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."
Does this mean that a computer simulation of a patented product or technique would be legal?
Bidding can now start...
to exclude computer programs from patentability while allowing computer-controlled technical inventions to be patented.
They sound like one in the same to me. A computer controls my web browser and it certainly is a technical invention to *some* degree. So this would enjoy patent protection and it wouldn't at the same time.
Or are they just trying to talk about heart-beat monitors and stuff like that ? They should be more clear otherwise it sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Hooray for the French!
/. can overcome their indigenous [and irrational] anti-French sentiment)
(this post exists solely to see if the Americans moderators on
Agree or not with his past politics, there is no doubt in my mind that Michel Rocard is one of those extremely rare honest politicians. As soon as I had heard that he would be the "rapporteur" for the software patent directive, I breathed a sight of relief. There is light at the end of the tunnel.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
A former prime-minister who can understand the Open-Source and IT, it only deserves respect !
...be a good day. First India, then EU. When is Canada joining the club?
Can someone please explain how he distinguishes computer controlled technical inventions from "computer programs"? I really see no particular distinction. The difference between the term 'computer-controlled' and 'computer-implemented' to me seems to merely be an issue of semantics.
Perhaps there's some particular scientific viewpoint he has in mind.
FTA:
"Rocard explains the difference between applied natural science and data processing."
I'm still unsure as to what it means.
The report will certainly have some influence, but that it is very anti-patent is not surprising considering that Michel Rocard has been one of the leaders of the anti-patent side in the EP since the beginning.
The real question is wether he can use his significant influence in the EP (he is without doubt one of the political heavyweights there) to convince the many MEPs not very committed to the matter that it's worth picking a major fight with the Commission and the Council on. I wish he can, as much because I want software patents banished from Europe as because I want to see the EP extending its influence at the expense of the Commission and the Council.
Good luck, Michel, and thanks!
What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
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.
Since when did the European Commission take the European Parliament seriously? Can't see this making much difference myself, so I won't be getting my hopes up just yet.
Thank god atleast some political figures can't be bought off . .
(or atleast got bought off by someone i agree with for a change (Joke) )
as the Rapporteur his word will indeed hold a great deal of sway , lets just hope the money of the Software Patent lobby does'nt hold a greater ammount of sway
This does not by any means confirm we have won this yet , I would ask people to write to their MEP (member of the European parliment) and urge that they Read this recomendation and also show your support
(if your anti all patents , then still support this as well , one brick at a time).
Democracy requires that we all do our part and make our voices heard .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
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.
... that the EU will soon follow the example set by India?
Free Firefox news reader.
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?
English language version of Rocard's paper is here
...this is good or is bad? Damn, my knowledge is based in what /. considers right or wrong, if you don't say me what I've to think I don't know what to think!
[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." ---
In the United States, before the State Street Bank case articulated the modern "tangible result" test, our jurisprudence excluded "pure" software as well, but it was a distinction without a difference. Under the test in Alapatt and other cases, so long as you articulated the program in technical terms, you had patentable subject matter. Thus, while you might not have been able to claim:
I claim a method for instructing a computer to perform the steps of A, B and C.
You could claim instead:
I claim a computer system including a general purpose computing component (and possibly other apparatus) and a stored program instructing the general purpose computing element to perform the steps of A, B and C.
or
I claim a medium for storing and retreiving information in electronic form, configured to permit retreival of instructions for a computer system (and possibly other apparatus) to perform the steps of of A, B and C.
While such legal niceties are interesting, they --and tests like them-- are mostly a distinction without a difference.
Donate free food here
The comitee of Legal Affairs, which is responsible for this directive in the European Parliament, has discussed the topic this morning:
Please help to make a transcript on IRC (irc.debian.org #ffii) and on the wiki page.
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.
No we didn't. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court - embargo them... Ok the second time he almost one a majority, but apparently it takes a 2/3 majority to defeat a neocon.
What I find really amuzing is that none of the French people I work with (and there are many) had even heard of the software patent issue. Actually none of the Europeans I work with had heard of it... Yet, and this speaks to the sad state of the US media, they seemed to know all about Michael Jackson and what's-her-name, the brain dead woman from Florida... Maybe that's how 54 million Americans can be so stupid?
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
How tightly is "controlling the forces of nature" defined?
How about this?
I think that's explicit enough.
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!
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.