Slashdot Mirror
Major Blow to Opponents of Software Patents in EU
Sanity writes "According to a FFII report, and a Financial Times article, proponents of software patents have just won a significant victory against smaller software companies and open source software proponents as the EU's legal affairs committee rejected most of the effective amendments that were proposed to the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, which is widely perceived to usher-in U.S.-style software patents in the EU. All is not yet lost as the rejected amendments can be re-tabled when the entire European Parliament has the opportunity to vote next month. If you value the freedom to code without worrying about getting sued, and you live in the EU, now is the time to take effective action." And JasonFleischer writes "Richard Stallman has a piece in The Guardian which does a nice job of explaining the problems with the EU patent directive that will be voted on next month (and for that matter software patents in general), using literary examples."
Score 1 more for the giant faceless monster! Canada gets the DMCA, super-secret last minute sneak in of the broadcast flag in the USA, and now this..
Lets hear it for Goliath!
air and light and time and space
With the introduction of DMCA legislation in Canada yesterday, and now this in the EU, it brought to my mind a realization that the battle to keep software free, and the right to copy media we own is going to be a lifelong battle. If we win one battle, we haven't won the war, and if we lose a battle like this in the EU it doesn't mean we've lost completely, it just means we have to work even harder to overcome it.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
This thing is being railroaded through by big business, and there is very little that a crowd of 1 million people can do to stop it - short of tearing down the EU parliament building before the vote.
It's more than that now. A democratically elected body has rejected it, an appointed body is enforcing it. It's now about more than just code. more than software patents. It's now about the primacy of elected bodies.
Cheers,
Ian
(UK - yes, I'll be writing but not merely on 'just' the software patent point)
What if we made a gargantuan database of prior art?
Not just actual prior art, but new art? We could use some sort of generator to make millions or billions of inventions. It should be possible to cover almost all obvious inventions this way.
Kim0
I get the impression they don't understand the legislation. I don't see how else they can think its a good idea.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
...to explicitely forbid the use of GPL'ed software for public institutions in countries where software patents are enforced.
Nice that RMS realises he's writing for a UK audience, but we say "program" not "programme".
Here you go, the Grauniad's own style guide.
Better still, let's patent the process for secretly distributing currency under a desk-like structure, for the purpose of influencing votes.
Then we sue the pants off these lazy and no-good politicians who are in the pocket of big-sleazy-business like the RIAA.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Personally, I'd like to see the copyright system not be applied to software. The kind of argument Stallman makes about patents not being a good fit for literature can also be made for why copyright is not a good fit for automobiles or planes.
How we know is more important than what we know.
OTOH, it might be more accessible if he'd used a more accessible example. The example appeals more to the French and francophiles, and fans of great literature. I'd apply it to sandwiches. Imagine if every sandwich shop had to pay the Earl of Sandwich $1 for every sandwich they sold (and then had to pass that cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices). Then EoS sues McDonalds, as a hamburger is actually a hamburger sandwich, and since he's getting $1 a sandwich from Akbar's Gas n' Munch on 135th Street, he's suing McDonalds for $100 billion.
But the guy who patented combining cheese and meat is suing McDonalds. And so is the guy who patented the extending sandwich flavor by adding condiments. And so is the guy who patented the idea of conveying french fries to customers in a cardboard container. And so is the guy who patented a method of conveying liquid from a distributing nozzle to the customer by means of a cyllindrical shaped device open at only one end (i.e. a freakin' CUP). And yes, the cup, and mayonnaise, and cheeseburgers, and fries in a cardboard carton all seem like obvious inventions with lots of prior art. But we've seen such silliness get through the patent office in America.
Don't think the government is going to put the money in place to keep some overworked, underpaid patent examiner from approving a patent on cheeseburgers! And once the patent is granted, getting it revoked or dismissed is so expensive that every little burger stand will pay the guy who got the cheeseburger patent $10,000 a year because they don't have the $10,000,000 to fund the challenge.
When granted for truly original inventions within a certain limited scope, patents are a wonderful thing that encourage innovation. But that's in theory. In practice, they're something else entirely.
Don't let the patent lawyers and the politicians they lease paint rosy pictures of theory over the cesspit of practice. Don't let software patents pass in Europe.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
It costs very little to be innovative in Software.
The same cannot be said of innovation in pharmaceuticals.
From the article:
"They (those in favour of Software Patents) argue that intellectual property rights provide incentives for companies to innovate and invest in research and development."
What i'm saying is, that in my opinion, this argument is void because it is possible to innovate in Software without any considerable investment in anything other than your own time.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
I was looking for slow transformation to be a musician and record producer (at least no one can patent certain sounds), but this will quicken my farevell. Guess what...another industry killed by greedy corporations. Yeah, money it is all that matters. Who cares about healthy, free market? Fuck it.
Sorry about my rant, it is just really sad.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I'm not sure that we should have hoped for anything different happening here. This was a chance for the JURI to amend the directive ahead of it's vote in July. As they have chosen not to amend it (well, not in a significant way), then there is still a reason for the MEPs to put the effort into turning up to reject/amend it in July. If they had amended it enough to make it look like it was better (without actually changing the fundamental problem with it), then some MEPs might have been placated enough to not bother to vote against it.
Reject EU and save the world. Seriously, imagine the U.S. as already fallen to the Corporate Patent Axis, and needs to be rescued by Europe, not only would Europe save it self from the hegemony of Big Corps, but would have a really good retort to claims of "we saved your butt in WWII".
They probably combined forces to attack worlwide : :
1: create a distraction : steal 40.000.000 creditcard-numbers. That will keep the mob busy...
2: start pushing crazy stuff
Canada -> DMCA-Style Copyright Law
EU -> clear path for pattents
US -> sneak Broadcast Flag back in
3: buy island
4: live long and prosper, and hope nobody finds the island
I for one hope some enterprising freedom fighters destroy the USA entirely, before it can further contaminate the actual free world with the next round of infectious pure insanity. If we can't disassemble corporate personhood, maybe we should disassemble the populace? Viva la fucking insanity.
---- death to all fanatics
Comparing Computer implemented inventions to a novel is the worst analogy ever.
A novel is not an invention and cannot make a technical contribution to the art. It may be new and contain words of a technical nature but that is all.
A software program as part of an invention has the potential to make a technical contribution. Completely different.
A fantastic display and demonstration of the bureaucracy in the EU. Just reject software patents and be over and done with it, dammit!
Unfortunately not... and that's part of the problem.
If so, then you may have a legitimate concern. However, if as I suspect it is not, then the system would seem to be working as it was designed and you may have a bigger fight on your hands than just one piece of legislation if you expect to stop this thing.
Indeed. Rules of procedure of the EU are fundamentally flawed. And this will still be the case with the new constitution (thing improve somewhat... with the new constitution the elected body (EP) will at least be able to vote on the budget. Wow, big deal! but it still has not rights of initiatives to propose new laws, and there are still many areas of legislation where the EP will have no say whatsoever.. Moreover the new constitution explicitly provides for protection of all kinds of intellectual properties, without defining which legal concepts IP actually encompasses. And unlike the US constitution, the EU constitution will mandate no term limits on intellectual property, and allows IP protection even where it discourages progress.
If you are lucky enough to live in a country where there is a referendum about the constitution, please consider its impact on the software patent question, as well as its impact on democracy in general!
Great idea...but they'd have a few years of prior art...
Readers in the UK can FAX their Euro MP for free from the excellent: http://www.writetothem.com/ - all you need is your postcode.
I've found the right e-mail address to all of them except one, if you want to tell them what you think, here's the addresses:
e u.int, cfjellner@europarl.eu.int,o m, anna.hedh@telia.com,. int, nlundgren@europarl.eu.int,u .int, carl.schlyter@mp.se,. int, anders@wijkman.nu, lars.wohlin@telia.com,n .se, maria@liberal.se
jandersson@europarl.eu.int, charlotte.cederschiold@moderat.se,
lek@europarl.
helene.goudin@telia.c
ehedkvist@europarl.eu.int, ghokmark@europarl.eu.int,
aibrisagic@europarl.eu
cmalmstrom@europarl.e
jsjostedt@europarl.eu.int, e-b.svensson@bredband.net,
awestlund@europarl.eu
inger.segelstrom@riksdage
However the inger.segelstrom@riksdagen.se wasn't valid longer, I tried with inger.segelstrom@europarl.eu.int but that failed aswell. If anyone know the right address please let me know.
and instead arguing your point?
Of course it's possible that the grandparent is afraid of change, so? Does that invalidade his concerns? Is this an argument in favor of software patents?
"Just to get this straight, you think that those of us in Australia and the Unitied States are not free to write software?"
No, he's thinking, and rightly so, that people living in nations where software patents exist, are not free to write software without being threatened by software patents. If you take a look at the many lawsuits about software patents in the US, you might get an idea where the problem might be.
And while I'm at it, I also had the displeasure to read your other posts and here are some answers:
"Have you considered the possibility that the people who want software patents make really good arguments and the people who don't want software patents make really stupid ones?"
If you think there are good arguments, spill them out, but don't use the kind of strawman argument you are making.
"That's a blatantly dumb argument as, for a start, it's the software business that is calling for software patents to be granted in the EU.. "
No, it isn't. It's some software companies calling for them, while others (and if you can believe any of the recent polls, the vast majority) are totally against them.
"That argument is dumb too cause there's amature radio enthusiests. There's amature car enthusiests. There's amature plane enthusiests. All these industries are restricted by international patents."
Sigh, since when exactly did amateur plane enthusiast work on something being in direct competition to the offerings of boing and aribus? Oh, they don't, your analogy is meaningless, stupid and misleading. Not even a nice try.
"Yes, we won't have the 3.6 million bullshit little software companies that we have now, but hey, that's a small price to pay for maturing an industry into something actually reliable."
Yes, monopolies have a great track record when it comes to making something reliable and of high quality. Screw competition.
Btw., did you even notice, that with your last paragraph you essentially agreed to all the arguments of the oponents of software patents you had been arguing against all the time?
The national governments do not want to give away real power. Thus we have three bodies. The council, which consist of the national governments, where the big decisions are made. The commission which consist of the people appointed by the national governments, which take care of day-to-day operations. And the parliament with no real power which serve to give an illusion of democracy, and as a highly paid retirement post for national politicians.
The people who created the EU probably would have prefered a strong parliament, but the governments (supported by nationalist sentiments in the home countries) prevented that.
Still, EU is better than most other International bodies. WTO, UN, NATO have *no* elected bodies, which means that issues like these aren't even discussed openly. It is understandable for NATO and of no matter for UN, but a huge problem with WTO, which in many ways affect the life (and liberties!) of European citizens just as much as EU.
Actually they don't even need to sink the MEPs in a cash-bath. There are more than 30 lobbys in the EP whose only purpose is to suck the MEPs' brains until they say yes to software patents. If you were a politician (which, by definition, doesn't have any idea about how software development works) and you had 30 people visiting you every day telling you how wonderful and great software patents are for everyone and only occasionally someone asking you to stop software patents, what would you do?
I think it might be a useful strategy to associate this sort of zipping legislation through despite significant popular opposition with the recent "no" votes against the EU constitution. Perhaps they will start to get the idea that the EU must be "by and for the people" rather than an elite club of politicians in brussels that go about doing what they want whatever anyone says.
I've decided I'm going to phone up, and annoy the bloody hell out of the 7 MEPs for Scotland. Although each and everyone of them have about 4 offices each dotted around.
Grr.
Actually I think RMS failed to realize he was writing for the British. Why else would he use Hugo as an example, when the British have Shakespeare, perhaps the number one infringer of literary patents?
I'm a sci-fi vegan: I don't want the aliens to think we have as much right to live as the fried chickens we eat.
Whether they're right in their skepticism I really don't know. It's interesting that the people of France are so seemingly skeptical of an instution that shovels them massive subsidies to keep their tiny, inefficient farms afloat...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Unfortunatly I think that we will probably see software patents in the EU in the next few years irrespective of how hard we fight them. The companies pushing for them just have to much money and can easily buy off the people that make the choice so... we should start looking for ways in which we can undermine the system and bring it down.
The people voting on software patents are going to vote for them whatever we do but what we might be able to do is add clauses that provide useful loop holes. One such clause I would push for is this: if the software is being given away for free it can't infringe a software patent. After all patents are there to protect the finantial interests of the inventer. I admit that the inventer could loose out here so perhaps give them 5 years of total protection and then allow this clause.
What do your think?
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Can you elaborate a little on this? It sounds like you are exaggerating somewhat for effect, but I'm curious on what's going on in the offices there.
He loves to try to slip in his agenda. While the overall article provides an interesting perspective, I always have to laugh at his stubborn insistence in clarifying why Linux is really HIS success (like "The popular operating system is GNU/Linux, not Linux")
Pure ego talking! (I guess if I were him, I'd be a little frustrated too that Linus gets all the fame for Linux, when there are a lot of elements that go into it. But I still find it entertaining!)
That's really impressive.
About your analogy.
Software is different from airplanes. If you didn't figure it out yet, you don't need factories, raw material, assembly lines, etc, to write software, you need a text editor, that's all.
And you still didn't provide any argument why software patents and therefor less competition and a higher entry barrier into the market would make for better software, but you again confirm, that you agree with all the concerns of those opposed to software patents.
I'm looking for existing EU patents that show up the system. In his article RMS mentions patents on progress bars and accpeting payment by credit card... are there any other popular choices, or better still a page with lists of them?
Recently I've come up against one that, while I haven't read the actual text of, seems to cover downloading a file from a central authority that lists rates for several currencies, and using these rates to convert a price from a local currency to a foreign one.
Wow. I wish I'd thought of that.
NoimsThis is not the greatest sig in the world. This is just a tribute.
By drafting 'literary claims' he insinuates that something like this would ever exist. That will never be the case.
Furthermore, he insists that patents cover ideas.
Incorrect.
When I draft a patent claim for an idea, the (European/Chinese/Japanese/...(not-US)) examiner will reject it, I can tell be experience. The claim has to cover novel, inventive, clear and technical subject matter. Basically, structural features have to be mentioned. This prevents ideas from being patented. Sometimes the EPO may let things slip through, but then there is the opposition procedure to put the EPO back on track.
This prevents those hilarious events as in the US. Can anyone name a software patent lawsuit like SCO pulled up in Europe?
But like I said, (most) politicians do not know a pretty thing on software, patents, copyright and connected issues. They mix patents with copyright, in the way Stallmann explained, but also in another way: you do not need patents on inventions you implement using a computer, because you have copyright... That way of argumentation is wrong as well:
When I have a team of ten researchers working five years to develop a video compression circuit, I get a patent. Reason for this is that I spent fifty menyears to bring the world an invention that I am prepared to publish and the invention is technical. But what if a guy in China (US, Europe, Australia, whatever) copies every bit of the circuit in software, I would not have patent protection anymore, whereas I have patent protection on the hardware (silicon). Strange way of thinking...
We ended up in a big mess: industry (me, if you hadn't figured out already :-P), OSS community and politicians. Who's to blame? I'd say the incapable politicians. I am convinced that people who know they are talking about can figure out a solution here, preventing double and single clicking from being patented on one hand and providing a proper (not excessive) return on investment for industry.
I do not know from the top of my head when the next elections for the European Parliament are, but I'll have hard time finding out who to vote for.
My .sig says it all -- please contact your MEP and stop this madness!
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
I've tried some of his sandwiches and they are quite nice. A bit of trading on the family name though :-)
While you are on your billion rant, the "correct" way is to use commas, not apostrophes, to separate the groups of three digits. :-)
I'm with you on the fact that the British system is more systematic in that it counts the power of one million (bi- = 1e6 ^ 2; tri- = 1e6 ^ 3; quadri = 1e6 ^ 4 etc.) whereas the American system counts the power of one thousand, less one (bi- = 1e3 ^ (2+1); tri- = 1e3 ^ (3+1) etc.). And I mourn the loss of "milliard" from British usage. However, given that even the UK government now uses the American standard, I fear that the war is lost.
However, both systems are really French in origin, and there's no overwhelming historical justification for choosing one over the other.
On the subject of the word "program(me)", I believe that the overwhelming British preference is for -mme in all cases except that of computing, where -m is almost ubiquitous. To me, seeing -mme used in print is usually an indicator that the author (or editor) is less than entirely au courant with computing matters. But that is just an opinion. I must say, though, that the parent post's erratic spelling and grammar do not give the impression that the writer is an authority on orthographical matters!
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
If your hardware invention can be completely converted to software then it is not a hardware invention at all, it is in fact a software invention disguised as a hardware invention; one of the few loop holes in the new patent laws RMS talks about.
Copyright would have covered this blatent copying though, even if it is a hardware to software conversion; copyright still protects literary works if they are converted to an audio CD too.
As for "clear and technical"; do you realize that currently, patents do not need to be implemented at all and thus "clear and technical" is limited to the idea, not the implementation.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
So how is the One-Click patent NOT a patent on the *idea*?
In ALL of the software patents, HOW many of them have enough *technical* information to reproduce the work the patent is actually implemented (if it does not produce the work as implemented, then it is an idea that is patented, NOT the object).
Note: media companies will research video codecs (see BBC and Dirac). You know why? Because the compression of their video will allow the cost of storage and transmission to be reduced.
Another point regarding Dirac: the BBC don't WANT to have to pay royalties to reduce their costs, so they will produce their own.
dont bother calling your MEP: the european parliament is virtually powerless. real decisions are made in the council of ministers, hence national parliaments should be contacted.
a propos: the new constitution would have remedied that situation by awarding substantial powers to the european parliament.
SME's are the hardest hit here, but as the FFII organisers suggest, SME's need to make direct contact with MEP's, ideally in Brussels itself.
Fat yet hungry wolves like Apple and Microsoft et al http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1
http://wiki.ffii.org/Bsa050609En
It's not just that there is much to lose from unbridled software patenting, so much as there is arguably much to gain from disallowing them altogether.
Personally I would have thought the moment US mega-corps become involved, would be glaring reason for MEP's to become anxious over the interests of the directive, but as they say "follow the money".. in this case off a cliff.
After all, it's adopted software patents. It must be dead last in software innovations, right?
I couldn't say that if I were a non-technical person I would be able to grasp software patents after reading that article, but I would like to think so. The literary examples are right on the money.
Basically, all inventions can be turned to hardware. In any case, all electronic ones. Long before anyone even discussed the patenting of software, when the EPO objected towards all patenting of software, you could patent transistor circuits with complex filters. Nobody objected.
Now, you can put them in software, just like that. And all of a sudden, you are not allowed to obtain a patent for such a filter anymore? rather strange.
As for "clear and technical"; do you realize that currently, patents do not need to be implemented at all and thus "clear and technical" is limited to the idea, not the implementation. I beg to differ. From my experience as a patent attorney. And don't flame me for that, that would be too easy.
You're mixing up US and EU. Not a good idea. I sincerely hope that those will be two distinct jurisdictions, not only from a patent point of view.
is there anywhere I can register a company and employ myself to avoid it? E.g. If I create a company based in the Netherlands Antilles (sic?) will my company still be affected by this legislation? Silly question probably but I recently had a good idea that my current employer does not wish to pay for me to develop - so Ive been negotiated rights to develop it as my own property...NOW I also have to worry about what patents I may be violating? Somehow it doesnt seem worth pursuing anymore...and THAT is why software patents are so damn bad!
When writing to a Minister of Parliament, is it ok if I check AC?
brilliant! Then They will try to get that patent revoked with their prior art. And doing so expose themselves! Just brilliant!
It is wrong to imply that this hurts all smaller software companies. Many small professional software companies have protected their inventions with patents. This is especially true in Ireland where income from patent royalties is tax-free whereas income from non-patented royalties is taxed.
If the US patent regulation is so bad and constitutes a threat to Linux:
could please someone tell me what has happened to Linux in the US since then? Why is it still there?
"The only argument Stallman makes is that patents should not be overly broad."
Nope, that's not the argument he makes. Read the article again.
"If our industry is ever to mature we have to learn to let go of the status quo and embrace change."
Blah, blah, blah.
How about providing an argument, instead of build a strawman here. Nobody said he was against change in general, people are against this special change, because they see the negative consequences. They also provide arguments as to why the consequences would be negative, yet you chose to ignore these arguments, instead boring us with your meaningless "we have to embrace change" blah.
"This does not mean the amature programmer has to suffer. Free and Open Source Software can continue to produce new and innovative things, just like amatures do in automobile, aerospace, radio and other industries already covered by international patents."
Ouch.
1. Your insinuation, that FOSS==amateur is simply false. But a nice try, nonetheless.
2. Invocing a false analogy doesn't prove your point. As others already pointed out, aerospace amatures are not able to produce anything competetive to the offerings of Boeing, Airbus, etc. That's because airplanes and automobiles are fundamentally different from software, as they require factories, raw materials, etc., whereas software only needs a text editor.
"Personally, I'd like to see the copyright system not be applied to software."
Why? Do you want anyone to copy any software even if the author doesn't specifically allow it?
"The kind of argument Stallman makes about patents not being a good fit for literature can also be made for why copyright is not a good fit for automobiles or planes."
I couldn't have said it better.
That might be the reason why copyright doesn't apply to automobiles or planes, as it doesn't fit these products, as patents don't fit software and literature.
To sum it up.
You don't provide any argument besides using a false analogy and misrepresenting Stallmans argument and in the end you even agree with everything Stallman said, without even noticing that you do.
How anyone could mod this insightful is beyond me.
They just found their niches early and outmaneuvered and/or outlasted their competitors.
Even so, competition is good. Too bad the goal of competition is to win, which then ends the competition.
In fact, almost everywhere politicians have dared to give people the vote instead of just waving it through the vote has gone against the European institutions, and in many places a vote will not even be chanced because of overwhelming popular opposition
3 votes have been held. Spain voted massively for YES (77%), France and Netherlands (less) massively for NO (respectively 55% and 61%) but with a higher turnaround. Besides, the vote was not for or against European Institutions, it was for or against the European Charter.
Rubbish like ignoring a parliament to enact the will of civil servants will certainly not be helping.
You don't seem to understand how the European decision process goes. The EU is NOT a federal country. It has very little power over member states. The parliament has a consultative function but no real authority over member states. The Commission is just an administrative body and has no real power either. The EU Council has the power, it's basically a board room where EU countries negociate stuff. States are represented in the Council by the Heads of States not by anonymous European civil servants as you imply. It works pretty much like the UN. Each country has a representant in the Security Council who negociates and makes decisions in the best interest of his country.
I'll drive a parallel with the US. Donald Rumsfeld or Condi Rice are unelected officials. Yet they have been granted power by President Bush, who was elected (I won't get into the argument here). Within the bounds of theses powers, they can decide stuff independantly of the opinion of the Senate or Congress, which are elected bodies.
Maybe a better analogy : the EU is like the US would be if the Federal government had no power at all. The elected Senate would vote, but could only make recommandations since it would not have any power. The President of the US would not exist, the position would have no point. The real decisions would be made by direct negociations between State Governors, a broad equivalent of the EU Council.
but the point remains that these institutions have little to no popular support
This is ironic because the only European institution is the elected European parliament. Its powers would have been expanded in the EU constitution. It is misleading to present the EU constitution as a vote about giving power to elected or unelected bodies. The question is about transferring power from elected nationals to an elected European body. Do we want to go toward a federal European elected goverment with real powers over member states (like in the US) or do we want to keep all the power in the elected government of member states?
Prefering one way or the other is perfectly legitimate but please, don't claim that one is more democratic.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Prepare for more web-based services operating out of places like India being consumed in the EU.
Q: What does the EU & the USA have in common.
A: They are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Big Business.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I have never seen a proof that things like this constitute a substantial part of all software patents granted, or for that matter, actually happen at all. I also develop new things in software, often innovative, and and coding them takes much more time than having the idea, so I seriously doubt it. Show me an example of a software patent where more money was spent on the developers than lawyers crafting the patent claim.
But the problem is just that: that when the elected politicians in Parliament want one thing, and the non-elected EU officials want the opposite, it's just the beginning of a long fight. And it appears that the non-elected side will win.
When most of the power passes to people that don't have to worry about elections, that's a real problem. To an elected politician, the knowledge that he may have to explain his actions to ordinary citizens in the next election is the only counter-balance we have against the influence of all the US-funded corporate lobbyists in Brussels. For the non-elected, there is no such counter-balance.
No, actually not.Although this is one of the most widely used arguments for the (now dead) proposed constitution, it unfortunately isn't true.
The alleged strengthening of the Parliament(s) consisted of three major pieces:
- The European Parliament would get a say in areas that had earlier been outside its domain, in particular agriculture.
- More things would be decided according to the "co-decision procedure", which is the one that gives the EP the most influence.
- National parliaments would get an increased role, by getting a chance to express their opinions about policical agreements that had been reached in the Council of Ministers, before they were formally adopted as "common positions".
Sounds great, sure. But by looking at what we've learned from the fight against software patents, we can see that there is very little substance in it.To start with item no 2, the Software Patents Directive already is handled under the co-decision procedure. But thanks to the voting rules in the Parliament's second reading, where an absolute majority is required to overrule the non-elected Council, it is very difficult indeed for Parliament to make its opinions count. So that argument for the constitution is mostly a smokescreen.
If we then look at item no 3, it's even more of an empty gesture. Those who have been following the swpat issue know that when several national parliaments tried to express their concerns with the Council's "political agreement" of May 2004, they were just brushed aside and told that it was not possible to change it even if a majority of countries wanted to, and that the formal passing of the "common position" was indeed just a formality. So this argument seems to be more of an outright lie than a mere exaggeration.
And in view of this, the first item on the list of arguments for the proposed constitution doesn't impress very much either. Sure, it's an outrage that the entire agricultural subsidies budget is outside the control of the EP, and it would have been good to change that. But unless the parliamentarians have the power to actually influence the issues that they handle, what good would it do to let them aimlessly discuss them while the decisions are taken elsewhere?
For this reason, I'm glad that the French and Dutch citizens have managed to halt the process at least for the moment, to give Europe a time for reflection.
But even if we do in fact some day get a European Union that is governed in a reasonably democratic way, it will of course be too late for the software patents issue.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
The Financial Times summarizes the event as a major victory for the bad guys (to make it short). Still, the summary given on FFII's page states that the definition of field of technology as the field of applied natural sciences (and not exact sciences) excludes clearly software patents.
Also, Rocard's phrasing was to characterize what is patentable vs. what is not by considering if it requires or not the use of natural forces. All the good guys (to make it short) seem to agree with that characterization.
Can someone explain why it is a "major blow" ? And more precisely what is patentable with natural sciences which is not with natural forces ?
Cheers,--
Go Debian!
You do not understand the issue. Software is written in programming languages. If a software patent only covered the original program in the original programming language, it would be much more like a hardware patent but also almost identical to copyright. Such a patent could be circumvented simply by writing the code in a different language. Again, this is like hardware effects being duplicated by a different hardware implimentation (which is fine, that's why there were multiple types of steam engines competing for the market - no one was allowed to prevent the invention of other types).
Software patent supporters know all this and so software patents are drafted to give the patentee much greater power than hardware patents: they CAN suppress alternative methods of doing the same thing. That is where the danger lies.
When you patent a complex circuit with transistors you are patening THAT circuit (and some obvious knock-offs) but the software version would grant a patent on doing whatever its the circuit does no matter what the method used. This is inevitable given that there is no way for a patent-office grunt to judge whether the source code was different because it was a genuinely new approach or because it was a mechanically translated copy of the original code.
And that's without even looking at the whole issue that someone could simply patent the idea without even having made their own program!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
If indeed an analog circuit, then you may be able to emulate it to a certain extend in software, but it will not be identical. It is very likely that the software equivalent would be overly complicated for a software solution of the problem or won't even produce the same results as the analog counterpart.
The difference with the example you gave is that it is by it's nature a digital circuit, in that it produces discrete 0's and 1's as output. The hardware implementation is just an implementation of the algorithm; the idea. It could have been done in software without any noticable difference or perhaps even more efficient (in a theoretical sense. Hardware can be faster but software requires less knowledge of electronic engineering issues which have nothing to do with the actual invention).
Now if your video encoder used some specific tricks in hardware which cannot be logically (in that it would not be equal in result or overly complex in implementation) translated in software, i.e. hardware-"magic", then that should be patentable. Assuming that the hardware-"magic" is a required component of the idea, and not just some way to "fix" the idea to hardware which could have been done atleast as easily in software.
Even then, I would only consider that hardware-"magic" bit the patentable part, but that is my personal opinion and it would differ based on what it actually does in it's context; would the idea be substantially different if designed in some other way.
Then why is it happening anyway? You may have missed the recent news of Sony getting a patent on the idea of sending images/music/data directly to the brain without an interface. This technology does not exists and probably will not exist any time soon. So where's the "clear and technical" in that invention?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
>>> how does a small company become a large one
By being the least crap.
Perhaps you should read up a little on the subject before you start declaring your views as absolute truths.
And yes, patents do cover ideas. That's the whole point with them. As opposed to copyright, which covers the expression of ideas.
Please feel free to Google for more background information before making you next post. Perhaps you will want to start with something that Dr. Stallman has written. He appears to be considerably more well informed on the subject than you.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
While I agree that software patents should not exist I disagree wholeheartedly with your statement that software innovations without considerable investment.
It is all a matter of scale. An innovation isn't necessarily one component or snippet of code. It can be the who application or system and the manpower and costs are not insigificant at those scales.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Perhaps we could get America to support a civil uprising in favour of bringin democracy to Europe.
I'm not sure if I'm joking here or not.
How about this for a change? Instead of sitting behind our computers arguing this issue on the internet, how about getting up and doing something about it? If we really want to accomplish something, sitting here on the internet arguing out it's petty points isn't going to solve a thing, and I think that's the MAIN reason things like the DMCA will never go away.
Sure, we're are angry enough, that much is easily visible, but where's the passion to get anything done to stop it? Circumventing it and putting in all that effort to work around it could be channeled into something much more effective (i.e. creating some change), and could make life much easier for everyone...
Just a thought.
I took the action and wrote to Finnish Europarlament members and encouraged them to say NO for software patents.
You can find the contact information of our MEPs through this page. The page has links to contact pages of all political parties and their europarlament members. I wrote to them with my own words and described my view as an information technology student and starting entepneur on why software patents are bad. I hope that all other Finnish here on Slashdot will do the same. If we can make an large impact on them, they will for sure vote againts the directive but also encourage MEPs from other countries to vote againts the directive.
As a side note, I have to say that now is the time to fight. If the patent directive goes thrue, the future will be grim. On my own part, having the directive passed, would mean that I would have to publish the software I'm developing before it's fully ready, just to make sure that I have atleast little bit of my ass covered, before the legislation starts to effect. It's a shame that people and big companies in EU don't understand that competition is good and having hard competition here in Europe is the only way to make us competetive against the rest of the world.
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
You don't sit down and write a car now do you? We're talking about creation here, not use. You could easily say that you "use" a manual, a set of instructions, i.e. exactly what software is. You don't want people to patent learning material now do you?
I agree with the sentiment that now is the time to fight, but not just in Europe. We have the power/knowledge to kick this things ass before it gets any further anywhere else, and possibly cut it out permanently if we care strongly enough.
It's good to see that someone else has cared enough to do something about it. Kudos.
China! They don't give a damn about foreign patents that kill innvation and small businesses.
:-(
I want an account on a chinese CVS server right now!
microsoft can beat Linux - is by outlawing/sueing it. They can't beat it technically because they can't program worth a shit. All they can do now is politic and shove their crap software down people's throat.
Microsoft sucks - fsck off bill and steve and tell George W hello when you guys go over to the ranch next time.
The real issue here is that there are so many people that are vocally against patents on the internet but realistically how many of those are actually consulting with their Members of the European Parliment. I have recently asked how many people had actually contacted my MEP in the UK and the response was very few. If we want to make our point of view heard you will need to make it public WRITE a letter and post it to your MEP, Email them, and bombard the local news papers with information otherwise whats the point if nobody actually hears about the battle?.
UK Residents can send a fax directly to their MEP by using http://www.writetothem.com/
It takes just a moment to write a short letter and faxing is more likely to have an impact.
Yes, by physical nature. Not necessarily by operation.
Me too.
And I do know that using bipolars, just as well as CMOS, you can create almost identically operating circuits. Digital and analogue. Only issue is that the current through you bipolar circuit will be a lot more and that digital bipolar circuits (TTL) take up more footprint on the silicon and are therefore more expensive, even though bipolar is a cheaper technology.
I do not know the exact example by heart anymore, but it is for example possible to enhance your bass system by filtering out the lower harmonics from your input signal, double the frequency and skip every second period using e.g. a diode. In this way, it will look like your tiny PC speaker will be able to provide a powerful bass. This is called a psyco-acoustic effect. All elements, filters, frequency doublers, (analogue signal) adders can be implemented in analogue circuitry. No software, whatsoever, so patentable. Agreed?
The same idea can be just as well be implemented in software, e.g. as a Winamp plugin. Analogue operation on analogue signals can be performed on digital signals using digital operators. At least, that's what I learned in University (discrete-time signal processing by A.W.M. van den Enden and N.A.M. Verhoeckx)
You transfer the transfer function in the s (analogue frequency domain) to the z (discrete frequency domain) and design a circuit obeying the z transfer characteristics. And you're done!
US or European patent?
If you want to make a difference, ensure you are familiar with the issues and arrange a meeting with your MEP, even if that means flying to Brussels. In the meeting focus on the practical impact of software patents, and be sure to bring along the FFII's analysis of the various amendments which can be found here.
Its gone way beyond simply bombarding MEPs with emails, if you care about this you need to make sure your MEPs sit up and take notice of you, and email won't achieve that.
Eventually, the proceeds from a work become insignificant, not for the artists themselves, they can still make a living, (but not a killing,) but economically.
At that point nobody sues because it is not worth it. You don't sue someone who happens to be playing your song on his guitar on the beach, even if he was supposed to get paid for 'an hour of playing music on the beach'.
The free and open-source movement is not economically significant BY DESIGN and as such all the standards used perform the same role as played by the language itself (I COULD copyright a word, its called "trademarking", but then I would run the risk of its NOT being used.)
While they MIGHT WANT TO SUE, they won't because there's no money in it.
My advice with software patents is ignore the very concept of them.
Just write your code as if it was free and open. (Never expect to make enough to retire and you shouldn't have any problem as you're obviously too broke to bother with.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
RMS is eating his children - claims that Linux violates 283 Patents
1 2449,1510566,00.html>
0 ,4814,94986,00. >)
.
in <URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,
RMS ( Richard M. Stallman ) claims that Linux infringes 283 different US software patents.
He makes the statement as if it were an accepted fact.
The reality is that a study funded by Open Source Risk Management LLC (OSRM), a company that provides insurance against lawsuits related to the use of open-source products, found 283 *possible* areas of infringement.
(see <URL:http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2004/
1) the OSRM has an ax to grind in this one - they are selling "patent-infringement" insurance to Corps. who use Linux. "no fear" == "no sale"
2) "Possible infringement", by the criteria of the OSRM, is a long way from "infringement" - which has to be proven via litigation.
Stating the "ifringement" as a fact (especially a statement by such a software leader as RMS) will only damage the viability of Linux - both in the courts, and in corporate use.
Bottom line: RMS would kill Linux to make a point about patents. This is a bad trade, just at a time when some of the biggest relevant patent holders (IBM, SUN) are donating their patent rights to the Open Source movement, to PROMOTE systems such as Linux.
A common research engineer/scientist e.g. in the field of video compression produces a patentable invention three months; each time with other colleagues. A very good one does not produce more that five.
I do not make very much more money than someone doing research, so basically, the patent drafting is cheaper than the research.
In Europe, that is.
Patents are like safe oasis in the wilderness of tough software competition. If you reached the field first you should be able to mark that territory so the others will not be allowed to exploit it, this is applicable for every business why software should be excluded ?
No, seriously. When an appointed body starts to overrule the wishes of the elected majority, it's time to pull their sorry asses out of theit plush offices and string them up from lampposts. And leave them there so the next bunch has an idea what to expect.
It's getting very close to revolution time. JTTKTZN
The example you give is exactly what I mean; The bass amplifier circuitry you describe is analog by nature. You can do a similar thing in software but it would be so using a very different method. There is no possiblity to do a 1::1 conversion of the hardware to software and thus this hardware invention would be patentable.
The original example you gave of a video encoder would most likely not use any specific analog trickery; it would be possible to do a 1::1 conversion in software and thus it is essentially a software thing. At least that's how most anti-software-patent people view it. Besides, a specific software encoder implementation would most likely be sufficiently protected by copyright law.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The progress bar patent is mentioned on FFII's Software Patents FAQ page.
In addition to the Webshop example, which other posters have mentioned, you can find some more examples here.
And don't forget Acacia's patent on streaming video, which is another good illustration of how software patents work in practice.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
I understand at one point in time that Patents and Copyrights made sense to some extent, but in this day and age we've made it to a point where, naturally, we are at a point in our intellectual evolution where we obviously should be moving past these petty non-tangible properties. It is very obvious that we have come to this point, the mere fact that they are having such a terribly hard time controlling them is evidence in its self. It's so sad that people are trying so terribly hard to hang on to the past. It really makes me wonder how much longer all of this will continue.
The constant battle is between commercial interests and knowledge expertise. The former creating jobs but locking down the knowledge and the latter disseminating the patented information and allowing the former to even exist.
EVERYBODY's information is at some point somebody's private purvue. Its just a question time 'till somebody puts the information out in the public domain, for free, gratis.
I own several books of algorithms. If they were patentable I shouldn't bother as they wouldn't help me in anyway unless I was working for hire for their patent owner. In fact, the books themselves would be violations of the patent. That clearly isn't the case. The books are published to disseminate knowledge and they do.
A long time ago, I wrote COBOL code to implement a good part of Smalltalk's Collection mechanism, (twice in the same program because I had only two collections and I didn't feel like getting into dynamic memory usage, BLL cells, playing with offsets etc.,) because I needed it to solve the problem that existed.
Do I owe a debt of gratitude to the person who thought if it first? Yes. Do I owe any money? Nope. They didn't write in COBOL and it was just an idea.
That's the thing. As long as you base your code of the inevitability of doing the right thing, 'the correct' thing, you can say that your code was just a reimplementation of the standard.
And screw the software patents. I've never even thought of them before and I'm certainly NOT going to let them stop me in the future. When I code, I certainly will acknowledge where got the idea from, but I am NOT going to let the fact that I got it from somewhere stop me.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
No, but they do spark innovation. Is every car being sold painted black?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The best way to get something done in Europe or anywhere else is to be very vocal about the problem, in places where it's not normally discussed, and strongly advocate your position. We know that software patents will hurt the smaller companies, so everybody needs to spread that information offline as much as possible, blow it way out of proportion so all those nongeek idiots see a problem, and shout down anybody who disagrees. These are the tactics that vocal minorities such as neoconservatives and the religious right use to get stupid laws passed, and in a world where people only ever listen to loud, abrasive assholes, we would do well to start making some noise!
correct. But I referred to a bass augmentation circuit. English may not be my mother tongue, but I do know the difference. And in this case, a 1::1 conversion is possible, by an s-to-z tranformation of the transfer function of the circuit.
I'd say that is the correct way of putting it..
Knowing enough on EE technology AND patent/copyright law in the EU, I can tell you that is not the case. Based on information in patent publications, the standards description and trial and error, you should be able to write your own MPEG codec. Without being liable for copyright infringement. That's more or less also the way Lindows has been created.
While setting up the open (!= free) standard of MPEG, companies had to disclose their know-how during discusssions. As the standard would be published, a non-disclosure agreement did not suffice for protections. Therefore, companies applied for patents, to prevent the product of a couple of menyears of research. In this way, the companies could have a proper discussion on creating a standard that would provide the best solution possible.
The other option is a proprietary standard of one company, holding a monopoly to a de facto standard: WMV/WMA.
Which of these two options do you prefer?
It may sound odd, but patents may in this way be the only method to keep Microsoft from taking a full monopoly, as it is the only way other companies can (will) freely discuss their ideas.
Yes, but you don't need a proof in order not to justify keeping the law as it is, whereas you definitely need it when you want it changed and are making certain claims (like "supporting innovation"). Anyone can claim they need the law changed.
> This hard work is also required to invent.
The question remains, what is the optimal method of promoting this. I personally have nothing against certain levels of intellectual property protection. Imagine however a typical case of a software developer, when you have a copyright on something and someone else a patent on the same thing. The actual effect is the exproprietation of your intellectual property, and thus the law doesn't promote your activity in this area.
IMHO a decision on the legal system should be based on comparisons between investment required in both parts of the "R&D": those that result in ideas, and those that result in code. Unfortunately, I don't know of any proper analyses from this point of view, so I can only base my claims on personal experience. I have been coding for about 18 years, and I specialize on optimising (also did some optimising in video transformations, like rewriting parts using MMX). I can't remember a case where I invested more resources into the idea per se than in coding it. As software patents pre-empt copyright protection, in a world with them I would be less protected and less motivated.
No that would just hurt OSS in general. It should be free for all even those who oppose it. Sooner or later they will see the light.
The fact that there is competition means that the market is healthy. For example, there are a billion auto-responders out there, and many charge $19US/month or less for service. The one I sell costs $200US/month because it is highly specialized. If the features I offer are important to you, then the $19/mo ones won't work. If you wanted to write your own, it would cost you much more than $200/mo. Microsoft or BMC wouldn't even bother to do something like that because they aren't going to compete on price with the $19ers and they won't bother to devote coders to getting a few 10s of customers at $200.
Patents don't do crap except kill software dev market.
How many different types of programs are there? Infinite.
How many potential patents are there? Infinite.
Do you either try to search for a patent that covers what you want to do, or do you go ahead and ignore it, hoping you stay small enough to not get noticed? Hmm; the former takes...$$$$ and lots of time (forever) that you could be devoting to coding.
Software Patents are used to stifle competition only and they should be abolished. You want to copyright your code, fine. Do it. I personally only copyright the name and distinguishing graphics, because my product is always moving forward. If someone wants to try to copy it, they can reproduce all the features of my v4.3 and release it about the time I'm releasing v5.0. Worrying about competition is a waste of brain-cells.
Yeah, right.
Since France and the Netherlands rejected the EU constitution, are they bound to follow the directive if it gets passed, or can they just ignore it?
The patent wars between the Wright brothers and the Douglas Aircraft company are legendary.
Oh, and the Wrights won. Douglas was a con man, nothing more.
Precisely! Quick, somebody do this before Senator Bill Frist or Tom DeLay figure this patent thing out!
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
with the SNP MEPs. They have been more than receptive to my letters (replying with a personal letter rather than a standard reply and even on one occasion writing to me of their own accord to tell me about a change in the situation!). Contact the SNP but please dont annoy them as they are on our side. Annoy the Labour and Tory MEPs. I got a standard "we oppose patents" reply from Labour which was a transparent pack of lies.
/. account at some point)
Ill be writing to them all again. Ive found that WriteToThem.com is the easiest way to do this.
The Grum
(who really should get a
So a company then says "pull your program or we'll sue you". You have no choice but to comply, guilty or not.
When writing a MEMBER of Parliament, you're more likely to get a response if you don't write anonymously [unless of course you're not from his/her constituency, then you have a better chance writing an anonymous letter.
Please see my Journal for a sample letter to a MP, I wrote one concerning the DMCA for Canada bill.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I recommand to everybody in Europe to come to this Conference:
June 29th 2005 - Conference in the European Parliament
http://economic-majority.com/konf050629/
Or at least register to the Support Form at:
http://economic-majority.com/index.en.php
Now it's time to do something, or it will be too late.
Sincerely,
Hervé Fulchiron
Zinside - Provider of Open Source Solutions
http://www.zinside.com/
There desperately needs to be a push for the separation of money and state. The only influence that should be available to work on a governmental body is the interests of the people being governed. Yet more and more special interests with their special contributions are dwarfing the influence of the people.
I think just about everyone has some idea how wrong this situation is and I see so little effort in fighting the problem at the core. The DMCA, software patents, copyright extensions and all that crap wouldn't be possible if governmental bodies weren't so easily influenced by the money of special interests. THAT is the problem that needs to cease.
Hell, I imagine that quite a large number of open source (and closed source developers, but OSS hits a bit closer to home for many) who do just this in order to learn from and build upon the software that is already out there.
Screw the "funny" mod. Parent should be modded "insightful".
*I say unfortunately, because right now though there are a good number of projects that I wish I could help out on (with uControl, a now abandoned OS X project being one that hits close to home) I unforunately lack the time to learn how to do so, though I would be more than happy to test out anyone's attempts.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
One idea would be to "embrace and extend" (pardon that phrase, but it seems appropriate) the patent system by Open Source.
That is, have all Open Source contributors start to patent everything they can think of related to their code. A "Beowulf Cluster" (again, pardon the phrase) of Open Source Patent submitters. Combine this will a collective agreement for enforcement of Patents, with a bounty system for Lawyers.
Or, more crudely, a Beowulf Cluster of Inventors coupled with a Beowulf Cluster of Lawyers, all working under the flag of Open Source.
I can think of no more effective solution to invalidate the field of Software Patents completely. It certainly seems like the Political System isn't going to do the job.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
Now would be a good time to remember that Microsoft and Apple are working together to fight against the open-source community on this.
(Thanks to Leoxx for the linkage.)
Is this just another of those impossible to reinforce bylaws that really holds no water? I understand that in theory this whole software patents thing is pretty awful. If software patents are enforced, ultimately and realistically, what does this mean for OSS projects like Linux, gnome, kde, apache, php, postgresql, openoffice etc. etc. Would this be the end of OSS as we know it? or will the OSS cogs keep on turning unbeturbed in the background? (luckily I am posting from South Africa)
I actually got off my backside (figuratively, of course) and penned a mail straight away to my MEP, Richard Corbett MEP, of Leeds, UK, voicing my concerns about this.
Here is the bulk of his reply:
"My personal opinion is that this issue is far from settled as there is a
considerable difference of views between the European Parliament's first
reading position and the position reached in the Council (which has only
just been formally adopted, but with growing reticence among some
national governments). The text can only become law if it is approved in
identical terms by both the Council (national ministers from each
country) and the European Parliament, with up to three readings in each
institution. My position is as follows:
I am not in favour of patenting of software as in the US.
Europe needs a uniform legal approach to stop the drift towards
extending patentability to areas which would not have been
traditionally allowed, and to stop patentability of pure business
methods, algorithms or mathematical methods.
Software products as such must not be patented.
Opensource software must be allowed to flourish and this Directive
must not have adverse effects on opensource software and small
software developers.
Patents and the threat of litigation must not be used as an anti-
competitive weapon to squeeze out small companies.
Thank you for writing in on this important matter."
Personally, i think this is a pretty positive viewpoint!
If someone had told me earlier that patents could help bring the downfall of McDonalds, I wouldn't have spent so many nights kissing that picture or RS before I went to sleep.
We're already seeing the chilling effects that software patents have on open source software. Is there a commercial distribution of Linux that you can use to play a DVD right out of the box? Or pretty much any video file other than mpeg for that matter? It's not too hard to find mplayer or a MP3 encoder right now, but as more countries adopt software patents, it's eventually going to be damn near impossible to do all the things that proprietary OS users take for granted. And how long will it be before you can't even write a network server because some tiny little IP company has filed a bullshit patent on the idea which no OSS developer can afford to challenge in court?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
When after approving software patents, they find their software industry being sued into bankruptcy by American firms who have already patented the software equivalent of the wheel?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Agreed software is only deservant of copyright protection it is simply language (even machine code), just a simpler more formal language.
"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."
- Abelson & Sussman, SICP, preface to the first edition
Find your MEPs via http://www.writetothem.com/ Be sure to *only* write to your own representatives as writing to others will merely annoy and set back the cause.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
If we all do this, things will go well.
Come on guys and gals it's up to you! Let us know how we can support this.
I'm personally bycotting many corporations and oranization and written letters to them to that extent. Yea, it's affected my life. (For the biggies) I don't buy music and i've greatly limited movie going, renting,
I wonder whose interests this European Commission is representing. Looking at this: http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/pikta/perled/#invland it seems obvious that they work especially for the interests of USA and Japan. Great job, considering how much it costs the European tax payer!
Do you really believe that paying for one man to work for three months is sufficient to deserve monopoly rights for 20 years? That the investor should be protected from copycats, who would somehow be able to develop the same thing in less than three months by reverse engineering? That every company in the world should be required to pay whatever the patenter asks in order to be allowed to use the results of that three months' work?
You can not patent a mathematical algorithm and EVERY computer program is a mathematical algorithm. It's proven mathematically and is without question. Why no one is using this argument is beyond me.
Here's the reply I got from Liz Lynne MEP (MEP for the West Midlands, UK) when I sent her an email via faxyourmp.com.
I was quite impressed that the reply came within two hours, but I guess it might be a standard response. This might be seen as encouraging, however, as it perhaps shows that many people are writing to her on this subject.
-----------------
Dear Mr. Hogan,
The European Parliament voted its first reading on the proposal in September 2003 where amendments were adopted to strictly limit patents to new inventions only. The Council of Ministers adopted its Common Position on 7 March 2005. Although the Common Position clarifies the boundaries of what can and what cannot be patented when software is involved, it does not extend current practice; nothing will become patentable that is not currently patentable. Importantly, non-technical software, mathematical algorithms, and business methods are all specifically excluded. My own view remains that EU legislation is needed to bring legal certainty into what is at the moment a highly unclear and unsatisfactory situation for firms of all sizes.
It is now for the European Parliament to react. I have no doubt that our reaction will be critical, particularly in the area of the scope and definitions in the Directive. As the measure potentially could go all the way to a Conciliation committee of the Council and the Parliament, it is difficult at this stage to foresee the likely outcome. Clearly, several Member States appear to be unhappy with the common position, and the Commission appears to be flexible.
If the EU were to fail to enact a law, it would effectively be left up to the Court of Justice to try to build a coherent body of case law in the field. That would take time, and a consistency of jurisprudence that backed a permissive approach to software inventions could not be guaranteed. In the meanwhile the European Patents Office in Munich would continue to dish out patents to computer programs.
Liberal Democrats will wait to see what the Rapporteur, Michel Rocard, proposes in the Legal Affairs Committee. Your views have been a helpful contribution to the advice we are receiving on the potential impact of the Directive and we will take them into account. I wish to assure you that Liberal Democrat policy is clearly against allowing the patenting of software and that this principle is guiding our consideration of these matters.
The Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for a fair and legally sound outcome on this very important issue.
Yours sincerely,
Liz Lynne MEP
The patent law of most European countries, both EU and non-EU, is underpinned by the European Patent Convention (EPC). The EPC also created the European Patent Office (EPO) which enables separate patents for multiple European countries to be obtained through a single application process. Thus, the current UK, German, French, Dutch, Hungarian etc. law on what is patentable is intended to have the same effect as the corresponding provisions of the EPC, which are applied directly by the EPO.
However, there has been a tendency for each country's courts to interpret these provisions differently from those of the other countries and the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO). The Commission came to the view that this lack of harmony was incompatible with the single market. This is stated explicitly in articles 2 and 3 of the draft directive:
(2) Differences exist in the protection of computer-implemented inventions offered by the administrative practices and the case law of the different Member States. Such differences could create barriers to trade and hence impede the proper functioning of the internal market.
(3) Such differences have developed and could become greater as Member States adopt new and different administrative practices, or where national case law interpreting the current legislation evolves differently.
The aim of the Directive was to harmonise the jurisprudence of the EU member states with that of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO. In effect, the Directive would force courts to interpret the issue of technical contribution in line with the content of the Directive instead of by applying tests that the individual national courts had devised.
There was no intention of changing the substantive law and it is doubtful that the EU could do this because the law on patentability is derived from the EPC, to which non-EU states, including Switzerland, Bulgaria, Iceland, Turkey and Romania, are parties, with a leavening from TRIPS.
The promulgation of the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions was never going to be the correct forum for preventing "software patents". The horse had already bolted when the EPC and TRIPS treaties were negotiated. The scope of the Directive was far too limited and the power of the EU to change substantive patent law too circumscribed by these other treaties.
As the proposed patent regulation in Europe wouldn't outlaw the writing of the code as such, we could basically as a non-violent "Mahatma Gandhi"-demonstration against it, publisize the code, but as literature (or, for that matter, maths). Stranger things should have been publicized before, there's lot of strange poetry etc floating around. If in doubt, we'll just have to port all open source projects to Shakespear.
This wouldn't really in theory help - compiling the code and putting it on a computer wouldn still infringe the patents. There wouldn't be any easy way to control it, though, compare with the indian salt marches during the indian independence fight...
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
I wrote 16 well-worded letters of protest to a cross-section of MEPs. The general results are as follows:
About 10 wrote back, even if I wasn't in their region.
UKIP is FIRMLY AGAINST
LIB DEM is FIRMLY AGAINST
GREENS are FIRMLY AGAINST
TORIES are MAINLY AGAINST
NEW LABOUR (aka The Red Peril) are TENTATIVELY FOR
So...what the fuck is going on? The majority of people I wrote to are against this legislation, and even the Tories (Republican types for the US readers) don't like the sound of big US businesses being able to enforce their vast backlog of software patents over here.
But the most informative answers I got back were from the UKIP members. They basically said 'We're all against it, but the views of the general public don't matter to the EU commission anyway, so we're all stuffed.'
Look at the fiasco over the consitution. Noone wants it except the mandarins at the top. Same for software patents.
Keep writing those letters, but focus on your New Labour MEP - we've already won over the others.
-Nano.
All is not yet lost as the rejected amendments can be re-tabled when the entire European Parliament has the opportunity to vote next month.
For those Americans confused by this statement, remember that the British political term "table" is the opposite of the American political term "table". So this means the amendments can be brought back into discussion.
BOOOYAAA IN YOUR MOTHER F_ING FACE!!!!
Nice quote man, nice quote.
People need to recognize!!!!!!
Or is the new EU system so ridiculously complex and byzantine that nobody really knows who actually wields the power to do anything useful?
I keep hearing stories about the EU that suggest that just about anybody has the power to pretty much anything, even without the voting support of the member nations..
Where the hell can I find information on what, precisely, the life cycle of an EU directive is?
... when the opposition make up the rules.
..is almost complete. And I haven't even done a sodding thing.
Is this the same EU that voters in Europe are busy rejecting? The one in total disarray?
Currently hooked on AMP
Recently the US Supreme Court ruled that the pharmaceutical industry can utilize competitors' patents for research and even during a trial, without a license, as long as a new product is not being marketed. This may also have some interesting applications in the software market. Let's see if there are smart open source advocates who can exploit this idea. Oh, and I think a few citizens in the EU ruled that EU commissions are undemocratic. ;-)
It's all about money..
,just think how fast they will be on your side,
How many posters have to tell you this before it sinks in.
How can I change the world. "Doh"
Abide by thier laws.
Don't buy thier music.
Don't buy thier software.
Don't give them your money. (vote with your wallet,this is called reverse bribery)
Take your money out of thier equations.
If they don't make money off of consumers
"and bad consumer laws will be repealed"
Make them lobby the government for your rights and your money.
The power has always been in your hands. (use it)
Gunillablue (consumer at large)
somehow i read the topic as "Major to Blow off Opponents' Pants in EU."
"You encounter a syphilitic orc. Roll to defend yourself."
Can overloading the patent system bring it to a halt? Not becessarilly.
But what is really needed is a way to make the finding of prior art much more effective than it is today. Most patents might be invalid due to proper art, but the process of finding the relevant prior art is very expensive. It is expecially so in software, not because it is software, but because a single product is usually made up of thousands of components connected together in different complicated ways. Each component and each relation between components might be patented, and though it is very likely that components similar enough may be related in the same way in something that was produced in the past (making it prior art) it can be anywhere including in software that does something that does something that looks completely different than what is perceived that a patented idea can do. That makes it practically impossible to locate prior art without scanning all existing software and actually underdatnding what every component really does in the most general way, and all the relation between the components, not only in the way they interact with each other, but also in theways they might interact with each other when put in a different environment. So a patent registered in relation with managing B2B on the internet might have prior art invalidating it in some resource management system in a mainframe OS from the 60's. Now how do you find the prioe art? You'd have to guess that it's there, and you'd have to understand that technology... and where would you find then info on 60'OS's.
So tools are needed to make all this info searchable in ways that make finding relevant data easier, therefore cheaper, and then more software patents would be chalenged.
The real problem with those patents is not that they apply to software, but that they apply the wrong criteria to determine what is patentable. Non-obviousness is not enough in a field where the production process is the puting together of elements in new nontrivial ways. This is exactly the same as in the Hugo novel example of Richard Stallman: novels are produced by putting together elements in non-trivial and innovative ways. If monolpoly on every step in the production of a novel is granted to "patent holders" then production becomes impossible, except for those protected by a private army (of lawyers) that enables them to comfortably infringe inside while their armies are defending the perimeter. If car manufacturers would have had to legally clear every single car they make (and not once for all cars of a certain model) there would be no cars produced. A programmer is required to clear every single line of code. If you compare it to the automobile industry, it would mean at most a few hundres lines of code per year, and the rest of the time spent on legalities. Except, of course, for those organizations with private legal armies that could hide their programmers in secret instalations, secretly infringe on patents, and have the perimeter legally guarded by constantly attacking others.
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 Commission (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (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-commission 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 any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupefying 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, whom 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 amendments made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessary 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 software business, 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 mentioned 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.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following definition:
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally 20 years from the filing date)... Per the word'
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Damn! I though it at least would be half consistent. You shouldn't trust those pro-SW-patent-guys with anything, I suppose. I get really upset - I see this as a really big chunk of my right to free speech! Even if allowing patents on software (in the computer system-way I said which was how I had understood the software patent proposal) there really isn't any reason to make publishing of code illegal, is there? Or is publishing drawings, photos etc of patented "traditional" inventions also being outlawed??? That would be the appropiate comparison...
About maths - it's interesting they want to cover code - which doesn't really do anything on it's own unless loaded on a computer, it's just "weirdly looking maths" (all code have an absolute, matehematical defined semantical meaning). Basically it would allow patents on maths soon too, if you only describe it in code and not in "maths notation". Code in your favourite language really isn't anything else than applied maths...
Sigh!
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
This IS really a weak argument, the parent poster is right about that. You are fully aware (or at least ought to be), that modern unix based Osses, like Linux, are vastly superior to those that were first created decades ago.
Claiming anything else would be contentious. One could as well say, then: "I'm sorry, how does reproducing Windows, 20 year old technology, justify your claim that the software industry is innovative?"
Clearly, such a remark is nonsensical. the innovative aspects lies in the new capacities the program has, not in the name of the product, nor in your implied assertion that modern variants are "replica's" of years ago.
This isn't true for Windows, and it isn't true for Linux/Unix.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
If you have a look at the text of each amendment, you can see, that the intention of some amendments is pretty well disguised.