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."
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.
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)
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
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 $10,000,000 to fund the challenge.
When granted for truly original inventions within a certain limited scope, patents are a wonderful thing that encourage innovation. But that's in theory. In practice, they're something else entirely.
Don't let the patent lawyers and the politicians they lease paint rosy pictures of theory over the cesspit of practice. Don't let software patents pass in Europe.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
It costs very little to be innovative in Software.
The same cannot be said of innovation in pharmaceuticals.
From the article:
"They (those in favour of Software Patents) argue that intellectual property rights provide incentives for companies to innovate and invest in research and development."
What i'm saying is, that in my opinion, this argument is void because it is possible to innovate in Software without any considerable investment in anything other than your own time.
I was looking for slow transformation to be a musician and record producer (at least no one can patent certain sounds), but this will quicken my farevell. Guess what...another industry killed by greedy corporations. Yeah, money it is all that matters. Who cares about healthy, free market? Fuck it.
Sorry about my rant, it is just really sad.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
The GPL is already a "political" license (as opposed to BSD-style licensing), and this scares some governments away from using it in the public service. We don't like this, but sadly that's the way it is in some parts of the world.
If the GPL were amended in such a way as to fight patents, it would become even more political. IMHO, politics don't belong in licensing terms, but in the political debate.
Now that we've apparently lost the patents fight (or are on the way to losing it), we need to regroup and take political action more seriously than before. No more and no less. A change in GPL terms won't make a dent into the current state of affairs.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
The only argument Stallman makes is that patents should not be overly broad.
No, he argues why authors (of text or software) are not helped by patents. And why patents (monopolies) hinders development for authors.
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.
FOSS authors have already been threatened by patent holders even when the FOSS authors fully own the copyright on their own code and has not pirated any code. By allowing software patents, software authors lose the right to their own work. And unlike "mature" industries, the software author can reach a large audience on the internet, competing with big business. Of course big business will use their patent monopolies to censor independent authors if they threaten their bottom lines.
Personally, I'd like to see the copyright system not be applied to software.
So that everyone could pirate any software they liked? Windows, Photoshop, etc?
Or so that M$ could rip off any independent developer and include their code in Windows without having to pay any royalties? Please explain.
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.
Well, copyright is not appropriate for automobiles and planes. What is your point?
)9TSS
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.
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.
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!
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?.
No, but they {amateurs} do spark innovation. Is every car being sold painted black?
Yes, amateurs ARE important. But when they start posing a threat for the heavyweights, they try to crush them.
And they usually succeed. Software patents is just another weapon for them.
I'll give an example: Have you heard of the Tucker, a car way ahead of its time?
From the website The Tucker Club: Preston Tucker was a car-crazy kid who hung around auto speedways and grew up to create an automobile--the Tucker--that was years ahead of its time.
I don't need a signature.