Slashdot Mirror
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."
We've already got copyrights to do that! All that this law does it make it easier for big corporations to monopolize the software market.
Fight improper application of the patent laws, but keep the right to protect your ideas from those that would take them from you.
Here here! You are absolutely right. Patents on trivial discoveries (1-click purchases) or ambiguous patents (communication between two digital devices via some means or another) should be stopped, but the ability patent real discoveries or innovations should be protected.
It will only be "final" if it goes through and software patents become legal.
If software patents don't become legal, mark my words, it will just keep coming up until they do.
That's pretty obvious. There are so many large and powerful companies who want this pushed through that they will keep on and on and on at Europe to enforce software patents. That doesn't mean we should just sit back and let them. There are contact details already in this slashdot discussion, and there are protest sites out there. We don't have to sit back and let it happen.
Big business wants to force this through? They'll soon find they have a fight on their hands each and every single time they try it.
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
Perhaps you might define for us what you consider to be "real discoveries and innovations". Remember, the topic here is software patents.
And if you do feel shoftware should be patented, please explain why it deserves this double protection, apart from the ability it grants multinational software concerns to prevent free software authors from distribnuting the the software they own.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
At the moment, they allow you to protect your IP, but not to exploit it. If you wish to exploit your IP, then you have to do so without infringing any IP held by any other large company - and they all have large numbers of trivial patents that can be enforced at any moment. If you somehow do exploit your IP and become profitable, then you will get a call from a large company telling you all of their IP that you may or may not be infringing (but couldn't afford to fight in court anyway) and offering to buy your company for a fraction of its value.
The only way to be immune from this sort of behaviour is to not make anything yourself. Wait until someone else independently discovers your invention and becomes profitable, then sue them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They might not, but the millions of visitors to this international site each day might take notice.
Not Slashdot though, of course. Lord forbid they practise what they preach, not while there's ad revenue to be made.
Heh. Good point. I'd like to see some big sites shut down. Imagine if Google shut down in protest? That would get some attention. The whole freakin' internet would seize up if Google shut down for a few days.
Could you give an example of anything in the software area that would have benefited from such a patent?
Also, what stops that from happening even with a patent system? Look here, written in easy-to-understand Slashdot style:
1. You write a nice piece of software doing X in a novel way :) :(
2. You apply for a patent
3. You get it, nice.
4. You start selling your app.
5. BigCorpCo notices your app, sees it fulfills a market desire and wants to use it without paying you royalties.
6. BigCorpCo asks its lawyers to find all of their "trivial" patents that you accidentally inflicted on when writing the software.
7. BigCorpCo sends you an C&D-letter asking you to
8a. Pay them royalties
8b. Grant them cross-licensing rights for free.
8c. Get sued into oblivion.
9. (...)
10. Profit!!! (ie for BigCorpCo, not for you...)
Basically, there might (please give me one example, BTW, of such situations in the past) be situations, where software patents could be usable. But even though there is at least one such situation, the patent system would also carry so much bad things that it's basically not worth it.
Also, many software developers are really tiny. What you need is basically a computer (a $100 one does the job albeit slowly), and enough money to pay for food and possibly rent until you (hopefully) get your first sales.
For such companies, even the costs of applying for a patent may be inhibitely high to actually apply for them. And we shouldn't even talk about court conflicts. They could be the tenfold of the total yearly budget...
The only small companies being able to defend their own patents would be the ones not really using them, but having the business idea "sue every one who tries to do what we thought of (ie bought from some one else) first!".
Or are you saying only big companies should be able to hold software patents and be able to use them in practice???
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
Actually, the US doesn't have a healthy software industry - and the patent protection is a big reason why. Of, we have some very happy companies, but shitty software. The actual programs suck ass. This is because they all patent everything they can to try to prevent competition.
You have it ass-backwards. Mega-corporations have groups of people who sit on their asses all day coming up with ideas and trying to patent them. It only benefits the corporations. Little guys don't get the patents. We don't have the time or money it takes to come up with more ideas (because they got it first), get the patent searches, etc.
Do you like how mega-corporations can patent practically anything and prevent you from writing your own software? I don't use any software from Microsoft, and never will, so why should I be prevented from writing my own that does the same thing theirs does? (Because, unlike copyright, it is illegal for me tor write software without distributing it that infringes patents!) Just so some greedy bastards can prevent my from doing what I love and only allow me to have software that does whatever it is if buy I their overpriced, shitty software? Bullshit.
Personally, I am opposed to the concept of patents entirely. Frankly, no ideas are truly unique. There are 6 billion humans - get off your high horse and admit that nobody comes up with anything that somebody, somewhere, hasn't already thought of. Hell, calculus was discovered numerous times by numerous different groups of people with no contact with each other. Are you trying to claim that the few new software ideas are so much more complicated then calculus that they should be protected? Bullshit.
I have spoken to many MEPs over the last few weeks, and take it from me that emails are a complete waste of time at this stage. You need to phone them to make any difference.
And it's worse than that: patents aren't cheap. Especially in software, where often it's a single developer who implements his own idea (Bittorrent, for a good example), getting a patent is a hassle which costs time and money. And all that for something which you might not have developped yet.
But the best argument against patents is gained by looking at who wants software patents and who doesn't. It's the small guys, where true innovation nearly per definition happens, who are against these patents, for the reasons you've explained. And it's the large corporations who already have lots of money, and whose only innovation is throwing that money at a problem (usually by buying those innovative companies) who want software patents.
So if patents are supposed to foster innovation (their stated aim), and the past decades if not century has shown that they don't do that, the only conclusion is that software patents should not see the light of day.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
My question is, is slashdot shutting down too? lets put our foot where our mouth is!
;) )
(we nerds can do something else till then
So, what are you doing to defend your democracy?
MEPs respect programmers on this issue. If you are an experienced programmer, a polite phone call to your MEP, briefly stating your position and the reasons for it, will be respected and could make a real difference. (For possible reasons to discuss, see other comments to this story.)
If you do call--and I hope you will--the main trick will be to explain things to someone who likely has little knowledge of computers. For example, one MEP told me that the proposed patent legislation is okay because it only pertains to "technical" software. So I then need to explain that all software can be considered technical, in some sense, and so this wouldn't be a restriction at all.
Some corporate lobbyists will say almost anything. Many MEPs are genuinely not understanding the issues because of that.
They can do that already using good old Copyright law no need for patents to license software.
Patents would allow them to stop other manufacturers from duplicating the processes at all which is why they want them of course.
I am not a Frog. I am a Free Womble!
The term "to patent" is a nice way of saying "to monopolize by government coercion." I am not entirely opposed to the concept of patents, but we have to realize we are not only creating monopolies, but requiring the government further regulate the market.
This is only what the concept entails. In the marketplace, corporations typically own monopolies, not the inventors or creators. Further, patents can inter-relate (whether we want them to or not), forcing litigation and prolonged examination. This effort is expended, but rarely calculated by the lawmakers in the final equation. Corporations only need make a profit, the society has many more needs.
So that leaves us with at least four casualties:
1) many new monopolies
2) expanded government regulation
3) corporate control of large amounts of knowledge
4) expensive legal infrastructure
As time progresses, these costs can only increase.
It makes it possible for people who would never be elected to office to nevertheless hold postions of power. The name Peter Mandleson springs to mind for some reason. This can happen since the politics often works on the basis of patronage, and leaders sometimes have to find jobs for unpopular supporters. If the unlected body becomes stuffed with such placemen, then any appointments they may make become further divorced from the will of the people.
And any measures they enact will be likewise unrepresentative.
Furthermore, since these appointees do not owe their jobs to the electorate, they may not feel especially motivated to implement the will of the electorate. In fact, answerable to no-one, they may just decide to line thier own pockets by whatever means necessary.
If this euro-state we keep hearing about uis ever goign to happen we need the power in the hands of the MEPs. Not the Commission, not the council. Otherwise it becomes just another confidence trick to sidestep democracy for the benefit of a few vested interests.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
The only virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate. Democracy is not an end in and of itself. A poor, malfunctional democracy is no democracy at all.
You assume that there are democracies that work really well; there are not. Democracy is a messy business, fraught with compromises, corruption, inequalities, and problems. But, as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
What is it you think the EU does so well?
It has managed to transform a war-torn, feuding continent of greedy, genocidal colonial powers under a variety of fascist regimes, communist regimes, dictatorships, and monarchies into a prosperous alliance of nations with free movement of individuals, free enterprise, free elections, and sound human rights guarantees. It has led to the longest stretch of peace among its members in recorded history.
I hail from the UK and I very much disagree.
I think you are misinterpreting the loss of cultural identity and political self-determination that unavoidably goes along with integrating into the EU with a lack of democracy. That's not surprising: the UK is used to being in control and it is not used to being told by a another authority how to run its affairs. But the British Empire is history and the UK today is just another European nation on the fringes of the European continent.
No nation is being forced to join the EU. If the UK doesn't want to be a member, that's fine. As Norway and Switzerland show, there is life outside the EU even within Europe. But perhaps it is time for the UK to make up its mind one way or another.