU Software Patent Directive at the European Council of Ministers next week. The decision of the Dutch parliament strengthens attempts of MEPs of the European Parliament to send the Software Directive back to the drawing board."

Comments

Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Radiate]

Can't we just get rid of the patent system!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't patents, the problem is the patent system. We need to invest more money in the patent system so that we can separate the "stupid" patents from the legitimate ones.

Now software patents, that is a whole 'nother ball game.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Copyright- which has protected programmers för over 50 years !

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[klmth]

Interesting proposition.

The patent system was originally instated to grant an inventor a temporary and artificial monopoly on a new invention. The first patents are found in the 15th century in the republic of Venice.
Patent abuse is nothing new. Prior to the enactement of the Statute of Monopolies in 1623, the crown would issue letters patent providing any person with a "monopoly" to produce particular goods or provide particular services. This was abused by the crown, leading to the legislation setting a term limit for the monopolies granted by a patent.

Most people seem to agree that granting an inventor a patent for novel idea or implementation fosters innovation. Let's say I invent a non-obvious and novel idea for building a smaller, lighter and more secure watertight latch for use in large cargo ships. Using this door would save shipbuilders lots of money in materials and labours. If there are no patents to protect me, any other company or individual could reverse engineer my design and sell a knock-off. Since they have little R&D costs to recuperate, they can sell it a cheaper price than me, thus preventing me from recuperating my R&D costs.

The patent system works by granting me a temporary monopoly on my design. I can choose to license it to other manufacturers, so that if they choosem to enter the market, I can still recoup my development costs.

The problem with the patent system today is that the patents are often not in the hands of those that produce and implement the patents in question. Instead, they are concentrated into holding companies that use them to cash in on patent infringments. Often these patents are neither novel nor non-obvious, so many have no idea they are infringing on a patent before they are slapped with a lawsuit.
If this model of business was to be made unprofitable, many of the problem with the patent system would vanish.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[DigitumDei]

Well fine, get rid of patents for software...

But to remove the patent system entirely? Many patents in the world outside of software are held by companies that spent millions developing them. You think a paypal donate link is going to benifit them when once their piece of hardware (or whatever) is out in the world and some 3rd world company reverse engineers it and takes all their profits?

Remove the ability to protect your research and the guy who can sell the product for the least amount of money gets the money. A company spends huge amounts in R&D cannot compete with a company that only steals ideas since the company that steals ideas has far less costs.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[R.Caley]

Actually, patents are a temporary monopoly on a design.

They are rather wider than that. They are monopolies on an idea. It's not just the specific design of the Amazon one-click buying system which was claimed.

Whichis where the ability to rip of other people's work comes from. If I have a patent and you, in ignorance, produce a better implementation than mine of that idea, I can assume control of your work.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to invest more money in the patent system so that we can separate the "stupid" patents from the legitimate ones.

We don't necesseraly have to invest more money. Plain simple rules are cheaper and easier for everyone and make patents more valuable because a lot of todays uncertainty is removed. Business methods should be totally banned and every patent claim that can be implemented on a universal computing machine (software on computers). The rules have to be easy to understand and easy to follow. You will always have a gray zone of uncertainty but you can keep it as small as possible.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[file-exists-p]

Dear Sir,

I am a programmer and a researcher in computer science, thus one of those supposed to benefit from a software patent system. And frankly, both from what I have experienced personnaly and from what I see in the press, I dont feel protected *at all* by software patents.

Software patents are so silly that any dispute related to them can not be based on rational argument and any form of justice that should derive from it. Those disputs are pure lawyer technical fights. They require money and are possible only between big entities (read corporations).

So, Sir, software patents are not an incentive at all. They are a way to lock the market to keep small structures and individuals out. Anybody saying the opposite is a liar or an idiot.

--
Go Debian!

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[LionKimbro]

The problem isn't solely that inventors themselves aren't the ones receiving the patents;

The problem is also that the number of "inventors" in the realm of computer programming is very very big.

On the left hand: How many people are there that can tinker at home, and make special types of macrophages, or whatever it is that biologists do in research time?

On the right hand: How many people are there who can apply XOR to draw cursors on their home computers? I was doing that when I was 12, and I don't consider myself particularly bright.

The definition of "obvious" or "non-obvious" is not clear. I can easily imagine the baffled patent examiner, considering the XOR drawing algorithm. "Wow! This guy knows about bits, and logic gates, and,... other complicated stuff. Hot damn, that can't be obvious. We gotta do something about this... We gotta... Make sure nobody else does this for 20 years!"

20 years!

Even if the programmers are the ones receiving the checks for their "invention," we still have the same problem:

Specifically, the patent system is prohibiting innovation rather than encouraging it.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[LourensV]

That is one thing, but I also think there is something else more specific to software, and it's not a theoretical but a practical difference.

By far most software in use today is custom-made. People create websites, design databases, and implement business rules. Just check the size of the IT consulting business. The stuff that you see on the shelf is just the tip of the iceberg.

So, the incentive for innovation is not money, it's the simple fact that you're working on a project and your customer has requested feature X. So you figure out a way to implement it. Your development costs are paid directly by your customer, and even if you did not have patent protection and everyone else implemented the same feature in the software they're writing for their customers, you'd still get paid.

Hence, innovation would still occur if software patents did not exist. Software is a service, as they say, and if you work is protected by copyright, others must do the same work (implementing feature X) again.

The big problem with software patents as they exist in the USA today, is that it is these features (one-click shopping for example) that are patented. That just doesn't make sense. It essentially gives the patent holder the right to tax anyone who implements that particular feature, in exchange for what? Thinking up new features? I don't think we need incentives for that.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[curious.corn]

Of course... wait 'till some $CORP sues you into the ground for that interoperating piece of software you small company wrote to satisfy a customer's spec on a non $CORP owned integrated platform. But the customer can't afford the licensing and wouldn't care less if the IT equipment you try to sell is just a [clickety] scripting customization of some cumbersome, forced upgrade, platform software. The customer probably wants something that just works, that they can forget running on some blade for as long as they please without having to upgrade because the $CORP decided to drop support for it, that they can tinker and refactor for as long as they please and not necessarily by you.

But they can't buy it, and you can't make and sell it because everything from help files to the idea of stored procedures is patented up and nobody wants to contend that in court against a Megabuck $CORP. So you're role is dumbed down to that of VAR, certified [clickety] wizard guy and the customers see their IT costs SOAR because every 3yrs they have to upgrade even if what they've already got is fine: 1. the "platform software", 2. "the Operating system to support 1, 3. new hardware to have 2 run at a decent speed, 4. the custom app because it's not working anymore.

That's not funny... innovation grinds to a halt and a medieval inter-feud toll system bleeds the industry dry while the Seigneurs and their lawyers (who BTW know jack shit about computers) have a collective roaring laugh.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[uberdave]

Simply reducing the amount of time a patent is valid from 20 years, to about 5 years, and making them non-transferrable (ie. Company A cannot purchase patents from Company B, or acquire them by purchasing Company B) might go a long way to cleaning up the system.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[KontinMonet]

What about those patents that require little if any work (such as 'ISNOT' or 'a method for paying freelance programmers')? Why do you patent fanboys always assume that patents are there to protect hard work?

The patent system might not be under such fire if patents had a proportionality to the amount of creative effort (original, not patent lawyer-ese) required to produce the patent. Developers often have seven reasonable (but not necessarily original) ideas before breakfast which patent offices seem only too willing to grant (provided all the fees are paid and the company is big enough...).

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[delire]

The EPO is a paper-pushing business- practically a private firm. The last thing they need is more money. Sadly there is alot of under-the-table talk between Parliament members and various corporate (largely US) monopolies. The EU would be much safer with a less 'buyable' source of regulatory control, ideally in the form of a panel of publically nominated experts. This would at least protect the ecology of software development in the EU from rash, uneducated and catastrophic decisions. ..of course, who watches the watchman..

Software patents themselves make little or no sense as an IP protection mechanism, especially considering the vast capital required to register and 'protect' a patent. Many good ideas come from small places, however swpatents discourage innovation through fear of the possiblity of legal consequences for small to medium size developers. For this reason the GPL does more to protect the interests of the developer, and the quality of software in general. If you have a good idea and you want to protect it, tell someone.. and if someone else implements 'your idea' in a better way or before you.. then clearly you just weren't interested in it enough ;)

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Phil246]

a company that can afford to pout millions into R&D can afford to market the product they get at the end of the day.

The patent system was designed to allow for those 'Joe Averages' who tinker in their sheds for instance, to come up with an idea and make money from it without having to worry about a large corporation stealing it and then cornering the market , giving poor Joe Average nowhere to go.

with software theres no reason for not using copyright to protect it

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[the_womble]

Patents may work well for mechanical devices.

They do not work for:

• Software: I assume reading this knows that
• Business methods: as with software, inovations has not speeded up after they became patentable, therefore patents do not work
• Pharmaceuticals: only a fractionabout 15%-20% of the extra cost paid by consumers goes back into R & D - i.e. it works but is a very inefficient incentive system.
• Semiconductors: the main motive for R & D is to keep manufacturing capcblities up to advancing stadards - trade secrets would be enough protection. This was confired by a study by Besen and Maskin at MIT. In addition all the big boys cross license to each other anyway so the main effect is to keep new entrants out.

Th patent system works so well that huge government intervention and expenditure is needed to keep R & D spend going. The best examples are again with pharmaceuticals. In the US the FDA gives pharma companies extra incetives like those of orphan drugs, in the UK they get tax breaks. Globally a huge amount of R & D is carried out or funded by univerisites and by non-profit organisations such as the Wellcome Trust.

So why not restrict patents to purely mechancial investions: what they were meant to apply to originally?

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[iwan-nl]

I would bet that, however true your post is, it will not be moderated as insightful nor informative (most people here are GPL zealots).

I'm afraid you lost that bet. Maybe slashdotters are less short-sighted than you think.

GPL is not perfect and it is capable of preventing research, development, and progress in some fields.

True, but I don't think there is any license that is "perfect" from everyone's point of view.

Communism does not *always* work.

No, but neither does corperatism. I think linux is a pretty good example of a situation where it *does* work. If that makes me a "GPL zealot", so be it. I for one, hope that someday we'll live in a socialistic world (a la Startrek) where money is no longer the most important factor in life.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

But to remove the patent system entirely? Many patents in the world outside of software are held by companies that spent millions developing them. You think a paypal donate link is going to benifit them when once their piece of hardware (or whatever) is out in the world and some 3rd world company reverse engineers it and takes all their profits?

The "goodness" of the patent system is based on a simple meme: innovation would not happen without monopolies on the inventions made.

This is patently ridiculous, since most inventions in history were made when this was not the case. In fact, if you think logically about it, you would realise that in the absence of patents, the only thing keeping a company's profit margins up would be constant innovation, since every market leader would have to constantly improve its products to outdo the low-cost competition. Imho, it wouldn't be surprising if when studied it would be revealed the patent system discourages innovation.

Have you seen a study where it is demonstrated conclusively innovation would suffer without a patent system? I haven't, and that is the basic meme underlying the entire patent system, without which there is no point to it.

Not to mention patents currently don't even work to protect the lone inventor. They work to protect large corporations from upstart competitors, because you need a patent portfolio (which a lone inventor can not afford) to be able to come out of a legal patent battle ok.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[pe1rxq]

You are basicly arguing that abolishing the patent system won't work because some people have based their business model on it.....
Your wife may be out of a job and so might be some patent-office clerks and a lot of law firms, but would the world as a whole be worse?

A hundred years ago you would have argued that cars are bad because people make a living based on horses. (food on the table, solves real problems, yadda yadda)

Take a look at another thing hapening about a hundred years ago: flying.
The wright brothers may be credited with the first powered flight, but the idea was hardly original. (In fact it was attempted all around the world and the mere fact that they were first is heavily disputed) The patented parts of their 'invention' (most notably their control system).
A hundred years later flying has evolved in an amazing rate. This wasn't because of the patent, this was because all those other pioneers simply ignored those patents and continued experimenting.
It led to a lot of nasty lawsuits and mud throwing but we came out differently.
Imagine what would have happened if the wright brothers really had the power to stop all kinds of flight for a few decades. If they had been able to enforce their patents effectivly they would have had that power. You are giving an awfull lot of power to people who mostly don't deserve it at all. The biggest problem with patents is that it gives far to much credit to people simply doing their job.

Jeroen

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[Anonymous Coward]

...and what incentive will you have, sir, to protect your hard-work from those who'd not hesitate to rip it off you?

If "your hard work" is any non-trivial software application, I think you'll find it's not actually your's, but is actually an infringment on someone else's IP.

Re:Can't we get rid of patents altogether

[drsquare]

A few problems with your proposals:

1. Five years may not be long enough to design, implement and sell the idea. By the time it's on the shelf the patent could have expired, meaning all the research and development is for nothing.
2. Your non-transfer proposal means that small-time inventors who lack the means to actually implement their idea can't cash in and let a big manufacturing company make it instead. This takes away freedom from the inventor.

I don't think the problem with the patent system is that the inventors have too many rights and priveledges, the problem is that patents are being awarded to NON-INVENTORS, i.e. people who didn't actually invent anything, or slightly modified someone else's idea, or who patented something obvious. That's what needs fixing, not punishing people who actually DO invent things.

I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American patriot I hate EU because it makes me hate my own corrupted government who only wants to do what's best for corporations, don't giving a damn about small business or open source. Damn you Europeans! You make me sick! Sick of jealousy!

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

On the flip side, the EU is a horrible, huge, barely functional, partly non-democratic beurocratic nightmare which makes the US government look like a small anarchist collective. If the Repulicans amongst you think the US government is too big; 'hoo boy, you ain't seen the EU.

Personally I think it's about time we killed off the European Commision & European Parlimant entirely and moved to a US style two house system with directly elected officials. The rotating presidency should stay, though. That's actually one thing that works pretty well.

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

On the flip side, the EU is a horrible, huge, barely functional, partly non-democratic beurocratic nightmare which makes the US government look like a small anarchist collective.

Oh yeah, the EU is a horrible, huge, barely functional, partly non-democratic beurocratic nightmare and that's why Dutch have no software patents and don't get sued for writing software, don't go to jail for smoking a joint, don't go to jail for sleeping with a 17 years old girl, are not discriminated because they're gay, and don't end up being tortured in fucking Guantanamo if they are suspected of being "terrists"! Yeah, here in the US we have a fascist government but at least it is an efficient fascist government! That makes me really sleep better.

BTW, what's less democratic in EU than it is in US? At least European states are sovereign and can leave the union without starting a civil war!

Yeah, Insightful my ass. Are you mods on crack?

Re:I hate EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be pretty bad on the other side of the pond if you think the system here is worth feeling jealous about!

You have no fucking idea. US is a police state. Torturing, propaganda, abuse of power, starting wars with no good reason - you name it. Everyone should be proud that he's not an American. Don't let the US media and movies fool you. Search informations about Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, about CIA involvement in overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing violent dictators... USA is a hell to live in, and there is only one place that is worse: a country that for some reason US wants to attack. And keep in mind that US is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons of mass destruction against civilians - twice! This is scary stuff once you know more than Hollywood and Fox News wants you to know. Believe me.

Re:I hate EU

[ZeroExistenZ]

and moved to a US style two house system

How does a *two-system* allow diversity and a whole array of views and oppinions?

I always have found it odd how the US has just the dominating "Rebuplicans", and "Democrats". We have +7 Parties, with all some simular and more diverse agenda's. It'd be a nightmare to just be in the mercy of *two* parties....

Re:I hate EU

[Gadzinka]

He wrote "two house" not "two party". As in "Congress and Senate", not as in "Republicans and Democrats".

In Poland we have multiparty, two house system, same in UK and I'm sure other countries.

Robert

Re:I hate EU

[Gadzinka]

I was just thinking along these lines after moving from /. to cooking for tomorrow party ;)

Basically problems with swpat arise from lack of accountability of some high-ranking EU bodies. They are not accountable because they answer to no constituency.

I remember some eurosceptics and xenophobes before Access Referendum scaring people with United States of Europe, European Superstate (as opposed to superstate structure of independant states), but I think I'd prefer federal structure with directly elected and accountable government much more.

Robert

Re:I hate EU

[KontinMonet]

The EU is not a state or a federation. What we need to do is strengthen the parliament considerably so that the democratic voice is heard more clearly.

Finally

[Flyboy Connor]

Finally, the Dutch play a more positive role in this debacle. However, there is still the problem that decisions of the Dutch Parliament may be ignored by its governmental representatives in the EU (it happened before with the software patenting mess). Unfortunately, software patent news is small potatoes, so they won't lose a significant amount of votes by going against the wishes of the Parliament. And on the other side of the fence there are their buddies of Philips, who really would like to have software patents in Europe. And, they reason, what is good for Philips, is good for the Dutch economy. Personally, I think software patents are also bad for Philips, but IANAL.

You just gotta love this phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

"In contrast, in this case, the "political agreement" does not really exist. It is pure fiction. Once you call a vote, multiple Member States needed for a majority would vote against.

Therefore, in this case the whole point of avoiding the vote is not the legitimate reason of saving time, but the deeply disturbing wish to fabricate a majority where there is none."

Nail on head.

Re:Copyright won't protect you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one process software can do that can't be duplicated entirely with math. There isn't one. Now explain why the existence of software suddenly throws doubt upon the wisdom of not allowing math to be patented.

Re:A reformed patent system

[Vo0k]

There's a small problem with that. What about the "Blinding Flash of Obvious Truth"?
Take post-it notes.
The guy was working on a new type of super-glue. Only his invention appeared to be a total failure. The glue was barely capable to hold a piece of paper. But he had enough brains to apply it to a piece of paper and sell that.
Investment in the new type of glue: maybe $50.
Time: one evening.
Profit: "3M is an $18 billion diversified technology company with leading positions in consumer and office"

The new system would protect the invention for 3 weeks, or until it gives $2000 (whichever comes first).

Some patents are too dumb nowadays. But sometimes really simple inventions are worth billions.

Re:A reformed patent system

[Vo0k]

I don't think the "lever" should be bigger. The companies could overblow the time a lot. Say, they provide proof that origins of the idea appeared 20 years ago (and they were working on design ever since), and the "lever" is 100. 2000 years of patent protection? Thanks, no. If it was logarithmic scale, then okay, say, quadrupling the expenses doubles the protection time.

IMHO other counter-measures should be taken:
1) Easier to invalidate a patent. A bounty system for prior art (some of the application money go towards the eventual bounty), and simplification of invalidating/denying a patent just by showing the prior art, no lenghty lawsuits.
2) Short period to implement the patent. Like, depending on degree of complexity, up to 5 years. So, first actual "real life" implementations must happen within that time or the patent expiers really fast. If you don't plan to innovate using the new invention, leave it to others. No submarine patents.
3) "commonwealth invalidation". Patents covering technologies/products being defined in standards by official bodies or (i.e. plugins - HTML specs) or being in mainstream use and produced by multitude of world industries (i.e. aspirin) get invalidated. Patent holders may be paid a token fee for the invention, i.e. the cost of inventing it x5 or x10, money coming from special tax on these products.