Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UKPO Workshops Find EU Patent Directive Faulty

Posted by Zonk on from the turn-the-boat dept.

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."

15 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. Technical Shmecnical by pieterh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  2. Throughly undemocratic by xwildph · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Throughly undemocratic by Elektroschock · · Score: 2, Informative

      My favourite site:

      http://www.economic-majority.com/testimony/index.e n.php

    2. Re:Throughly undemocratic by langarto · · Score: 4, Funny
      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.

      Welcome to modern democracy.

      We will let you vote, as long as what you vote doesn't matter, dear consumer.

  3. A bit odd by boringgit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.....

    1. Re:A bit odd by codehelp · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was at one of the UKPO workshops and we were promised a full report. The UKPO has now put the report on the workshops on the web as a PDF.
      http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/eurocom p/full_report.pdf

      The UKPO clearly state that the purpose of the exercise from their perspective was to "find a definition that fits the current [case] law" -
      sounds a lot like "decide what you want and make the facts conform afterwards".

      2. The UKPO at least admit that none of the definitions - including the one in the Directive that the Council want to force through - actually fit even that limited remit.

      This was inevitable and everyone on the FFII lists knew this in advance - nobody actually WANTS what the UKPO want. We need a change in the law and that can only come from supporting the European Parliament amendments and pushing for a complete restart of the entire directive.

      Write again to that MP and point out that the government's own statements on software patents are NOT compatible with the results of the UKPO's own workshops. The government does need to reconsider and it does need to support the Parliament amendments. The UK government is under the impression that the directive maintains the status quo and they must now see that the workshops have blown that away. The UK government has said that it does NOT want to allow more than what is currently practiced by the UKPO and the UKPO themselves recognise that the current definition does NOT match that practice.

      The Directive, as it currently stands, is MORE PERMISSIVE than the current law. The UKPO have NOT accepted this as their position on the directive, it is merely the opinion of those at the workshops. We need to drive home the message that the UKPO's own workshops showed that their recommendation, as embodied within the Directive, does NOT maintain the status quo - in direct
      contravention of everything the UKPO has published on the Directive. The Directive, if passed in the version proposed by the EU Council, WILL move the
      balance in FAVOUR of more software patents AND give ALL existing software patents the full force of European law. Additionally, a whole raft of NEW areas will also become patentable. "technical contribution" is a smoke-screen - it means absolutely nothing.

  4. What matters now is the European Parliament by Husgaard · · Score: 3, Informative
    Now that the European Council has passed the directive against their own rules, the opinions of the european governments no longer have any real power.

    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.

    1. Re:What matters now is the European Parliament by cortana · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Now that the European Council has passed the directive against their own rules
      > [ffii.org], the opinions of the european governments no longer have any real
      > power.

      You've been tricked! I'm the first to admit that my understanding of the situation is not 100% correct, however I think it's more or less on target....

      The European Council (of Ministers) is made up of members of the various European governments. You don't realise this because when your government addresses you at home, it always talks about the EU Council as a separate body that hands down laws that your government is forced to implement.

      They never mention that they are the EU Council.

      The British council members are democratically elected (though they are still in favour of the CIID because Labour is shite). I don't know about other countries, but I understand that some have very strange arrangements, like Denmark for instance, where the (elected) parliament have no control over the (unelected) ministers, who sit on the council, making the rules.

      The problem is that the idea of the European Parliament seems to be a charade designed to trick the masses into thinking they have direct control over the pan-EU government. The EU Parliament is really very weak. Some say the EU Constitution may fix this, and others say it will make the problem worse. I don't know myself--I tried to read the Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution of Europe, but I only got to page 25 out of 400 or so before giving up...

      In practice, the unelected EU Commission (liberally greased by Big Business, and featuring crooks like Peter Mandelson) makes up shitty laws, and the partially-elected, but unaccountable, European Council of Ministers nods them through.

      When the public complain about said shitty laws, the government ministers then turn around and place the blame upon the very same council which they sit on, that passed the laws in question.

      Meanwhile the Parliament flaps around, unable to do anything, because to overrule or alter the adoption of a directive by the Council, they need an overwhelmingly large absolute majority (something like 70% I think) at the Second Reading of a directive. Oh, and absentees and abstentions count in favour of the council. So it's even money if enough MEPs will even turn up to make a difference on the second reading of the CIID in about a month's time.

      Basically, the EU's a Banana Republic. :(

  5. Letters to MEPs by seanellis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Letters to MEPs by Husgaard · · Score: 3, Interesting
      After having seen the amendments proposed (pdf in english), I would not send a letter like that to any MEP.

      Most of these amendments are meant to ensure that software might be part of a patentable invention, while the software as such cannot be patented.

      If I was going to write my MEP today, I would urge them to support Michel Rocards amendmends, while opposing the amendmends by Toine Manders and Malcolm Harbour (the last two being "IP" policy extremists with little support in the Parliament anyway). And I would urge them to vote on this matter, as an absolute majority is needed for the Parliament to do anything now.

    2. Re:Letters to MEPs by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This might seem unrelated but, I actually met with my MP at a dinner setup by my employers for other reasons (they are big supporters of his locally) and so far I have managed to get him to raise the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act issues with the party leadership after actually shocking him with the actual details of the RIP bill (shifting of the burden of proof of innocence, secret evidence, contradicting the Misuse of Computers act etc) and he asked me for any further info in writing, which he passed onto a select committee who have raised it further - as I understand it, its due to be discussed in Parliament within the next 3 months, which is fantastic proof that your MP *can* work for you.

    3. Re:Letters to MEPs by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wrote a letter to my local MP, and a few London MEPs. With the exception of one conservative MEP, all the responses I got were actually quite positive!

      My local MP (conservative) commented:
      "After .. dealing with EU directives and regulations, a high proportion like this are actually damaging to business. As you observe, the Commission has scant respect from democracy."

      He took the issue up with the secretary of state for trade and industry, but no reply. After the general election, he's no longer my MP, and I have yet to contact the new one.

      To summarise the reponses from the London MEPs I made contact with:

      Sarah Ludford (Lib Dem) - Echoed the official Lib Dem stance of "support[ing] continued widespread innovation in software by resisting the wider application of patents in this area".

      Robert Evans (Labour) - Oppose software patents, and powerfully stated, "Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies", and "Open source software must be allowed to flourish and the Commission must ensure that this Directive does not have any adverse effect on OSS and small software developers".

      Theresa Villiers (Conservative) - Received a particularly personal response indicating that she shared my worries on the issue, and assured me that she would continue to oppose software patents.

      Charles Tannock (Conservative) - Oh dear, there's always one. Dr. Tannock claimed that the Directive would clarify the existing situation and not allow pure software patents. He also challenged my statements of the harmful effects on OSS and small businesses, and asked me for my evidence. He had clearly not read the Directive text itself.

      I wrote back a rather scathing letter, quoting the Directive text itself, and providing numerous references of the negative effects. I presented it all very clearly in a way that he couldn't ignore. After that, I got back a half-amusing reply, saying that the points I raised were beyond his technical expertise. He supposedly forwarded my letter to another MEP, but I haven't heard anything since.

      It seems that, on the whole, the British Politicians aren't clueless. The suspicious progress that this Directive has made has got to be due to corporate lobbying efforts.

      It really is down to the EP to make sure this Directive doesn't get made law, otherwise I might be forced to start voting UKIP (heaven forbid).

  6. How we do it in Denmark by Deternal · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:How we do it in Denmark by Husgaard · · Score: 2, Informative
      This parliament decides on the cabinet (minister of state, minister of foreign affairs etc.).
      This is not correct.

      The democratically elected danish parliament (Folketinget) has no direct influence on the appointment of the government ministers. See article 14 in the danish constitution: "The King shall appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and the other Ministers."

      But article 15 ("A Minister shall not remain in office after the Folketing has approved a vote of no confidence in him.") means that the danish parliament can sack any minister (or the whole government) with a simple majority vote.

      What happens when a danish government has to be appointed is:

      • The leaders of the parties in parliament go to the Queen and each tell her who they would like as Prime Minister. This is only advisory, but helps the Queen appoint a stable government that the danish parliament is unlikely to sack.
      • The Queen appoints the Prime Minister.
      • The Prime Minister appoints the other ministers in the government.
      • The Queen approves the other ministers appointed.
      When the software patent directive was adopted by the European Council on March 7th, Denmark sent their Minister of Economics Bendt Bendsen. Bendt Bendtsen was in a tight place: One one side, the danish parliament had asked him to ensure that the directive was not adopted at the Council meeting. But on the other side, Bill Gates had threatened to kill 800 danish jobs if Denmark opposed the software patent directive. Bendt Bendtsen meakly asked that the directive should not be adopted without discussion or a vote. This request was rejected by the Council Presidency in violation of the Council rules. Instead of insisting, Bendt Bendtsen simply accepted the illegal rejection of his request.

      Bendt Bendtsen could have been sacked by the danish parliament because of this, but he was lucky: One of the large parties in parliament turned around and accepted that he did not do what they asked him to do, and then the majority for sacking him was gone.

  7. Theft by pieterh · · Score: 3, Informative

    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