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.'"
Would like to hear from any European Slashdotters who have actually written to or phoned or emailed their elected representatives on this noxious attempt to hobble innovation.
Any response from your public "servants?"
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
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.
"Incredible," said the kzin. "If the Patriarchy tried to force such a law on kzinti, we would exterminate the Patriarchy for its insolence."
- Ringworld (Larry Niven)
It's good to know that European beaurocrats are every bit as ineffective and corrupt as our own here in the states.
Let's hear it for consistency!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Please do not get confused. The Parliament is doing the Right Thing(tm).
It is the European Commision which does what it wants..or rather what Big Business(tm) wants...
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.
If this isn't the case, how are the people who patent stuff in the EU that's already been patented in the U.S. going to have a leg to stand on?
I'd be really interested to know if the people pushing for software patents had any connections with U.S. based corporations... I smell somethin fishy...
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.
Quite weird actually, the supposedly pro-business right-wingers listening to their voters and actually doing something for the small guys while the anti-business socialists are very much pro-patents and don't even want to hear the other side of the issue.
Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!
If the directive is approved, it will make it clear that any software patent granted up until now was unlawful and is therefore null and void. This will mean that patent holders will be forced to re-apply for their patents as soon as the directive is made law!
Meanwhile, anything that would have violated one of the unlawful patents is now legitimate prior art for blocking the re-application.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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?
This is not true. The parliament voted explicitly against the directive as presented to them by the EU Commission and made many important changes. However, the broken decision process in the EU allowed the Commission to totally ignore the Parliament's decision and revive the Commission's old version of the directive to vote about.
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 believe that the problem is not software vs. non-software patents, but the general quailty of software patents vs. the quality of non-software patents. It's not that software shouldn't be patentable, but that a great deal of the worst offenders are not patents on specific inventions, but entire ideas. In some cases, they're patenting the problem, instead of the solution.
One example is from the FFII wewbsite: A patent on trapping viruses. After a brief glance through the description and the abstract, it seems reasonable. Except when we look at the claims, this patent attempts to claim all virtual environments used to capture viruses. If you were asked to implement this 'invention', the patent wouldn't help much, as the difficulty of the implmentation is in figuring out how to make it work, and this patent is more of an overall design.
Examples could be given for good and not-to-broad software patents, but the general feeling is SW patents are usually too broad and too easily infringed. While not allowing any SW patents might be a bit extreme, but it's better than letting them in now and letting them to cause further harm to the software industry.
I had to mention it, as I am quoted in the article as: "Tom Grek, an IT specialist working with Bristows, a London-based technology law firm". I am an electronic engineer and longtime Slashdot reader now working in law (not quite - yet - a qualified lawyer).
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.
Preventing the directive going ahead now is probably impossible.
I disagree. The European Parliament is a relatively young institution that has recently begun flexing it's muscles against the Commission. Last October all the different nations and all the different political parties came together and successfully blocked Rocco Buttiglione's nomination as Justice Commissioner, even though the Parliament technically doesn't have that power.
The Parliament as an institution is showing an interest in extending it's authority, and has so far had it's views on this directive ignored. It's possible that the Parliament could shoot it down out of pure bloody-minded, turf-war politics.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
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
I wrote to my MEP about the subject (A Liberal Democrat). While I was surprised to find the Liberal Democrats in favour of patents (being 'lefty' they usually are agianst big business screwing people over) she did send me an intereasting document on the matter which I'll list:
----------
Start of Document
----------
European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services
Statement to the European Parliament on Computer Implemented Inventions
European Parliament Plenary Session
Strasbourg, 8 March 2005
President,
the Commission is grateful for this opportunity to make a statement on the proposal on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. I already had the opportunity to debate the proposal with the Committee on Legal Affairs on 2nd February and to discuss it with the Conference of Presidents on 3rd March. I took very careful note on both occasions of the views of the European Parliament. I noted that the Parliament considers, in general, that its views were not given sufficient weight in the first reading. From the debate in the Legal Affairs Committee, I noted that there are differing views on the substance of the proposal, in particular on its content and purpose.
The Commission gave the EP's request of 24 February, which was submitted under Article 55 of the Parliament's internal rules of procedure, careful consideration. But the Commission concluded that, at that stage, regrettably, it could not submit a new proposal, as the Parliament requested. Not because the Commission wished to persist stubbornly with the proposal, but because the Council was on the point of adopting a common position.
As I explained to the Conference of Presidents, the Council reached a political agreement in May 2004 in first reading. The Council has been on the verge of confirming the political agreement in the form of a common position since December 2004. The Commission had supported the political agreement of May 2004. The Commission could, therefore, not go back on its word when the Council was in the process of confirming its common position.
The Council has now made up its mind and adopted its common position. It did so yesterday at the Competitiveness Council. Jeannot Krecké, Chair of the Competitiveness Council, already explained to the Legal Affairs Committee, the reasons behind the Council's stance. It confirmed its common position, primarily for institutional reasons. The Council wanted to avoid a precedent whereby Member States would be seen to be backing away from a deal they had signed up to in May 2004. The Council confirmed its position to show that a deal is a deal and that it was not creating a log-jam on this dossier, in an area which is key for innovation. Jeannot Krecké noted yesterday, when the Council took its decision, that some Member States had concerns on the substance of the text and that these would be addressed in the second reading.
The ball is now very clearly in the European Parliament's court. It's for you to decide how you want to play it. I don't have to remind you of the Parliament's rights: we discussed this in the Conference of Presidents. You can, of course, reject or substantially amend the proposal. If the Parliament decides to reject it, then the Commission will respect your wishes. I will not propose a new directive.
Should you decide to propose amendments, the Commission will give them due consideration. No doubt, there are improvements that can be made. You will understand of course that I cannot speak on behalf of the Council and I would urge the Parliament to engage constructively with the Council in the future on this dossier. I am ready to help in any way.
Before concluding, I would like to say a few words on the substance of the proposal since the European Parliament will now need to turn its attention to this. The Commission proposed to clarify the legal rules on patentability for software-related inventions. This does not include computer programmes or other softwar
[There are no doubt numerous errors and ommissions in the text below. Please mod any corrections and additions up.]
:-) Europe is made up of lots of countries, two of which, simply for example, are the United Kingdom (aka Britain) and Germany. We've banded together under the banner of the European Union (EU), each as sovereign nations, delegating some roles and responsibilities to the EU where it is in our interests to co-operate. One such example is monetary union - a number of EU countries abolished their currencies and now share the same currency.
A primer for those of you that aren't in Europe and also for those of you who are in Europe who find the whole thing confusing...
Europe is a place to the East of the USA, across the big bit of ocean.
One of the chief issues that the central bodies take care of is 'harmonisation'. Harmonisation is about creating a level playing field across Europe, chiefly in legal and economic senses. A main tool for this is the Directive. The central body consults, then draws up a Directive which outlines a part of law, then the Directive is implemented as law in each of the EU countries, and thus the laws in each country come to some sort of standard.
The current argument concerns a draft Directive.
To understand how a Directive is agreed, you need to know who the players are...
The EU has 5 central bodies of which 3 are of immediate concern with respect to the Directive. The Commission, the Council and the Parliament. The Commission is chiefly to manage things European. The leaders of the Commission (Commissioners) are nominated by national governments and have portfolios. The Parliament is directly elected by the people of Europe in a using a proportional representation system (is this true across all of Europe? It is in the UK.) The role of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation. The Council is composed of representatives of the national governments, and as the Council web page says, this is the main decision-making body, and where the power lies - in national governments making decisions together.
So what's the process involved in agreeing a Directive and where are we in the process?
There are numerous arcane rules concerning the process by which Directives comes into being, and it depends on what the legislation covers. For the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, a draft directive was prepared by the Commission and ratified by the Council (someone - is this right?) and then put before the various committees of the Parliament for comment and voting. Then it went before a Parliamentary plenary sitting, who voted for numerous changes of the original Council version. The legislation then went before the Council once more. They decided to ignore the Parliamentary ammendments and the requests of various parliaments of various countries to restart the whole process, and have decided to send the original Directive (with minor changes?) back to Parliament for the next stage in the process. Parliament has yet to vote.
The rules for the first and second plenary vote of Parliament are different. The second round has a much higher barrier to introducing changes - an absolute majority is required (someone?) - and if the barrier is not passed then Parliament is assumed to have no objection to the legislation, and it will become a Directive.
Understand from all of the above that it is the national governments that are driving this legislation forward.
Is there a need for a Directive at all?
The need for harmonisation has arisen because different European countries have different standards for judging the allowability of patents involving software, which means that the same patent has been allowed in some countries and not in others. Often the figure of 30,000 European software patents is quoted. (Does anyone know were this comes from?)
It's easy to see some examples of the sort of thing that has been granted - the European patent office is on