Slashdot Mirror
Software Patents In The European Union Continued...
Christopher Reimer writes "O'Reilly Policy DevCenter has a nice overview concerning the legalizing software patents in the European Union. From the article: 'The Computer Implemented Inventions Directive (CIID), which seeks to clarify the issue, is still being fought over in the EU and may or may not result in legalizing them. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and in particular, free software projects, there is much to lose.'"
For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and in particular, free software projects, there is much to lose.
And for the attorneys much to gain...
My sigs offend the max # of people all over the world, regardless of race, religion, color, sex or creed. It's a gift.
FTA: "If more programmers and SMEs approach their MEPs and go beyond the single letter, we may yet win."
But how do we as IT people explain the general public this would be a disaster to European economy? What could start some emotion going for this issue? The customer is also going to be victimised! Low quality and low security software galore probably. But do they know?
Somehow I know this concerns everybody, not only people in the industry. Because democracy is being ignored for something a lot of people don't understand doesn't mean they can get away with it.
I know a considerable amount (for a programmer) about patent law, and I've read a fair number of patents.
I do not, however, know how one can clearly distinguish between software and non-software patents.
It is not as easy as one might think. Many things we call "software patents" do not mention software or even computers. This didn't use to be the case. They used to insist that an example hardware system be described in the patent, perhaps as a "preferred embodiment". Now many patents simply describe an algorithm. Whether that algorithm is carried out by computer, sliderule, abacus, or pencil and paper is often not explained.
A further complication arises when software is a part of an invention that also has hardware components. There are many such inventions today.
Unfortunately, "I know a software patent when I see one" probably wouldn't cut it in the courts. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could comment on this problem.
Being a software developer myself, I'd rather go with the 1% chance that I can make a difference, than standing idly by.
You never know...
I just had this discussion with a co-worker yesterday.
Now, to be clear, I'm not a fan of software patents. A lot of these patents that I see enforced, are for trivial things that shouldn't have been patented in the first place, like "one click" shopping. And what about general things like sorting algorithms, if bubble sort was patented, it would have done serious harm to just even teaching the profession.
Having said that, I see that most people on slashdot want to get rid of software patents, but what I'm wondering is, why only software? I think you are either for patents or against, and that computer scientists basically "disarming" themselves is not a good idea.
Unless I'm missing something, it seems people value physical inventions more than software ones, and that doesn't make sense to me. Sometimes the software "inventions" are even more complex and influencial than your physical ones. If you say, get rid of the software patents, we're saying our work doesn't deserve the same protection as work from other fields? Just because our work is software? That doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe we should raise the bar on software patents, maybe we shouldn't let "business processes" be patented (one click for example), but I don't think it's consistent to say CS work is less deserving than work from other fields.
- sigs are for wimps.
Why not simply shorten the lifespan of patents to say 2 years? 20 is certainly too long. And yes, I know it would have to get past the corporations who are trying to protect their (short term) interests. But from a realistic standpoint, 2 years is a long time to have a monopoly on an idea or concept. You can get a tremendous head start, and if the patented idea is a good one, a pretty damn good market share. But the competition still has an opportunity to use the ideas and generate innovation advancement after that time period.
I know corperations in America tend to be short sighted, but if I can see that China and other countries are simply going to ignore the (software) patents and hammer ahead with technological innovation, why can't the higher ups see it?
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
The whole thing with software patents is funny to me, because it means the EU is squandering its opportunity to become the next superpower (in competition with China maybe) in a few decades when the US's technological dominance has faded completely. Software patents might cause the EU to sink just as far the US will, in technological terms at least.
The idea of democracy is that you can express your opinions and try to get others to think as you do. So, it is worth to figh against software patents if you found that you are expanding your way of thinking.
The reason behind the power of the corporation is because they say: I represent myself and all my employees (that is not necessarily true, but the politicians do not care about it). However, in theory, we should able to:
"I've got to agree. If everyone is pissing sideways because they can't get their way and feel like they're getting manhandled, then how about actually complaining to your government to leave. The US is a farse anyway, made simply as an organized trade guild of sorts. Once they can solidify their control on industry (or the internet for that matter), then let's see how happy-go-lucky Americans are then."
The reason is that you patent an invention, not speech, and software is speech. Software, like the written word in other forms of speech, is already protected by copyright. Patent protection on top of that is redundant and problematic in its own right, for how can you patent speech?
Don't these directives require implementing legislation in each individual country? If all the country's elected representatives have been against it, I'd expect it to just not be implemented.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
For one thing, there's already a perfectly good mechanism for protecting actual software and source code: copyright.
And for another, the bar to entry is much, much lower with software. You don't need all the resources for mass production, manufacturing, duplication, marketing, or anything other than a web site.
AIUI, the raison d'être of patents is to protect the inventor: to stop a big company coming along, copying his or her invention, and using their much bigger resources to develop and mass produce the product and lock him or her out. But that's not a problem for software; the big company can't copy the software directly, and they don't have much of an advantage in mass production either. So why have them?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Patents don't work for software for the same reason they don't work for literature. A computer program, like a novel, is a collection of a great many ideas taken from all over the place. The value isn't in any specific solution, but rather in the way the whole package is combined.
Imagine if a novelist had to look up every metaphore or interesting sentence structure in a patent database somewhere. On top of that, the database would be organized in such a way that the novelist could never really be sure that he'd found all the relevent patents. If you compare something to an apple, does the patent that mentions comparisons to oranges apply? They're both fruit, after all. The only way to gain reasonable assurance that a given sentence doesn't infringe would be to ask a lawyer, and even the lawyer could only give an opinion - with the final decision to be made by a court.
If novelists had to work that way, only large companies with defensive patent portfolios of their own could write books. Individuals could never afford the legal staff needed to make sure their work wasn't infringing.
Software works much the same way. You encounter a problem and you try to solve it. Every time you solve something, even the smallest issue, you might be infringing on somebody's patent. Anybody with a patent portfolio and a lot of lawyers can put you out of business.
The patent system was meant to encourage people to publish scientific discoveries rather than keeping them as trade secrets. But most software problems are such that the effort to find the patented solution in a database is more than would be required to just solve the problem yourself. There are a few rare exceptions (RSA, for example), but there's no way the handful of gems can outweigh the harm done by patents.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Or are they going to sue the end-users?
This is the general idea. M$ (or preferably a proxy, like SCO or someone smarter) will single out some very large users that are using Linux. They will be sued for patent infringement.
You will be hearing the word indemnification so much your ears will fall off.
The other companies will be FUDed into not considering Linux because who can offer indemnification? M$ can offer indemnification to all its customers because it is cross-licensing its patent portfolio. Can your company risk using IT without indemnification guarantees?
That FOSS go underground with a vengeance fits perfectly with M$ plans. That way it won't get any backing from commercial vendors. Linux can be tolerated if it stays a hobby project.
)9TSS
Well, as an example, the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
Note that with this restriction in the GPL, it is quite possible that distribution of, say, Linux under the GPL could be made illegal, assuming that someone (MS?) wanting to stop Linux had one (1) patent on an idea essential to Linux.
Note, however, that Linux could still be distributed in places which don't recognize software patents (China, India, f'rinstance) in spite of MS's (or anyone else's) software patents.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Totally worth it. As an earlier post pointed out, the EP is actually highly aggravated by the actions of the Council of Ministers in approving the Directive without their amendments. Groklaw has the EP's press release on the subject and it's clear the EP is mad as hell - the language borders on the undiplomatic, which for Europe is very unusual.
The reason this upsets the EP is that if the decision is allowed to stand it sets a precedent for binding legislation to be created in Council without any recourse for elected assemblies - if the EP doesn't manage to get all MEPs in the room to vote it down now, the thing will pass unaltered and all EU states will be compelled to implement it as law.
So, for the first time, we can really make a difference by writing to MEPs and ensuring they are aware that this is a big deal for their constituents. The political trap is set, it's up to us to spring it. Personally I have already gone to WriteToThem and written to my MEPs, it was very easy.