EU Software Patent Directive Getting Hot

zoobab writes "Next wednesday, on the 6th July, the European Parliament will have the last chance to prevent US-style software patents in the EU. If the Parliament fails to reach 367 votes for the key amendments, then the Council directive will legalize business methods and software patents. Yesterday, many political groups have tabled amendments to patch the Council text. A demonstration online is running with currently 2400 websites shutting down until the vote. A physical demonstration is also planned in Strasbourg on next tuesday the 5th of July."

Comments

How to contact your MEP

[Ed Avis]

A list of all MEPs with their phone numbers at Brussels and Strasbourg.

Re:How to contact your MEP

[nanoakron]

I recently contacted 9 local MEPs. The general spread of replies was as follows.

UKIP, Lib Dem AGAINST software patents
Conservatives TENTATIVELY AGAINST
Labour ALMOST CERTAINLY FOR

So concentrate on those lying scum-sucking Labour MEPs in your local district.

-Nano.

Re:Confused about EU system

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed it is undemocratic and has its roots in the history of the EU. In order to avoid giving the EU the appearance of a federation, the the governments (i.e. the executive branch) of the memberstates have the most say in all matters.

Short summary: There are 3 bodies in the EU lawmaking process: The Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
The EP members are directly elected by the population of the EU.
The Council of Ministers is just that: the ministers of the member states.
The Commission gets proposed by the Council of Ministers and confirmed by the Parliament (note the EP only has a veto right here). It is the de-facto executive branch of the EU and the ONLY body that can start a legislative process.
Depending on the kind of legislation, the EP has some say in the matter.
The Council of Ministers ALWAYS has a say and usually has the stronger position too (compared to the EP).

So, in short, the LEGISLATION of the EU is mostly done by the EXECUTIVE of the member states (division of power anyone?).

This has, in literature about this topic, been shamefully called the ``democratic deficit'' of the EU.
It's sickening.

Re:Oh no

[NickFortune]

software patents are a GOOD thing

Oh, really?

It protects your IP (assuming you have any) from predatory behavior from mega-corporations.

What IP? Are you talking about patents? Copyright? Trade Secrets? IP covers a number of unrelated legal mechanisms.

The only part of "IP" patents protect are patents themselves. Obvious, really. It does nothing to protect existing copyrights, which is the sort of "intellectual property" that the majority of IT people are likely to hold. Quite the reverse.

Suppose you are an IT startup. You have a good idea, and you work hard to implement that idea using ideas that have impeccabile prior art. Then a patent gets granted to ScumBagSoft that covers part of your poduct. All of a sudden your hard work can be released or surpressed at the pleasure of ScumbagSoft. They may licence your idea back to you, but the fact remains that your product cannot be marketed except with ScumBagSoft's permission.

How has that protected your IP? The IP in this case is copyright, and patents rendered it worthless.

It wouldn't even matter if you had the patent on your idea. As Stallman pointed out, patents are granted on overlapping areas in software. The chances are your idea will infringe many other patents. Any one of the patent holders can prevent you from profiting from your "IP" simply by refusing to licence their patnet. That remains true even if you the patent on your own idea because of the way patents are granted.

You can cross licence, but that depends on the willingness of the other parties involved. As a startup, you won't be able to trade one for one with the likes of Microsoft, which means the big players can wait for your company to go bust, and then pick up rights to your patent for peanuts. And even if licencing is an option, you could easily end up in a stiaution where you have eleven patent holders all demanding 10% of your gross.

Where's the protection in that?

You can't even afford to fight the case in court. One maybe, but not several. The threat of legislation will scare investors away, and if you can't fight the case, you can't distribute your product, and so can't recoup your expenses, let alone profit from your innovation and hard work

software patents are a GOOD thing. It protects your IP (assuming you have any) from predatory behavior from mega-corporations

Perhaps you'd like to explain how that works? It seems to me that patents make our "IP" worthless and provide predatory mega corporations with the means to steal what is rightfully ours.

If you still disagree, feel free to explain where you feel I may be in error.

More advice

[Sanity]

• At this stage sending an email is a complete waste of time, MEPs now routinely ignore emails about this Directive because they have been swamped. You need to phone them(or meet them, but it is probably too late for that now)
• Most MEPs want to do the right thing, but many have been mislead by an aggressive pro-patent campaign that have variously claimed:
  • That companies will leave the EU if the EU doesn't introduce software patents (why? Your location makes no difference as to whether or not you can file for patents in other countries)
  • That the current text of the Directive won't introduce "pure" software patents, and so this is all a fuss about nothing (wrong, the European Patent Office has already granted many software patents that are currently unenforceable, but would become enforceable if the Directive isn't amended)
  • That people who don't want software patents really don't want patents on any machine that might include a computer (wrong, the Rocard-Bozek amendments won't prevent patents on machines that contain computers)
• If you can, try to research your MEPs position on the issue before phoning them
• Don't rant and rave. Be polite, but clear that the council text will hurt you/your business unless the Rocard-Buzek re-tabled amendments are passed.
• Stress that a no-vote or an abstention counts as a vote in favour of software patentability.

Re:Hmm

[Alsee]

Software patents are entirely unreasonable because you cannot "invent" mathematics and calculations. Software is not a feild of technology, software is a feild of mathematics. Mental steps are not an invention, and mental steps are not a field of technology, mental processes are not patentable processes.

It is physically impossible for a computer to implement an invention, a computer can only implement a calculation. You can certainly have a computer controlled invention, which the latest Parliment amendment proposals makes perfectly clear. There must be something novel and non-obvious outside of the calculations themselves. The must be a novel and non-obvious physical object or a novel and non-obvious physical process.

I may have a 100 digit number that no one has ever seen before, novelty. That 100 digit number can be quite non-obvious. That 100 digit number can even be quite useful. However numbers, logic, and math are not inventions. The notion of patents on them is fundamentally broken.

The software can in fact be (slowly) run purely mentally and the result/product produced mentally. I am a programmer, running software mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging and analyzing software. The patented LZW compression algorithm can be run menatlly and that compressed result actualy producted mentally. The patented RSA encrytion algorithm can be run mentally and information actually encrypted and decrypted mentally. Any patent law claiming validity for software patents is in effect claiming to create thought crime. Any such patent system is claiming it is illegal to think certain prohibited sequences af thought and carrying out prohibited mental processes.

-

Re:Ooh that smell...what's that smell? It's BULLSH

[Alsee]

If we manage to get it passed *with* the Parliment's amendments then to a large extent it will be over in our favor. If we get the directive passed explicitly settling the law that logic is not an invention and is not patentable it will be extremely hard for megacorp lobbyists to start a brand new directive to *reverse* settled law. Most of their momentum here is that they are claiming to "clarify and harmonize" the law, and that they supposedly only want to "keep established law" and supposedly *not* actually change anything. I'm sure they'll still want to change the law if we win, but it makes for very hard sell. It is currently easy for them to attack the anti-software-patent side as trying to remove patent protections on inventions. On the other hand asking to gain patent protection on non-inventions is a very weak position :)

-