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."
A list of all MEPs with their phone numbers at Brussels and Strasbourg.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Highland Recycling's website is going on strike! If this doesn't get the EU's attention, I don't know what will.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot is possibly the only place where a demonstration would have to be called a "physical demonstration". Its, like, outside and everything...
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
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?
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
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
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 :)
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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!