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."
Did I miss several million meetings? What the hell?
Last time I checked, the dollar was worth just over half of what the pound is worth. Of course this doesn't mean our economy is stronger than the U.S.'s but it sure doesn't mean we're "lagging behind".
Innovation from the U.S.? I've always thought that the most innovation in software comes from Germany, but then that's just my opinion. Certainly I can say that we're not lacking when it comes to innovation though. A lot of great OSS was started by European software developers.
If by innovation you mean how to make a disproportionate amount of money in regards to how much work you put into something, then yes, I suppose the U.S. is innovative. Making money isn't evil, but the way in which you do it can be.
Please, we don't need your software patents. We prefer sanity.
Why?
When Slashdot publishes something and people get too much traffic (being "Slashdotted"), it makes an impression. I wonder if Slashdot might join this boycott whether that wouldn't make more difference than many of us put together. A kind of "anti-slashdotting" effect.
Alternatively, perhaps someone should construct a trampoline thing like Salon has where in order to gain entrance to the site, you can watch an "ad" (something explaining the issue) to trampoline through. For big sites that were leary of losing cash flow by shutting down, it might still allow them to contribute to the effort.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
I have a concrete proposal for serious software patent reform:
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
What good is a patent law going to do for a country and, for that matter, the software industry? It is valid in only that country anyway. What is to stop people from using those patented algorithms/ideas in other countries like, say, India?
Could someone please tell how a patent law will benefit a country? (not sarcasm, genuine question)
Several large groups formerly pushing hard FOR swpats are now AGAINST them. Which is quite late.
The majority in the EU parliament wants modifications to the directive, which would bind sw-pats to controlled effects on natural forces. This excludes things like "patent on data-streaming" pretty well. You keep mentioning large companies pushing for software patents: many of these companies are car manufacturers who want to patent their controller software for their cars. This IS reasonable, since it costs a hell of a lot of money to develop this software, and copyright can't do a thing to prevent other from stealing the mechanisms. They don't want to be able to patent all software - just the one they need. They are not patent trolls like Acacia or Forgent.
I hope the directive gets adopted. Because the real question is not whether we get sw-patents or not; the question is: can the current situation be remedied by this? Contrary to what many people say, it IS possible to patent software in the EU right now. Just ask EADS, they patented mapping software, and already filed lawsuits about it. The software exclusion clause in the current patent law is useless, because any skilled lawyer can bypass it. So, if the Council version gets adopted, it won't change much - which is bad. The parliament can help us to adopt a better way.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
What good is it when despite a clamouring in opposition by *citizens* a law which only *corporations* are in favour of is passed?
By all means, lobby your MEPs, but remember, this whole thing is democracy sliding down the toilet.
I don't see any citizens groups calling for software patents. There are only business groups. That law is being made for business groups and not for citizens so overtly is a dark, dark day.
This whole thing is smiley glad-hand eurocrats who believe they have been "born to rule" lording over the rest of us. And as much as I have affinity for my european brothers and sisters, we don't need the EU if this is what it means.
We don't need the EU to have affinity and treaties and co-defence and economic agreements. We don't need the EU to feel close to each other. These things exist outside of some pile of red tape, eurocrat wet-dream 400+ page consitution. Why the hurry anyway? Why can't we keep trying till it's right? Why is anyone opposed to the absurd notion of a 400+pg consitution suddenly a xenophobe? Who's interests are served by speeding this all up and keeping it too complex for people to understand?
We don't need the EU as they imagine it. Get rid of the leeches and the fuckers. The French people smelled BS, while their smiley glad-hand politicians tried to sell them down the river, the Dutch smelled it too. The Austrian government wasn't even going to give it's people a vote!!! These people are crypto-facists, they are well meaning in their own heads, but their stupidity and mixed priorities will sow the seeds of undemocratic institutions. They have done more than sow seeds, they are nursing a monster which should have been aborted long ago.
Remember this! There are better ways to intergrate (I am pro intergration, not some xenophobe) than to let slimey eurocrat fuckers sell you down the river. Remember!
The EU is falling apart with double digit unemployment
Cound't stand not to say this joke. 99 unemployed in whole Europe is a dream come true.
plummeting Euro
It is bound to happen in future. What would be bad here? Me personally, I will feel better as this step is finished.
unsustainable social contracts
In what point? I do live in EU, but I don't feel that. Or maybe I live in the wrong thrird rate country
immigration
And? US has outsourcing. I would take immigration over outsourcing anytime
absorption of traditionally non-European countries into the common market
And? Take out European word from your sentence and you'll see that the worlds history goes this way from ancient times, but now that Europe does it, it is bad?
and so called "free" trade agreements.
And the point would be??? US does that to complete world forcibly, but I don't see you complaining about.
Nice place to visit, but whenever I do I can plainly see it is going downhill fast.
Some of us live in EU. And I can assure you that it is a nice place to live. About downhill? Not really a status quo, but I bet the viewpoint result depends on where and how do you live, so I can't say that for EU, but for my self (and saying that I can assure you that I preffer EU over US anytime).
Prologoue about patent stupidity
EU doesn't need SWPatents. It is enough that US courts are full of stupidity. The only people that would welcome SW Patents are either very large companies or they work in patent consulting, and be that in court as patent lawyers or officials in patent agency
Now question for you.
Just how in the world do you invent something that is not based on the real life interaction and in the same time it is not some physical, technical or matematical invention.
Remember it is a piece of software you talk about. Mathematical process would not be treated as SW invention. It would be just workable software application of THE mathematical invention.
Physical? There's no physical results in software. In the case they are then software is just a part of the complete technical invention.
Technical? Every computer interaction is based on the real life interaction to make them as simple and understandable as possible.
Here's a few examples:
Encryption? Enigma comes to mind and there were much older solutions scattered all troughout the history.
Network? Well, a group of people interacts usualy with some form of language that allows them to communicate. In case of different languages, they use interpreters, signs...
Interface? A long time in history there were paper forms, casette players and such. All that software does is just immitates them as best as possible and adds some features that are bound to happen in digital tech. For example you had CD racks for a long time, and if you sorted them by alphabet you could easily find a CD you're looking for. How could you invent that for example.
Just currious. Name one software invention that IS INVENTION and not implementation of a normal interaction or preknown fact or job. At the same time it has to be software invention and not application of problem in another realm (tech, phys, math). All that software does is describe problem (problem that exists in another realm of science) in computer language, so in your case you actualy agree with patenting description. What should we patent next? Sentences, Words, Letters???
Taken your viewpoint even forward with my strange sence of humor, your lungs are violating the process patented for creating artificial lungs. Description and intention is the same and as far as I recollect no one patented natural breathing process. The only difference in the real world is that patent application of breathing process is nothing but patented mechanical solution to breathing that already exists in nature. In other wo
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dear ______,
In the first week of July, the European Union Parliament will vote on the patentability of computer software. The outcome of this vote has great implications for European freedoms as well as large implications for European businesses--implications that, moreover, have been sometimes overlooked. I ask you to consider the following.
A patent grants the holder a monopoly on the use of an idea. (It is thus very different from a copyright, which covers the expression of an idea; copyrights for computer software are not in dispute.) Until now, the idea for a patent has had to be expressible in some physical form. With computer software, though, such physical expression is not possible.
A computer is like a chef who does not know how to cook anything on his or her own, but who can follow a recipe perfectly. Software is a recipe. The software that you probably have on your computer does things like send e-mail, word processing (e.g. with Microsoft Word), and Internet browsing. The computer cannot do those things on its own, but it can follow recipes (i.e. software) that tell it how to do them. Software makes computers useful.
A recipe obviously does not have a physical form in the way that, say, a machine invention has. Hence software has, so far, not been patentable. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to make software patentable. (The EU Parliament voted against a version of this legislation on 24 September 2003, by 364 to 153. The EU Commission, questionably, then made the legislation more extreme: it is this that Parliament is now to vote on.)
The proposed legislation, as written, will allow the patenting of almost any ideas that can be used in software. As an analogy, if this approach were adopted for recipes, it would allow the patenting of things like "cut the food into small pieces and then boil" and "wrap the food in aluminium foil and bake at 200 C". No one could develop a new recipe that did either of those things without the permission of the patent holders. This is clearly absurd; yet that is just what is now being proposed for patents on computer software.
There are a few very large companies, though, that would benefit from this. Large software companies, e.g. Microsoft, would hold many software patents. Those large companies would have cross-licensing agreements with each other, agreeing not to sue each other for patent infringement. Ultimately, only such companies could produce computer software. Small and medium-sized enterprises would be almost entirely shut out.
The business implications of software patents are thus reasonably clear. The largest technology companies would be favoured, while all others would be severely harmed. And Linux, Firefox, etc.--i.e. most open-source software--would likely become extinct. The resultant reduction in competition in software would likely lead to higher prices and lower quality for software consumers--including other, non-technology, businesses.
The enclosed article from yesterday's Financial Times makes a similar point: it concludes that software patents are "anti-innovative". The article's analysis is based on experience in the USA, where software patents have existed for several years. The analysis, though, overlooks a crucial factor. Some large companies in the USA have built up portfolios containing thousands of software patents, but they have not been enforcing those patents. Microsoft is one such company. Yet Microsoft has been lobbying extremely heavily for making software patentable in the EU. This makes no sense: why would Microsoft lobby heavily for software patents if it was not going to enforce its patents? I beli
Why don't we team up and get rid off EU software patents first, then reform US patents. us-parl is the right mailing list you should join.
If you look at the companies behind it its the big boys. The guys most threatened by competition that are currently top of the heap. If you want to have an effect then you have to remind your MEP that these are the same companies that are multinationals in all markets and are shifting jobs out of Europe.
Sure they'll benefit from software patents. You can't make a GSM phone without paying a big chunk of money to Ericsson for example, not to use their technology but simply to connect to a GSM network! They'll get the same benefit from software if you want to use the handset equivalent of the 'progress bar'.
But those guys only spent money to compete to stay ahead, if you make it easier for them to compete there is less incentive to spend money on research and they'll just shift jobs to the cheapest location. Who needs to spend lots on software development if no new company can enter the market? Look at how Ericsson blocked Sendo with patents driving out a competitor from the market.
Every player is in every market, so it doesn't help 'European' companies to compete, it just makes smaller European companies unable to enter the market against the multinationals. It stinks! Its even worse when you see how stupid the 'inventions' are. They have a battery status indicator patent for handsets now. How dumb can it get!
The EU Patent office has been issuing patents for software, but if they don't come to court what use are they? Nobody pushes them because the legal basis for them is non existent.
The directive makes it much worse by giving the patent office a loophole, the 'computer implemented inventions' loophole. This directive DOES make the situation much much worse. No directive is better than this.
Thats the sad thing. What big business wants, big business gets, eventually. The only thing to stop it is if a massive amount of average people (voters) are upset. The average voter doesn't know what a software patent is, and probably has no clue what linux or open source is.
In short, I rather doubt they can be stopped. Sooner or later they will likely go in, although I hope I'm wrong. On the other hand there will probably always be a few countries where such laws do not exist and those countries might become the place to do some forms of OSS coding.
I wonder if it will ever get to the point where linux is illegal to download because ideas are locked up by particular companies and cannot be legally used by anyone else.
At any rate while I'm not 100% against software patents, if you have the idea and at least do some considerable work to be the first to implement it. They should, however, be for a very limited, non renewable term. A few years should be adequate on anything software related. Beyond that and you are stifling innovation, and not encouraging it, and wasn't that the whole point for them in the first place?
In addition to that, they use a computer to implement these calculations
...shock of shocks... I could even type the compressed data into a computer and use it in absolutely any other way that LZW compression is routinely used.
Using an ordinary old computer simply to speed up calculations is hardly inventive. In fact it is blindingly obvious.
Yes, you can do these calculations in your head, but using the LZW algorithm to compress something in your head is useless, as the uncompressed data will still exist the same in your head.
It is not useless. I can use those patented mental steps to squeeze more data into an extended barcode, or to squeeze more data into a morse code transmission, or
And in each and every cases I am violating the patent. I am actually preforming the patented process and actually producing the patented result. I am effectively commiting thought crime.
Sure most people do not bother doing such laborous calculations mentally. The point is this is proof of concept that software patents are fundamentally flawed. Any legal structure yeilding any result that thinking is a violation of law is inherently flawed and invalid.
If you try to establish a legal system containing the statement "2+2=5" then through a series of otherwise legally valid steps you are going to eventually reach "1=2" as supposedly valid law. Suggesting that calculations / logic / math can be a patentable process is the flawed "2+2=5" statement. Holding someone guilty for thinking prohibited thoughts is the "1=2" result.
Either:
(1) claim that actually preforming the LZW patented process mentally is indeed legitimately patentable and legitimately illegal; or
(2) claim and explain how that process was itself *not* patentable and illegal, yet how it somehow magically becomes a patentable invention to shout the blindingly obvious magic words "and you can do the exact same thing faster on an ordinary old computer!".
Some particular 100 digit number can be novel and nonobvious and useful, but "that 100 digit number on a computer" is not an invention. Novel and nonobvious math and calcualations are not inventions. Not if you calculate them mentally, and not if you obviously calculate them with a computer.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
A physical demonstration is also planned in Strasbourg on next tuesday the 5th of July.
Hhhrm...
This is your software market...
(holds up egg)
This is your software market on patents...
SMASHES egg with 20Kg print-out of American software patent filings
Any questions?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The Lib Dems claim to be against software patents, but this has not been reflected in the actions of most Lib Dem MEPs, Diane Wallis and Sharon Bowles being the two worst offenders.