Slashdot Mirror
EU Rapporteur Publishes Software Patent
Sanity writes "Michel Rocard, economist and former French prime minister, has just published a report on the European Software Patents Directive. He is the European Parliament's draftsperson or "rapporteur" on the directive, and so it is likely that his views will be taken very seriously. The anti-software patent lobby group FFII like the report, saying that it "contains all the necessary ingredients for a directive that achieves what most member state governments say they want to achieve: to exclude computer programs from patentability while allowing computer-controlled technical inventions to be patented." The Directive will have its second reading on July 6th."
IMO, EICTA's characterisation in the paper of how the proposed "controllable forces of nature" test was received at the recent UKPO worshops is highly misleading.
He differentiates between these by re-defining caractère technique, or the character of being technical, as:
What this means is that only technical solutions that use natural forces (or natural science) that produce a foreseeable result in the physical world can be patented. This bars software, which is immaterial, from being patented.
Therefore, in your example, the solutions or processes of making your monitor or keyboard could be patented, but your web browser could not, and neither could the web browser's display and rendering of HTML and so on.
Again, IANAL, and my french is a bit rusty. But that is what I understand.
The paper is available here.
It is interesting because it shows that forbidding software patents is non-trivial. In particular, it raises interesting questions:
- What is the boundary between patentable and non-patentable (how do you define it in such a way that it doesn't have side effects on other industries)
- What is the "technical domain" that should be patentable
- If sofware is _part_ of the patented process should it be allowed?
What Michel Rocard has done is specify that to be patentable, a software must be controlling the forces of nature. Thus simulations are out, software controlling a robotic arm is in.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
English language version of Rocard's paper is here
[this is my own 'manifesto' to the EU parliament which I have send as a petition and in 'correspondence with EU citizens' as provided by the EU parliamentary site. Though it says they normally respond within reasonable time (to acknowledge they have received it), untill today I didn't hear anything back. also my question about the lack of response came back unanswered. So, I guess I'll have to copy and distribute it personally to 100+ parliamntarians myself, after all...]:
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commision (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mindboggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft anymore (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commision asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position anymore, because, aparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupifying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whome were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendements made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessarry to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU softwarebusiness, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentionned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
> He was president of France from 1988 to 1991, how much higher can you go!
No, he was Prime Minister (as is Jean-Pierre Raffarin now)
President was François Mitterand (from 1981 to 1995)
You don't need to be elected to become minister.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I suggest you read the article. No this is not just another RTFA comment. The article goes into this very subject. The clarity of the article supprising.
Don't worry the decision is being made in the middle of the summer (July) when most members of parliament are away on a few weeks holidays. Since an abstention/absence counts as a yes vote, it'll likely walk through.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Donate free food here
The last line of the summary is the deadliest:
... when the use of a patented technique is necessary only to achieve interoperability between two systems, such use should not be considered as patent infringement.
:)
to assure interoperability
I think MS (XML Word files etc) and HP, Lexmark et co (printer cartridges) and lotsa other people who want you to put Ford Petrol in Ford cars are not going to like this
BTW, the summary is concise and extremely clear - I wonder why the parent talked about bureaucratic jargon ?
(pour assurer l'interopérabilité, renforcement de la confirmation des droits découlant des articles 5 et 6 de la directive 91/250, par le fait que lorsque le recours à une technique brevetée est nécessaire à la seule fin d'assurer l'interopérabilité entre deux systèmes, ce recours ne soit pas considéré comme une contrefaçon de brevet.)
This is not a signature.
Patents only work if you can take one out in all of your competitor markets.
If you cannot patent in one country then all of your competitors will move to / come from that country.
A corollary is:
If yours is the only country in which it is legal to have software patents, then your competitors in other countries can take out patents for their products in your country and you cannot compete with them!
hahah.
I love it.
All companies in India and the EU should make sure they take out patents in the US! Ha!
"Besides, French refuses to pick up any English words."
Yes, we do.
- Parking
- Sandwich
- CD
- DVD
And some less obvious ones:
canife - comes from english knife, but we were too dumb to say it properly, said "kah-nife", and thus the spelling of that word got screwed
redingote - originally "riding coat", apparently we mangled it badly as well.
There are probably others.
It surely doesn't seems much, but if you add...
- About any computer science and internet related term
- A lot of technology/consumer electronic terms (CD, DVD)
Then we do use a fair amount of english words. Not to mention brand and company names (there are a lot of french company with english names because it's better from a marketing pov)
Of course, the morons at the Académie Française are trying to replace these terms, or even "frenchify" them.
For instance, officially, we aren't supposed to write "CD", but "cédé". It's like you were writing ceedee. It's plain retarded.
On the other hand, there are people, for instance about the executive of a software development company I used to work for, who had a tendency to replace some very common french words by english words, probably because they found it a trendy thing to do. It was ridiculous. And when they actually had to talk to english or american people, they were speaking like crap and couldn't understand a damn thing.
Well, actually, the CRT display will be patentable, but not the software controlling it.
There is a whole paragraph that emphasizes the "control" part as not being patentable.