Slashdot Mirror
UKPO Workshops Find EU Patent Directive Faulty
TheEvilOverlord writes "ZDNet has up a report about the current EU patent directive not being up to muster; 'Workshops held by the UK Patent Office (UKPO) around the country have found that the definition of technical contribution in the software patent directive would let through too many patents'. Unfortunately the UKPO can't change the government's stance of supporting this destructive directive."
From the article:
The minister for science and innovation, Lord Sainsbury, and the UKPO agreed to hold the workshops after a public meeting at the end of last year, where software
Lord Sainsbury == crony
Software patents are evil. The pro-monopoly lobby is using weasel words like "technical" to hide a loophole through which one can drive freight trains. 50,000 software patents have already been granted by the EPO on this flmsy basis. If you think your softare is protected by copyright, think again - the EPO, backed by legalistic mumbo-jumbo like "technical" has sold your work under the counter to a patent attorney.
Software patents are theft. No two ways about it. Patenting ideas and literary expressions is theft. Expropriation. Corruption.
The lady, and she knows who she is, who invented this particular weasel word will go down in history as a villain.
My blog
That's a damn good geoshitties website.
It's an absolute disgrace, that the UK media aren't covering this very important issue. The European council have disregarded the decision of the elected Parliament, and have tried to force this through.
Software patents are wrong, and incredibly dangerous territory for SME business. Larger companies may well be able to devend and enforce patents, but smaller players are likely to be unable to do so, and could be forced to lay off staff, raise prices, or even close down.
Software is simply a list of instructions. It is not a physical product. It should not therefore be patentable. Copyright protection is available to those who need it.
relevant links
XW
That maybe this proves it's time for politicians who make decisions to start listening to those in the know. It'll be better for everyone in the end.
I refuse to engage in a duel of wits with the unarmed.
Strange thing this.
When I first heard about this whole software aptent issue, I wrote to my MP, who then forwarded my letter to a minister at the DTI.
He told me that the governments support for software patents was based soley on advice given by the UK Patent office.
If this is no longer the case, surely the government needs to reconsider.....
Of course the UKPO can change because the UK government is the UKPO. Lord Sainsbury, the minister responsible in the EU Council of Ministers, ordered the workshop series to be held. Software patent legislation is one example for legislation overtaken by administration in the interests of particular interests.
The UKPO has the most radical pratice in Europe, a vague definition of technical. Change has to take place. At least I expect Lord Sainsbury not to act against EU Parliament which is fixing the Uncommon Poisiton.
What matters now is what happens in the European Parliament. The expert hearing they recently held or the amendments proposed (pdf in english) are a lot more interesting than a UK software patent workshop.
Anyone who writes to their MEP on this issue, why not post a link here to how you got on?
My original letter only got a handful of replies. Let's see how a new letter gets on...
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
The register had an article on this two days ago
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/27/patent_off ice_technical/
Yes, in fact, since most technology can in some way be used by [terrorists/the Chinese/aliens] for their nefarious purposes, we should just classify all patents. In fact, invention itself should be outlawed. Oh, and thinking too.
So, let's round up anyone with the ability to build a computer in their garage, and lock them away in a work camp to protect their important work from exploitation by [terrorists/the Chinese/aliens].
That will ensure that, wherever we are going in this handbasket, the military will be there with the resources it needs to protect us from [terrorists/the Chinese/aliens].
Because, if there's one thing that has enabled progress in the Western world, it's government bureaucracy along with suppression of technical knowledge by the military industrial complex.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The European directive should be modified to include a secrecy provision: if any technology has military usage, then access to the patent shall be denied unless the person or company wishing to view the patent application has a security clearance with the European Union.
Why? What business has the EU got interfering in military matters?
and today, 55% of frogs noticed that the European climate is too cold to grow bananas. Heck, looks like it's even to cold for apples now. Way to go!
I am glad they listened to what most of us told them (well the lawyers seemed to have a different opinion on this, but eh..) - I was at one of the London workshops.
"If an opportunity arises to discuss amendments to the directive, it is worth considering that there may be an advantage in changing the definition of technical contribution," said Probert.
Translates to: don't hold your breath!
It is going to be extremely difficult to change the text without new voting arrangements and with France rejecting the new constitution about 1 hour ago, we are unlikely to see that either - not soon anyway.
TODO: 753) write sig.
Just to clarify:
In Denmark there are general elections for parliament - we only have one in denmark, no upper house like many others.
This parliament decides on the cabinet (minister of state, minister of foreign affairs etc.).
The parliament also have different working groups - one of these working groups have to do with EU issues.
This group consisting of parliament members from all parties, is the group that gives the minister his mandate for his actions in the council.
So to say that it is undemocratic in denmark is far from the truth, in fact the parliament directly instructs the ministers on what to do in the council, while ie. in the UK the person is free to do as he pleases for his term.
Of course since some parts in the council are negotiation the meeting of this working group in the danish parliament is obviously secret untill after the meeting.
Given the fundamental nature of software, software simply is not patentable, not even in connection to some hardware IP.
This is a matter of physical phenomenon, natural law, abstract ideas and you can even throw in a few more like mathmatical algorythims.
Economically its all about which is the better method of instilling advancement. Although GNU is ten years behind the likes of MS, its clear that it has been playing an important part in instilling advancement, as MS would likely be much lazier and anti-competitive than they are today.
Economically there is no validated arguement for software patents.And there is a reason there never will be,
What is really rather crazy about all of this is that copyright, though not as wide scope in "protected claims" is longer term. A trade off perhaps but with proper fair use terms copyright really is more inline with teh nature of software.
However, by imposing software patents you can effectively prevent proof against the model inclusive of software patents. As in "how do you know it could have been better?"
Its really rather interesting that now that there is some real competition in software there is interest in suppressing it via the passing of software patents.
Software is NOT patentable. This is a fact of natural law, physical phenomenon, abstract ideas (what is in fact a human quality we all have a right to and a duty and expectation to apply - the use of higher level abstractions).
You can deny gravity with all the politics and religion and even business you can muster up, but the planet is still going to be round and its still going to revolve around the sun. And when you step off the cliff, you are going to fall to your death via gravity. No matter how much you try and mentally deny it.
Likewise, the creation of the illusion that software is patentable is a mental handicap, as was the idea of the earth being flat and the center of the universe.
I have no doubt that those who do not want to understand this, simply have decided not to.
Anyone who would consider a compromise against the forces of physics, nature and higher level abstract thinking and communication, will suffer the consequence of a mental handicap it will cause them.
If you do not want to accept the zero place holder and the decimal system over the roman numeral system, then you will be limited, on a low level mental foundation, of what math you can perform, not to mention being in denial of the mathmatical calculation required to create a computer, or even something far simpler like flipping the power switch from 0 to 1.
Anyone who wants proof of this unpatentability of software, metaphorically speaking, needs to stop believing this illusion that nothing cannot have value (re: zero place holder). But learn to know that anything you think or do can be automated, programmed..... including the automation of the creation of software itself. That automating software creation is no different than automating anything else, but probably simpler, due to the base material of software.... binary notation
(an abstract material of which the supply of is not "YET" limited).
Only illusion (abstraction) and agreement upon it, can cause a false limit, a mental handicap.
There are element of physics, nature and human quality abstraction which enable control points to be established anywhere in what you think and do. These are common and identified, they are not patentable, or even copyrightable, for they are a part of existance nobody can own.
The illusion of software patents will accumulate untill the build up leads to good sounding arguement that these elements are patentable, basicaly telling the population of the world that they either can't exist or that they must pay you royalities for their existance......or until these element are put into the essence of their sum ability in enabling far more to commonly program or cause the computer to program what they tell it to. -- in essence eliminati
The reason that it's different from the above examples is that it denies people use of the 'IP', whereas copyright infringment or 'identity theft' doesn't, but rather does the converse.
Whether it's actually theft is another matter, but it is different.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Bug in my above post.
Wikileaks, no DNS
> "If an opportunity arises to discuss amendments to the directive, it is worth considering that there may be an advantage in changing the definition of technical contribution," said Probert.
> Translates to: don't hold your breath!
This possibility was raised at the workshop I attended - but when I asked how this might happen, the answer was that the post-election government could conceivably decide that the definition of "technical contribution" needed to change, and support amendments to that effect in the European Parliament.
These changes would still need a lot of votes, but with enough governmental support this could be easier to achieve.
Therefore it might be helpful to raise the issue with the DTI as well as with your MEPs.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
My contribution is to put a pile of 'Live Linux for Windows' CDs here Linux-for-Windows
Your mileage may vary, of course, but I think they make great executive toys.
Chris
You have some great ideas. The problem is, the liberal, left-wing, communist socialist press would twist these concepts to make them sound evil. And, then, of course, the Ameican public, who are mostly left-wing nutcases who almost got their man in despite the Republicans best effort to make sure that the elections went the right way, may decide to object to such measures. That's why such things have to be introduced, slowly, subtley, possibly in response to manufactured crises such as 9/11.
The theft is this: the patent officer and patent attorney collaborate to create "property", the patent, using deliberately vague legalistic language that stakes a claim to an idea or domain of work.
In theory, this domain of work is entirely new and the patent is the basis for the investment necessary to exploit it.
In practice, and especially with software patents, no domain of work is truly innovative and no idea is original: rather, we create software by incredibly many incredibly small incremental steps. All creative work in programming is the result of community effort, which is why no-one can develop software in isolation. We need to be part of a community in order to create. To pretend otherwise is to lie, thus all software patent applications start with a falsehood, "I invented this".
To aquire a claim on a domain means that all others working in this domain lose the right to the fruit of their labour. Thus, you can literally see years or decades of hard work being captured and made someone else's property. Where software patents are granted, copyrights are being annulled without due process. Expropriation.
The only route to appeal is through the courts and this is impossible for the majority of people.
If someone steals my life savings, this is theft. If someone steals my life's work, this is theft. No difference except the latter is sponsored and protected by the bureaucrats who sell the patents in the first place.
It's very analagous with the way traditional common lands have been taken from those that lived on them and granted to wealthy newcomers through the use of legal documents backed up by the power of the state.
Basically the software industry has been hijacked.
My blog
I think it is rather signifigant to understand how the UK patent office set this up. They tested various patent law proposals against various hypothetical patent applications. The test cases they used were divided into three catagories. Catagory A test cases were 5 "clearly be patentable" examples, catagory B test cases were 5 "clearly be unpatentable" examples, and catagory C was 4 borderline-but-patentable tests and 4 borderline-but-unpatentable tests.
According to UK patent office's review rules, for a patent law proposal to rate well it would need to consistantly and clearly pass the (ahem) easy and clear A tests as patentable. Lets not even worry about the borderline C tests and invalid-patent B tests and just review those 5 A tests, shall we?
VALID patent test #1:
Presumably prior state of the art: We have traffic lights and road sensors.
The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If we collect the information from them then we can hire a programmer and ask him to figure out some way to improve traffic flow, and then we can send that out to the traffic lights.
My oppinion: Had he written this as a patent for improving traffic devices by adding send/receive capabilities, I would say that is seriously lame but *maybe* patentable if you set the patentability standards abysmally low.
But that isn't what this patent is trying to claim, that isn't how it's written. This patent is claiming to be a process to improve traffic flow. This patent is claiming the idea of hiring a programmer and ASKING HIM to figure out a way of improving traffic flow. This patent application wants to own any solution any programmer ever comes up with to improve traffic flow, even though the patent applicant has no idea how to do so and he offers no suggestions on how to do so. He wants to own any solution anyone else comes up with.
VALID patent test #2:
Presumably prior state of the art: We have chemical sensors to detect toxins in the air, and those sensors are often connected to various sorts of networks and alarms.
The technical contribution, aka the new invention: If there is any sort of processor in the system, it's going to need to scan across the sensor data looking for matches. This patent wants to own the idea of scanning across the data looking for matches.
My oppinion: All I can say here is that the UK Patent office are morons.
VALID patent test #3:
Presumably prior state of the art: Cell phones send and receive wireless messages.
The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can stick an encryption chip in there to encrypt/decrypt each message as it is sent/received. Oh, by the way you can use the caller's number and the callees'number and the date&time as part of choosing the encryption password. Oh, and according to the patent this is not an "encryption chip", it is a "discombobulation device".
My oppinion: I say we give this guy a patent on the NAME "discombobulation device", it's the most inventive thing in there.
VALID patent test #4:
Presumably prior state of the art: I don't know, something like 'wheels work better if you make them more round' I guess.
The technical contribution, aka the new invention: You can brighten a dark photograph by scanning it and multiplying and reprinting it.
My oppinion: Did I mention that the UK Patent office were morons?
VALID patent test #5:
Presumabl
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
As much as I would like to see an accurate and bulletproof definition that prevents software-only patents from being granted, I'm not very hopeful that this will happen. One thing that I believe can dramatically reduce the effect of software patents is a definition that says that it is not possible for pure software to infringe a patent. In fact, no data stored on computer media (source code, binary code, data files, documents etc.) should be allowed to be an infringement. This is very easy to define and will prevent most of the patent misuse. If anybody is writing to MPs etc., please include this as part of your letter.
Graham
Graham