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
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